Slick, but tedious. The U.S. Code is administrative law, not common law. And as I pointed out, a Writ of Mandamus is a common law writ. So why do you expect to find it in the USC?
However, as I also pointed out, it's a mandamus legal issue - i.e. the issue of how to force the government to do what it is specified to do by law. So, since you keep bringing up the USC, I'd ask in reply, why do mandamus issues have to be addressed there, instead of the Constitution itself? And also, if the Constitution does not use the word "mandamus," are you actually arguing that there are no - at the very least implicit - Constitutional remedies to the refusal of Congress to obey it?
As for the actual requirement, perhaps you missed the part of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment that states "...if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...". There is no declaration of a time limit, and fraud vitiates all legitimate legal process. Therefore if Obama defrauded Congress with false information there was no true qualification, and if Congress did not correctly qualify him, it did not meet its Constitutional mandate to do so.
The standards are absolute - and so is the Congressional requirement to meet them. If there is evidence that such standards have not been met (and Obama's acknowledged foreign father is enough to do that), then to argue that there is no Constitutional remedy is to argue that the Constitution literally enables itself not be followed by the Congress it creates - an argument which must be rejected as an oxymoron if the Constitution is to remain viable.
There's a four paragraph bender for ya. Have a drink and think about it.
I don't. But, I do expect you to point to either the administrative function that you claim - by asking for Mandamus - hasn't been executed by the Legislative Branch? What is it?
"So, since you keep bringing up the USC, I'd ask in reply, why do mandamus issues have to be addressed there, instead of the Constitution itself?"
They don't. If, for example, the Electoral College refused to meet or refused to vote, I imagine a person with standing could sue, citing Mandamus, to have the judiciary compel them to meet or to vote - unusual, but I suppose it's theoretically possible. But again, what Constitutional task hasn't been executed that you would request Mandamus compel be executed?
"As for the actual requirement, perhaps you missed the part of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment that states ""
Wow. That's an increasingly popular one. Someone beat you to it, just a few posts up. Once again, you understand that 20 sec 3 deals with contested elections, dead Prez or VP Prez, or both or some other Electoral College crisis, right? Qualify, in the context of the Amendment, is referring to someone actually not qualifying. But, Obama & Biden were qualified. How do I know that? Because both were certified, multiple times in complete accordance with Constitutional and Statutory law.
"then to argue that there is no Constitutional remedy"
Who's arguing there's "no Constitutional remedy"? If Obama perjured himself when signing 50 certificates of eligibility (which is what my state of OH calls it, another state may call it something slightly different) that he submitted to each state, under penalty of perjury, that he's indeed a Natural-Born citizen, then that's a matter for the Legislature. I went to law school quite a while ago, but I'm fairly confident perjury is still a "high crime & misdemeanor", right? Looks like it's a clear case for Impeachment, and thankfully Impeachment just happens to be the prescribed Constitutionally remedy.
Every element of the election of Barack Obama that was subject to judicial review - to include all the prerogative writs - was either met or successfully and fully executed. And, equally importantly, all the people that are legally tasked/empowered to challenge these qualification or standards or administrative tasks, didn't. Not one Secretary of State, not one Elector, not one legitimate candidate and none of the Constitutional officers of Congress objected when it was their opportunity to object.
There was a judicial remedy to this problem - to the extent that there is a problem - before Obama was inaugurated. There remains a remedy for this problem today, but it's only a remedy available to the Legislative Branch - exactly as the Constitution demands.