Whether this Court has the 'other jurisdiction' (pursuant to Rule 20 of Part 4 of the Supreme Court rules) to grant the within petition for an appeal writ of mandamus, pursuant to the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)), in order to review the declaration of constitutional law by the Congress, dated January 6, 2017, that had declared the electoral tally as legally decisive of the 2016 presidential election

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court has the “other jurisdiction” (pursuant to Rule 20 of Part 4 of the Supreme Court rules) to grant the within petition for an appeal writ of mandamus, pursuant to the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)), in order to review the declaration of constitutional law by the Congress, dated January 6, 2017, that had declared the electoral tally as legally decisive of the 2016 presidential election. 2. Whether the petitioners have standing to appeal from the congressional certification when their votes for the Democratic ticket were discarded in the “red” state of Pennsylvania and in the “blue” state of New Jersey. 3. Whether voter injury may be legally presumed when the petitioners’ disenfranchisement directly resulted from the electoral certification by Congress. 4. Whether the electoral provisions of the Constitution before the Civil War have been implicitly superseded by the 24th and the 26th amendments. 5. Whether the electoral provisions of Title 3 remain valid and effective. 6. Whether the Congress had any subject matter jurisdiction to render the electoral certification sought to be reviewed. 7. Whether the 2016 and/or 2020 presidential elections are justiciable and capable of repetition while evading timely review. 8. Whether the doctrine of in pari materia applies to Title 28 (including § 1651(a) & 1291 & 2201(a)) to permit direct review of the certification under Rule 20. 9. Whether this Court has legally declared that the electoral college is historically obsolete such that the certification violated the doctrine of stare decisis. (i)