picking replacements without we the people voting on em??? what could go wrong??? do they know something we don’t???
As if we need this amendment more than a Balance Budget amendment or an amendment to ensure only citizens can vote in elections...
More clickbait. The way things are, you may have a hard time getting two-thirds of the senate or the house to agree water is wet. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
The Russians could get rid of all these criminals. I imagine a 100 foot tall tsunami hitting Washington. Many of our dumb officials should be in front of a world court for crimes against humanity. They sure killed a lot of people and continue to do so.
if it's actually needed - and it's 100% for some future possible event >>>> Why can't the substitute congressmen be elected? - the best qualified people in the individual states run for the office as primary candidates - those losers in the primary then have the choice to run as the substitute congressmen - rank their substitution level by the popular vote they receive ....
It kinda looked to me they were just appointing someone to the seat until legitimate replacement elections could be held. What do they do now if a politician keels over? Leave it vacant or throw in a filler from the party? Hell if I know, but I can see delaying that election to be a point of corruption. If the rare Republican in the California Congressional team croaks, they could be replaced by Newsom with this strategy with Democrats. Kinda puts a target on the non-gubertorial party. Probably better if done in Texas than Illinois.
This is all bullshit, Just so you guys know! I have been busting cranks all damn day, why not this one too! As to what @Zimmy posted above, check out below, hope this answers that question! Each Senator has one vote. As constituted in the 110th Congress, the House of Representatives is composed of 435 Members elected every two years from among the 50 states, apportioned to their total populations. The permanent number of 435 was established by federal law following the Thirteenth Decennial Census in 1910, in accordance with Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution. This number was increased temporarily to 437 for the 87th Congress to provide for one Representative each for Alaska and Hawaii. The Constitution limits the number of representatives to not more than one for every 30,000 of population. Under a former apportionment in one state, a particular Representative represented more than 900,000 constituents, while another in the same state was elected from a district having a population of only 175,000. The Supreme Court has since held unconstitutional a Missouri statute permitting a maximum population variance of 3.1 percent from mathematical equality. The Court ruled in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969), that the variances among the districts were not unavoidable and, therefore, were invalid. That decision was an interpretation of the Court’s earlier ruling in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), that the Constitution requires that ‘‘as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.’ A law enacted in 1967 abolished all ‘‘at-large’’ elections except in those less populous states entitled to only one Representative. An ‘‘at-large’’ election is one in which a Representative is elected by the voters of the entire state rather than by the voters in a congressional district within the state. A Representative must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for seven years, and, when elected, be an inhabitant of the state in which the Representative is chosen. Unlike the Senate where a successor may be appointed by a governor when a vacancy occurs during a term, if a Representative dies or resigns during the term, the executive authority of the state must call a special election pursuant to state law for the choosing of a successor to serve for the unexpired portion of the term. Each Representative has one vote. In short, Absolutely NO authority exists in any of the "Several States" nor can anyone in the Senate or COngress appoint a replacement, it MUST be done by the state, ether Gov'ner or by Special election as noted above!
@Ura-Ki Didn't it say the Governor would select the temporary replacement for dead Senators and Representatives until a special election can be held with the new amendment? This seems to blend the current "replace until next normal election" for Senators with the current "replace with a special election of the Representatives". I'm really not arguing for it, trust me. I don't trust any of the sonsabitches. I just ain't tracking ya and haven't had the time to watch the video again.
Yes, you got it right, it's the Reps that MUST be voted on by the state, Senators get picked by a gov'ner as a temp until regular vote time/mid term!
