The only way they would know if there were objections made in writing is by asking if there were any. That was done in both 2000 and in 2004.
You just told me that what makes a person a de facto officer is the electoral certification by the Vice President and joint Congress. If that didn’t lawfully happen, then there is no de facto officer.
Or if you’re now saying that that legal process ISN’T what makes a person a de facto officer, then what ARE you saying makes a person a de facto officer? If it’s not the lawful process of certifying the electoral winner, then what?
If it happened lawfully, he is President de jure. If it happened unlawfully, he is President de facto. But it clearly happened. No one else is acting as President now, are they?
This is what I see given as the de facto officer doctrine:
“one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised . . . . under color of a known election or appointment [that would otherwise be] void by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public.”
The point here is that before Obama did a thing as supposed POTUS, the public DID KNOW THE IRREGULARITY. Kerchner filed his case BEFORE Obama’s term would have started had he ever been lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote and qualified according to the 20th Amendment. He threw down a yellow flag and called foul.
Obama has done NOTHING without the public knowing of the irregularity and ineligibility, because we’ve know it all along, and this lawsuit has been pending since before Obama pretended he was the POTUS.