Replies

It is possible that this amendment, if constitutionally challenged at some future date, may not hold up to scrutiny by the SCOTUS. The constitution does not declare that the president of the senate’s role is merely ministerial, as no other duty in the constitution is deemed to be so.

And this is exactly correct. No act of congress can override constitutional law. You can't put conditions on the constitutional roles through laws passed by congress.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work for anyone to even voice the opinion that statute law can control constitutional law.

The constitution does not declare that the president of the senate’s role is merely ministerial, as no other duty in the constitution is deemed to be so.

This is a bizarre statement to make. The role of the VP as President of the U.S. Senate is "ministerial" at its core. His only purpose is to preside over Senate proceedings, and is only empowered to do anything of substance in the rare case where his vote is needed to break a tie.

If you have any doubts about whether the VP's role as President of the Senate is "ministerial," just consider this: VPs generally consider it such a waste of time that they rarely even bother showing up to do it. Instead, this role is almost always delegated to either the President Pro Tempore of the Senate or the Senate Majority Leader.

It's also worth noting the exact language of the 12th Amendment, which lays out the process for counting the electoral votes in Congress:

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted ...

Note that the 12th Amendment doesn't explicitly state that the "Vice President" shall oversee the counting of the votes, but the "President of the Senate." If the VP is unwilling or unable to fulfill his duties to preside over this process, then his successor would do it.

I previously thought this duty would have been assigned to Nancy Pelosi (as next in line to succeed the VP) if Pence refused to participate, but I was incorrect. The duty would have been assigned to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

To add to your post..

Pence could have walked away and said F you... if that happened:

The framers of the Constitution assumed that the vice president would preside over the Senate on a regular basis, so the Senate would only need to elect a president pro tempore to fill in as presiding officer for short periods of time. That office was created in 1789.

In the absence of the vice president, the president pro tempore may administer all oaths required by the Constitution, may sign legislation, may jointly preside with the Speaker of the House when the two houses sit together in joint sessions or joint meetings, and may fulfill all other obligations of the presiding officer. Unlike the vice president, however, the president pro tempore cannot vote to break a tie in the Senate.