“I certainly can demand to see proof that the twentieth amendment has been complied with.”
Says who? And when you are escorted from your congressman’s office, what will you do about it? Go to court? :)
“You, who claims to be “a simple old country lawyer” stated that it did not exist.”
Concentrate and try to understand. I did not say the 20th amendment doesn’t exist. I said you have no right to enforce it. Congress determined that Obama “qualified”. Its over. They have already “enforced” it.
“I proved to you that we do have a law REQUIRING that the President elect has the burden of proving his/her qualifications to Congress.”
Sigh; he did that and Congress ratified the vote of the Electoral College. In court the characters bringing the birther cases have the burden. That’s the way the Founders wanted it, Uncle Sham. Now, if the fringe wants a French system of law here whereby any accusation can be made and the same stands proven until unproven...OK. I’ve always suspected that fringes in this country really wanted a Napoleonic Code system rather than the Anglo Saxon Common Law system bequeathed to us by the Founders.
As I sad, please bring your action. You will lose. Bring it again and you will be sanctioned; a thrid time and you’ll likely be sanctioned more severely and barred from bringing any suits without further leave of court. But its up to you.
Since, legally, the "President elect" is non-existent UNTIL Congress has ratified the results of the electoral college, the Twentieth amendment, section three has NOTHING to do with electoral college results.
You claim he "qualified". I say show the evidence that he did so. If this evidence of such a qualification can't be shown, it doesn't legally exist. If it doesn't exist, it never was shown. If it never was shown, then there was never a "qualification. If there was never a "qualification", then, legally, there is NO President.
You claim that he "qualified" yet have nothing to offer as proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim qualification occurred.