This silliness is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. It needs to have a supreme Court test - after Trump fills Scalia’s position!
Amending the Constitution requires the ratification of a proposed amendment by a majority of States [60%}?
The process is deliberately lengthy. Each sate going willy nilly is not proper according to our constitution. Even after the required number of states agrees to the wording of the amendment, then it is put before each state and the people vote either yes or no. Only when enough states agree to the amendment, does it get passed.
I remember when the ERA was going through this process, it did not get enough of the states to approve this last step before running out of time.
Liberals always try to cheat the process when it gets difficult.
This silliness is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
*****************
Explain how you see this as contrary to the U.S. Constitution please. As I understand what
they are proposing is that their state’s electors are selected based upon the national vote as
opposed to selection upon vote within their state.
The question to me becomes is this selection method prohibited by the U.S. Constitution? If so
where is it stated and how is prohibited. Basically I don’t see the 12th Amendment specifying
that a state couldn’t use the national vote as a specificer for how they cast their electoral votes.
Any info would be helpful. Thanks.
Actually, it did run out of time, and Congress extended the deadline. Even that was not enough.
These days, though, the government just acts as if it had passed anyway.
The time period for ERA was extended. Also Elizabeth Schlafly took up the call to defeat the ERA when 28 states had approved. Seven more approved however 5 unapproved ( word?) and she changed the course of that amendment. Think 35 states will vote to do away with the electoral college?