The qualification referred to in Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment concerns obtaining a majority of votes in the electoral college. Only the electoral college voting members are discharged with the duty to determine the eligibility of a candidate.
The Courts and Congress have repeatedly refused to investigate and adjudicate the veracity of the electoral college voting members duty to determine eligibility of the candidate.
Members of the public do not have standing until a specific charge is made against them by the usurper or a usurper appointee. To avoid a specific adverse action by the usurper, the individual must object to the usurper or the usurper’s appointee pre-trial.
Just a quick look at the Twentieth Amendment, Section three proves you are incorrect.
"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
1. There is no such thing as a “President elect” until such a time that Congress ratifies the results of the electoral college election and someone is determined to have received the majority of votes. It is only then that we know who is actually the “President elect”. Once this occurs, the election is over. The Electoral College is no longer involved once the election is ratified by Congress. The beginning of the second sentence stating “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term” applies to those scenarios where a majority of electoral college votes was not gained by someone meaning that there is no “President elect”.
2. The second part of the second sentence, “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” refers to the actual person identified by the act of Congress ratifying the electoral college results having to “qualify” or Congress is charged with the responsibility of naming a replacement. The “President elect” exist only because he/she received a majority of the electoral college votes and had them ratified by Congress. Now, the Constitution requires him/her to “qualify” for something or Congress names a replacement. The only things left in the Constitution having anything to do with Presidential qualifications are the eligibility requirements from Article two. The wording clearly places the burden of “qualifying” on the President elect. Since Congress must name a replacement, they must be made aware of whether or not they must do so. The only way they can be made aware is by the President elect proving to them he/she meets the eligibility requirements. Lack of proof or non proof is the same thing as “failing to qualify” and Congress must then act.
3. Further proof that the “qualified” in Section Three has nothing to do with the Electoral college is found in the sentence ” and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
If Congress names someone to act as President, it had nothing to do with the Electoral college results because this person might not have even been on the ballot yet whomever is ultimately selected by Congress still must “qualify”.
Congress did not obey the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and we have been stuck with a usurper now for five years running. They willfully disobeyed their oaths from Article Six to support the Constitution. Your statement as to who has standing to question eligibility is also incorrect. Anyone who took the oath of office from Article Six to support the Constitution has standing to ensure that they are keeping their oath. Ensuring that the Constitution is being fully enforced is keeping their oath to support it and no judge can deny them this duty. Obama’s own legal team argued that Congress is bound by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three in regards to verification of eligibility issues in their attempt to limit the standing of others having the right to do so.