Your tone is, shall we say, not conducive to productive discussion. However, I am a forgiving man, so I shall proceed.
These are not necessarily my arguments, but a lawyer would be quite likely to make them or similar ones if it came to a case -
“How”
- “shall have failed” is not “how” failed. This statement assumes that failure has already been determined. What logic is to be used to determine failure ? What you have in the Constitutions are conditions, not a process of determination. Law is about process, not declarations.
“Whom”
- Congress cannot in fact be the party that determines that there has been a failure to qualify, they are merely tasked with handling the consequences thereof. Which still leaves the “who”, which from all I know of constitutional law (and thats a lot less than I should), would be a court.
“Proof”
- The Constitution does not determine what documents and attestations are required to constitute proof of either eligibility or a challenge to eligibility. This is NOT a trivial matter. Citizenship determinations are in the hands of a bureaucracy working according to a mass of laws and even bureaucratic rules that are not in the Constitution. And the documents they use are in the hands of other bureaucracies still, even further from Constitutional auras. Hence, among other things, the argument about what constitutes a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. The Constitution says nothing about the document already provided by the State of Hawaii not being sufficient proof.
“burden of proof”
- “shall have failed to qualify” does imply that there is some act required on the part of the President; on the other hand, if failure is determined by some other party that is not necessarily the case, as it may be some other party that “caused” the condition of failure. Lawyers would have endless fun with the semantics of this. If you don’t believe that, you don’t know lawyers.
- other matters
The question of “natural born” for one. If it came to it (and the stakes were genuinely high, should this become a true consititutional crisis), would have to be defined. You can assume your definition, but the other side would have theirs, and it won’t be you who gets to decide.
You could generate a whole literature of legal argument on “natural born” representing every strain of Constitutional law. Just think about it.
Your semantic, word-game “argument” is that of an idiot. Mine is stated PLAINLY in the Constitution and is founded in case law and COMMON SENSE, not the nonsense you spew.