Another answer to yours, as its moral muddle is SO wrong in this, too:
In Article One, the VP is made President of the Senate ? So, he is directed to and must fill a role as President under the Article One legislative powers, as a part of the Legislative Branch. He even votes as a legislator, in particular circumstances.
The location of the grant of power to the VP in presiding over elections... is in Article TWO, instead, for a reason.
Legislatures write laws and vote. Executives carry out the laws, with control over actions, not votes. The CONDUCT of elections is action left to the executive. Legislatures do not “run elections”... they write laws defining how the elections will be run, and direct others to run them. Those others are the Executive. In the states, Legislatures write the laws, Governors and Secretaries of State carry them out.
At the national level. Congress writes laws... the Executive Branch carries them out. Congress votes to go to war... and the Executive sends those guys Congress pays, that the President commands, off to war... and the same Congressmen as voted to go to war, do not conduct or participate in the ACTION they voted to direct... except for their participating in voting for others to act.
The obvious BS in the current environment... is the argument justifying FRAUD is based in the LIE that the Executive in Pennsylvania, can act unconstitutionally in lieu of the Legislature to re-write the election laws, and then conduct the election outside the legitimate laws... while the SAME PEOPLE justifying that... are claiming the Executive power at the National level... doesn’t even have the ARTICLE TWO power he is clearly directed to have... to CONDUCT the election WITHIN the laws as written ?
Same people... making both arguments: One, that the Executive can write his own laws and conduct elections however he wants... no matter what the lawmakers say... when THAT suits them... And, Two, that Executive has no power at all, not even to CONDUCT an election within the law, and instead he has to do what legislators say and surrender his power to them in conducting the election, even when that violates the Constitution, and when it is being done to enable breaking the laws... and they advocate for THAT when that is what suits them.
Which is it ? Can’t be both. Both are wrong, of course.
Governors can’t rewrite laws, and conduct elections outside the legitimate laws... while covering up frauds. And, Vice Presidents can’t surrender the power to Preside over elections to legislators... to help them cover up frauds.
The Deep State’s Legislators... are trying to con Pence into breaking the law for them... by pretending he has not power to stop them, while validating at the Federal level the frauds they’ve enabled being practiced in the states.
In the election of the President... the Executive Branch, in the person of the VP, is DIRECTED to conduct the election, while the legislature... are made the voters. Neither the Legislative Branch, nor the voters... CONDUCT the election... when the law clearly says the Executive shall ?
But, AS the VP conducts the election... he is not absolved of his other responsibilities... such as his oath of office, or his PARALLEL responsibility to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
I expect VP Pence to do the right thing... and not aide and abet those practicing frauds against the Constitution... while advocating that frauds in elections should be allowed to succeed.
Sedition... is an issue that breaks along the line of the law... and of ACTUAL legitimacy in adherence to the law... rather than to frauds pretending to be legitimate.
It is sedition... to advocate that the Vice President should not follow the law... and vitiate it (corrupt, invalidate, or weaken it morally) by tolerating fraud. It is sedition... to advocate that Governors (et al) have no reason to submit to the law, or Legislatures rightful exercise of plenary powers... and to obstruct them in that.
It is not sedition to demand that the laws and the Constitution must be followed: when they are being broken by legislators and judges, Governors and Secretaries of State, and Attorneys General, at the state and federal level... or when fraud is being enabled, hidden, and protected by roue elements in the Executive Branch, in the CIA, or the FBI, or the military... But, also in civil society... advocacy intending to provide cover while protecting subversion... as the media... You don’t have to violate an oath to be found guilty of violating the law, or subverting the Constitution ?
Thanks much for your analysis!
The biggest problem is still that our legal system runs on precedent and there is no clear precedent for this situation. Still, the arguments you make reinforce my view that, at a MINIMUM, an activist role for Pence is defensible under the Constitution. There is, after all, no clear precedent against it. So he should make the attempt.
The only question is whether he has the will to do it.