See post 89 and link.
While I appreciate your zeal, I have from the outset disagreed with your analysis and proposed solution.
Let me address the issues as they appear in your latest link.
You refer to the 20th A. and it was, at least at one time, relevant as it refers to if the President elect shall have failed to qualify.
What federal official requested that Obama present his bona fides? Obviously, there was no such request.
Did Obama fail to qualify during the 2009 Joint Session? Clearly he did not fail.
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. (Here, no matter what you and I may think is the proper view, the nation will likely require a USSC decision on the definition of NBC.)
>The answer to the last question puts proper perspective on the enormity of the issue.
So we are presently beyond your Step 3, there was no showing the President elect failed to qualify. On that basis, the failure language of the 20th A. your Step 4 (of 4) is not in play. At this stage it is futile to argue that we do not have a Constitutional President.
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 doesnt help either.
As I previously argued, we need to back up from your 3 USC 19 to 3 USC 15. That statute, enacted by the Congress itself, expressly sets out the procedure to challenge any aspect of the presidential election. No interpretation or legal argument is required, it is cut and dried.
Congress, however, disregarded its statute. And in this regard, you and I agree, Congress is Responsible For the Eligibility Fiasco.