I'm pretty sure that depends on how anal-retentive you want to be about interpreting the meaning from the words. I don't think a rational person would read it as the President of the Senate is indispensable, but as some of you are reading it with such absolutely rigidity to your own specific interpretation of it, it should not trouble you much to have this same ridiculously rigid shoe put on your own foot.
Where?
In that same ridiculously rigid interpretation you and your allies have of the document.
If you insist on saying the President of the Senate must rubber stamp the procedure, then I can just as easily say the procedure can't go forward unless the President of the Senate allows it.
A bon chat, bon rat.
A good question for you as well. The Constitution identifies one President of the Senate, the person with apparent omnipotent powers over the election.
. I don't think a rational person would read it as the President of the Senate is indispensable,
You would it seems. Your reply 87 claims "Specifying "President of the Senate" means that no one else may do that job." Not the President Pro Tempore. Not the Senate Majority Leaders. Nobody.
In that same ridiculously rigid interpretation you and your allies have of the document.
In other words, nowhere.