and isnt is special that a well spoken attractive black man dun it?
>hopefully most of us anons are worthy to go to heaven.
sadly. we are not
fortunately there are other alternatives (not dark hell)
here is what the constitution says - it does NOT include any requirement that the house/senate members to object, debate etc
that process is in a law passed by congress which of course cannot contradict the constitution - which while disguised as parlimentary procedure seems to do exactly that
so there you have it
he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states,
The Electoral Count Act of 1887
The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[2]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "[i]ts central provisions seem contradictory.
For example, one key ambiguity in Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) involves a situation where multiple slates of electors are sent from a state, and the House and Senate cannot agree whether the law requires the slate certified by the governor to count, or requires that no slate should be counted.[4]
and some sauce
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/01/old-law-could-leave-2020-presidential-race-in-stalemate/
so anons this first problematic part is far from certain
see posts on this reply already made