ODH, your lecture is out of place. I asked a question, and am willing to debate the answer, and you spout off with a diatribe about my motivations - which you neither know nor understand.
You are correct - it is the 20th amendment, not the “succession amendment” as I incorrectly identified it.
You miss the point that qualification is not the same as certification. Being qualified is a matter of being, where as certification is a matter of avowing the state of qualification - whether by the candidate or by an outside authority (such as congress).
Is it your explicit opinion that the judiciary has no role in the adjudication of the meaning of this amendment? That is curious, as it was my understanding that the judiciary’s role was explicitly to interpret the law.
Yes, countless times people have been certified in jobs who actually lied about their qualifications. If they had not lied about their qualifications, they would not have been sanctioned with state certification.
My apology. I presumed you were being combative, which seems to be the rule and not the exception on these threads.
To me, it's clear from everything I've read as either a student, or a practicing attorney, that the 20th is specifically dealing with the possible circumstance of a pre-inaugural death of a President-Elect, a contested election, or a circumstance where the Electoral College has failed to render a contest winner - after all, a tie is theoretically possible in the EC.
People seemingly wish to interpret this "failed to qualify" phrase as an invitation for an ex post facto judicial review over the results of an Electoral College election. When in fact, the Constitution specifically and singularly gives oversight of the Electoral College to the Legislative branch, not the Judiciary. In much the same way that the Judiciary is foreclosed from oversight in President's war-fighting authority, or a Presidential impeachment. Of course, the judiciary is represented by the presence of the Chief Justice as the officiator of the Senate trial with respect to an impeachment.
And, in the midst of all this discussion about the 20th Amendment, let's not forget about the Political Question Doctrine. Starting with Luther v. Bordon, and affirmed or expanded in a number of subsequent rulings, it is clear - at least to me - that the Court would recuse itself from any challenges to the Congressional oversight of the Electoral College and it's operation and it's certifications. And ultimately, those who wish to fight this battle in the Judiciary, and not in the Legislative branch are asking the Judiciary to do just that - to review and subsequently overturn the decision of the Electoral Collage and the Congressional certification of that EC election. I don't see this Court, or any court doing such a thing, ever.