As a reminder, the executive branch, and the legislative branch of our fed gov now has a majority of socialists at the helm.
Yes, it would take 3/4s of the states to ratify. But suppose the fed, as it has done may times in the past, regarding other laws it wished to impose, ie 55 mph, .08 alcohol levels etc., witholds funds from the states which refuse to ratify said amendment?
Yes, it would take 3/4s of the states to ratify. But suppose the fed, as it has done may times in the past, regarding other laws it wished to impose, ie 55 mph, .08 alcohol levels etc., witholds funds from the states which refuse to ratify said amendment?
Well, if you really want to be conspiratorial, take a look at the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937. In case you don't remember, that was the bill introduced to allow the Supreme Court to be packed, because the existing court said that most of what FDR said was unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that mandates a 9-judge SCOTUS. Congress could, by a statute, increase the size of SCOTUS to 20 members, allowing &OSlash; to appoint 11 of the most radical ACORN activists to that court. You think 40 or 41 Republican members of Congress would matter? Well, the filibuster is a "rule" of the Senate that the majority allows. (Remember the talk of using the "nuclear" option back when we had control of the Senate?)
Once they get a friendly court, which they could do by statute in less than a week, Congress could pass an enabling law like what Germany did back in the 30s and Venezuela did a couple of years ago. At that point, law becomes absolutely irrelevant.
Frankly, I can see the scenario I paint above happening a lot sooner than seeing the 22nd Amendment being repealed.