Well… That’s kinda terrifying

Reminds me of when my VP of engineering told me to be careful when trying to get to the TypeScript Playground. Googling “ts playground” brought him to a site that was absolutely not safe for work.

(() => "I'm in.")()

New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.

Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland’s book?

I agree with everything you said, but I’m not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I’m talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.

Seems like the “state-ratifying conventions” route is the only thing that has a chance of working, and that’s ignoring that the Constitution doesn’t regulate them.

Although, seeing as an amendment need 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress to pass, regardless of sending it to the legislatures or conventions (not for the convention to propose amendments), could Congress use that veto-proof majority to pass a law regulating conventions?

Whatever the idea, pretty sure this ends up in the Supreme Court regardless?

… is it weird that I’ve been thinking about this for the last decade? I’m not even American.