They still did not certify the candidates, only the count. The fact that no one objected does not mean they approved or certified. IIRC the rules allow for an objection *to the count* not to the candidate. Here is the relevant section of the law 3 USC 15:
said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
So, they cannot oject to the candidate, only to the electoral votes themselves.
No one spoke up...
The President of the Senate, that is VP Cheney, did not ask for objections as the law requires, which would have been the point where objections would be entered.
Unless you have a link to such a certification of eligibility, my point stands: they certified the count, not the eligibilty of the candidate.
So, they cannot oject to the candidate, only to the electoral votes themselves.
Objection to Electoral College votes is objection to a candidate, as they are casting the vote for a particular candidate. And it should be clear that an objection can be raised to the vote, if the vote is a vote for a candidate that cannot be President under the Constitution, and is thus disqualified.
That should be obvious.
You disqualify votes to disqualify a candidate. [it actually happens quite a bit in politics, you disqualify the "vote", you disqualify the "voter" in order to disqualify the candidate/issue ... :-) ... ]
The President of the Senate, that is VP Cheney, did not ask for objections as the law requires, which would have been the point where objections would be entered.
Actually there are some things that have to be done before that, in order for an objection to be raised. It has to be in writing and it has to be submitted ahead of time.
What Vice President Cheney did (or did not do) was ask that question as no one had submitted such an objection, in writing, ahead of time, as required.
However, both Vice President Cheney and President George Bush should have been raising the issue of disqualifying these Electoral College votes for Obama and working with certain legislators (ahead of time) to submit these objections, if they knew that he was not qualified per the Constitution.
It's apparent to me, by their silence and their inaction, that they did not think that Obama was disqualified per the Constitution.