Please re-read Amendment XX. It is extremely clear on one important point: If the President-elect fails to qualify, then the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until a President is qualified.
You said the VP-elect becomes President-elect. That is incorrect by the plain wording of XX.
No need for a new election, or voiding the first one. Obama is not President-elect until the Electoral College votes. He is President-elect from Dec 15 to Jan 20 at noon. That’s the window we’re talking about when he would be ruled not qualified. If that were the case, then XX would control the outcome.
My conclusion, because neither of us has found enabling legislation authorizing anyone to qualify a President in case the President-elect fails to qualify, is that we would have Acting President Biden for four years.
Having said all that, in my opinion, the USSC will conference on Dec 5 and decide to not take the case. I reserve the right to be wrong.
“My conclusion, because neither of us has found enabling legislation authorizing anyone to qualify a President in case the President-elect fails to qualify, is that we would have Acting President Biden for four years.”
Potayto .. Potahto ...
You are correct that, if by the time that the term of the new POTUS begins, and the President-Elect has failed to qualify - then the VP-Elect becomes acting POTUS.
You are using semantics - if the President-Elect is DQ’d prior to 20 January, the VP-Elect would most likely be called the “Presumed President-Elect” until a new President-Elect shall have qualified.
As for your assertion that Biden would be acting POTUS for four years after 20 January - hogwash ...
If SCOTUS ruled Obama ineligible after 20 January, they would consider the election to be based upon the perpetration of a fraud.
They would DQ ALL of Obama’s electors and throw it back to the Electoral College, this time with McCain electors replacing Obama’s. They would then vote, and McCain would become POTUS.
Biden would LIKELY remain VP, since he WAS eligible, but he would NOT be acting POTUS for four years ... “Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree” doctrine.
Where is this in the Constitution, you say? ... IT AIN’T, but neither have we ever had a situation like this before.
SCOTUS would be flying by the seat of its pants and would settle this based on the concept of the Founding Fathers’ “original intent”.
SCOTUS would set the election back as if Obama had NEVER been on the ballot since, as a matter of law, he NEVER was - he was ineligible ...
Now the question becomes whether or not she was legally married at the time to BHO, Sr. I tend to doubt it, since he was already inconveniently married at the time to a Kenyan woman (perhaps two) who had borne him children. OTOH, under British law, there is (or was) such a thing as a "Tribal Marriage" which wasn't recognized by the Crown. If that's the case, perhaps Mother Stanley Dunham WAS legally married to BHO, Sr.
Frankly, if the Holy One were born in Kenya, bastardy might be a better alternative in making a case for American citizenship. It's times like this when I really miss Johnny Cochrane, or better yet, Algonquin J. Calhoun, Obama's rhetorical mentor.
Amendment XX is pretty clear.. It doesn't make anyone in the President in the event of disqualification, but it would make Joey Plugs ACTING President.
In other news from the capital,
And may you live in interesting times.