[Nero Germanicus]

Since you didn’t agree with my sources, perhaps you could provide us with other sources which state that there is some official body that determines whether a president-elect has qualified in ways other than by receiving a majority of the votes of the Electors?

Can you name an instance where any of the previous president-elects (since 1933 when the 20th amendment was adopted) was determined to have qualified for the office in a way other than by receiving a majority of the votes of the Electors?

It only takes one Representative and one Senator to submit a written objection to the certification of the Electoral vote for both Houses of Congress to stop counting Electoral votes until the written objection is resolved.
3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

[GregNH]

The word qualify does not appear until section 19 where it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined in section 15 who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Not in one of those instances are electoral votes a factor. Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?

[DiogenesLamp]

Since you didn’t agree with my sources, perhaps you could provide us with other sources which state that there is some official body that determines whether a president-elect has qualified in ways other than by receiving a majority of the votes of the Electors?

It is the duty of all Americans to enforce constitutional law. The Secretaries of state did not understand their duty, or they did not take it seriously.

Now we live with the absurd interpretation by our absurd courts that the Secretaries of state have no obligation to enforce this aspect of constitutional law, but can do so if the whim suits them.

I look forward to the day when we start explaining to Judges the absurdity of these sorts of rulings by usage of baseball bats.

Tar and Feathers might serve as an alternative.