Equating the word “qualified” in the 20th Amendment, with the word “eligible” in Article II, section 1. This is a mistake. jbjd (whose posting privileges were suspended on FR is not able to personally correct the fiction Uncle Sham has posted there, disguised as fact)wrote about this fallacy some time back, in
http://jbjd.org/2010/12/31/qualified-%e2%89%a0-eligible/
Here is a quote from your link:
"This means, a person can be qualified to be President under Amendment XX and still be ineligible under Article II for the job"
The eligibility requirements in section two plainly states that "No Person" can legally be President if they do not meet the standards. No Person. Ask anyone what the "qualifications" are for President and they will say the three things in Article two along with winning a majority of Electoral votes and having them certified by Congress. Dismissing the words "No Person" in Article two, section one is more of a mistake. In addition, the term "President elect" can only legally be associated with that person for whom Congress has certified a winning number of Electoral College votes. Until this certification has occurred, we really don't know who a President elect might be.
This being the case, the word "qualified" in section three pertains to whomever is "President elect". If a "President elect" exist, it is only AFTER Congress has certified the Electoral College results so how can the term "qualified" have anything to do with the Electoral College? In fact, the second part of section three plainly states that someone OTHER than the "President elect" or "Vice President elect" can eventually be named President. This "other" person might not have received any Electoral College votes or even ran for the office yet there is that term "shall have qualified" pertaining to them as well.
"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.”
Your argument that the term "qualified" pertains to whoever Congress selects is defeated by the language in the amendment itself. The first instance showing that "qualified" does not pertain to being "selected" is Congress "declaring who shall then act as President" and the second instance is "one who is to act shall be selected". In both of these instances, the choice has been made yet there is still a "shall have qualified" occurring after these passages. This seems to contradict the term "qualified" having anything to do with being selected by Congress doesn't it?
The term "qualified" obviously has meaning and a purpose or it would not be in the text. If the term doesn't refer to the Electoral College results then it can only refer to something else involving "qualifications" as it pertains to the office of President. As I have pointed out, the eligibility requirements are the ONLY thing left in the Constitution at this juncture. What else could it refer to?
Its a mistake that the Obama legal team has no problem with in justifying why the courts have no jurisdiction over matters of eligibility in the Carter trial. Here's a snippet from the article posted on WND on February 13th of last year:
A team of taxpayer-supported lawyers arguing on behalf of President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office say not even the U.S. Supreme Court has any input into the question at this point, and such cases should be barred from the courts.
"The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office," said a brief filed by government lawyers in a California lawsuit over Obama's eligibility under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the White House.
That's because, the brief states, "the examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress."
The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of a number of plaintiffs alleging that Obama is not constitutionally eligible for office. The case, being handled by attorney Orly Taitz, who now has been joined by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has a tentative trial date of Jan. 26, 2010.
Before then, however, U.S. District Judge David Carter is scheduled to hear the government's demand that the case be thrown out.
The arguments submitted by acting U.S. Attorney George S. Cardona and assistant U.S. Attorneys Leon Weidman, Roger E. West and David A. DeJute, say the Constitution further specifies if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives has the authority to select the president, "and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates' qualifications."
Further, the Constitution grants to Congress the responsibility "for selecting a president when a candidate elected by the Electoral College does not satisfy the Constitution's eligibility requirements."
I'll link to their legal argument if you like. It basically uses the Twentieth amendment, section three as a roadblock to any other entity but Congress having authority to evaluate the issue of "eligibility". My point exactly.