We don't know this one way or the other. Section three says that we are supposed to know.
"Did Obama fail to qualify during the 2009 Joint Session? Clearly he did not fail."
Once again, if nobody knows whether he is eligible or not, He HAS failed to qualify because the burden of qualifying is on him. We simply do not know whether or not he has qualified or what evidence exist that he has. If you want to refer to occupying the office of President illegally as successfully qualifying for that office you are free to do so.
"While I am asking, what evidence do you, or any of the rest of us for that matter, have that Obama is or is not “qualified”.
The fact that we have no evidence of his qualifying actually is evidence supporting the notion that he has not done so. Once again, the burden is on him.
"So we are presently beyond your Step 3, there was no showing the President elect failed to qualify."
I just showed you.
"You next cite 3 USC 19 U. S. Code as it relates to Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President. Applicability of that section is limited to the case of where due to a failure to qualify there is neither a President nor Vice President. Unless something happens to Joe, that statute doesn’t help either."
I cite it purely to buttress my assertion that the term "failure to qualify" as it pertains to the Presidency in Section three has nothing to do with the Electoral College results but has everything to do with the eligibility requirements in Article Two.
You did quickly and correctly understand the defect in the motel riddle, so for that I wish you luck with your “illegal President” argument.