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 doesn’t 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”.
We don't know whether he did or not. The phrase "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" places the burden of qualifying on the President elect. If he wasn't asked to provide proof of eligibility, Congress, especially knowing the questions at the time concerning his legitimacy, failed to enforce section three. This a failure of Congress, not a successful qualification of the President elect.
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.