Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes (if constitutionally enacted) hold supremacy over state law. A violation of the Constitution is a violation, period. If states violated the Constitution, and a Congress failed to hold those states accountable, then anything they "certified" is void. SCOTUS can certainly rule that what Congress did was unconstitutional. Just because it's not happened before, doesn't mean that it can't be done. SCOTUS has never ruled against a petition for such remedy. They've never heard even heard such a petition, at least not at this level and significance. They have however, ruled on at least 3 dozen election related cases, included federal elections, some of which impacted results.

But as I pointed out, the Court doesn't have enforcement power. In 2000, it would have been interesting had Florida or Congress, or Gore, attempted to disregard SOCTUS' ruling. But nobody did. Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congess redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final. If anyone refuses to abide by a ruling, how does it get enforced? Executive branch, police action. If the DOJ disregards their responsibility, then it falls to the DOD and military to protect the Constitution. But them doing so, would not be "mutiny" in the same way that refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law would not a criminal act. If an individual unlawfully tries to hold office, they have no authority and are not owed any allegiance. It's only mutiny if a LAWFUL authority is disobeyed.

Military and all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution, first and foremost, not to obey a usurper.

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes (if constitutionally enacted) hold supremacy over state law. A violation of the Constitution is a violation, period. If states violated the Constitution, and a Congress failed to hold those states accountable, then anything they "certified" is void. SCOTUS can certainly rule that what Congress did was unconstitutional. Just because it's not happened before, doesn't mean that it can't be done. SCOTUS has never ruled against a petition for such remedy. They've never heard even heard such a petition, at least not at this level, and not. They have however, ruled on at least 3 dozen election related cases, included federal elections, in which results had been changed.

But as I pointed out, the Court doesn't have enforcement power. In 2000, it would have been interesting had Florida or Congress, or Gore, attempted to disregard SOCTUS' ruling. But nobody did. Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congess redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final. If anyone refuses to abide by a ruling, how does it get enforced? Executive branch, police action. If the DOJ disregards their responsibility, then it falls to the DOD and military to protect the Constitution. But them doing so, would not be "mutiny" in the same way that refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law would not a criminal act. If an individual unlawfully tries to hold office, they have no authority and are not owed any allegiance. It's only mutiny if a LAWFUL authority is disobeyed.

Military and all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution, first and foremost, not to obey a usurper.