It makes no sense to me that Obama’s attorneys would try to use section 3 of the 20th Amendment. Do you happen to remember which lawsuit that was?
If Congress had a role in presidential eligibility determination, I wonder why in the six plus years since February 10, 2007 when Obama first announced his candidacy, not one second of congressional hearing time has been devoted to his eligibility?
Now I do see Congress having a potential role in blocking the certification of an ineligible candidate’s electoral votes, but that’s about it. A president-elect can “fail to qualify” under the 20th Amendment by not having 270 or more electoral votes certified at the Joint Session of Congress that is held to count and certify the votes of the electors. Any one Senator along with any one Representative can submit a written objection to certifying any state’s electoral votes but there were no written objections in 2008 or in 2012.
Stop your baloney. We've discussed this several times and you only try to obfuscate the issue. There is no such thing as a "President Elect" until Congress has accepted the results of the Electoral College votes as final and approved. Only after this has been done can anyone know exactly "who" is the President Elect. This means that the qualification required by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three has NOTHING to do with election results and everything to do with other "qualifications", of which, the only remaining are the eligibility requirements.
As to the Obama defense position regarding this, you seem to know everything about all of the other trials that point to the innocence of your boss, you damn well know what I'm referring to here.