Let's do as you suggest, then, and disregard Article 3, Section 2, which mandates that the Supreme Court "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... to Controversies between two or more State," and that "those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," simply because they ignore it all the time.
Beyond that, there is also Article 2, Section 1 which specifies that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This article does not allow for State Governors, Judiciaries, or other appointed officials to make changes to those "Manners," which clearly happened in at least the contested States of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia. Thus, their very election processes violated the Constitution, making them unequivocally unconstitutional. That is, while the states may have violated their own Constitutions, in so doing they also violated the US Constitution.
Are you suggesting that the only method of overturning an UNCONSTITUTIONAL act is to follow CONSTITUTIONAL procedures? That's some incredibly naive reasoning. With logic like that opposing them, it's no wonder they were able to cheat their way in.
Ha perhaps we are talking about the same elephant after all! I will say that I think relegating a violation of the Constitution to being simply the legislative problems of one (or several) states is somewhat sidestepping the crux of the question "What about what happened violated the US Constitution?" But I'll also say that I really do think we're on the same team on this, and that I would love the opportunity to sit down and and talk more with you over a beer (or many)! I'm glad we have this place to meet and talk until then!