[Political Junkie Too]

Since SCOTUS ruled in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) that Congress could not expand the standing qualifications stated in the Constitution, it is doubtful that Congress can expand the qualifications in the constitution for president beyond what they are.

Generally, I would agree with you, as I said in the first sentence of the post you replied to.

In it's plainest meaning, it would mean that it was discovered that a candidate was younger than 35, not a resident for 14 years, or not a natural born citizen, since those are the only qualifications cited in the Article II.

However, I would add an additional qualification to be President from the 12th amendment:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;

We can argue over whether that is a "qualification" or it is something else, but I'm clearly siding in the camp that it is a qualification. I'd be interested in hearing your argument that it is something else.

If it is a "qualification" to be President, and if the states have proof that the results of their elections were corrupted to the point that they can no longer stand behind the outcome, then that becomes evidence of "failure to qualify," no matter how long it took for the fraud to be discovered.

That is... unless you have some other reason why "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President" is not a qualification to be President.

-PJ

[Dr. Franklin]

We can argue over whether that is a "qualification" or it is something else, but I'm clearly siding in the camp that it is a qualification. I'd be interested in hearing your argument that it is something else.
If it is a "qualification" to be President, and if the states have proof that the results of their elections were corrupted to the point that they can no longer stand behind the outcome, then that becomes evidence of "failure to qualify," no matter how long it took for the fraud to be discovered.
That is... unless you have some other reason why "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President" is not a qualification to be President.

As used in the Twentieth amendment "shall have failed to qualify" means not yet elected, e.g., didn't get enough votes in the contingent election in the House. Should Congress later learn that someone was certified POTUS in error, then they might declare a pretender's qualification (election) null and void. So even though it appeared that someone had been elected, subsequently Congress might adjudge that wrong.

That gets in to the whole "political question" bit that SCOTUS tends to avoid. However, IMHO, too many of the judicial decisions thus far regarding the 2020 election were determined by a desired outcome, and not by following the law. I suspect that SCOTUS would weigh in favor of the Biden regime, if states start decertifying Biden's electors, but don't flip them to Trump due to the fraud. That would require more states to decertify electors to get to the point that it delegitimatizes the current Biden regime. It's the whole issue of requiring a majority of possible EV vs. a majority of EV counted, and I expect Roberts and SCOTUS to go with the latter if it becomes an issue.