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.
In order to select the proper procedural tools to resolve the issue effectively, one should recognize that Obama would not be president if he had failed. Failing to qualify and certification as president are inconsistent concepts.
Let me offer an example. Three traveling salesmen need a motel room for the night. So they stop and the crew leader goes to the motel office to get the room. The desk clerk quotes him $30, which the leader pays. He returns to the car and receives a $10 bill from each of the other two.
A few minutes later the clerk realizes he gave them a $25 room. He calls the bellhop (go with it) and tells him to take five, one dollar bills to their room. On the way, the bellhop cleverly determines there is no way the 3 guys can split the five evenly and decides to pocket $2 and return only the balance.
At this point, each salesman is out $9 (10-1). Three times 9 is 27, plus there are 2 bucks in the bellhop’s pocket.
27+2 = 29, where is the other dollar?
It seems to me that you both are not addressing Nancy Pelosi’s fraud certifications, which brings this issue to another level, as the Speaker of the House, hmmm???