[Borges]

Since the EC is specifically outlined in the Constitution there would be no basis for such a ruling. Our problem is judges making liberal interpretations of the Constitution and finding laws that aren't there...not so much ignoring what is there.

The Amendment you propose would never go through because that would essentially give the Federal Government the power to amend the Constitution without the consent of the States. No way the states would go for it.

[goldstategop]

Actually abolishing judicial review would depoliticize the judiciary. It no longer matters what a judge's philosophy is if they can't declare on the constitutionality of a law. Insofar as they are confined to interpreting how to enforce the law, there is no controversy over their decisions. If people are not happy with a law, then they have to elect politicians who will give them the laws they want. That is as it ought to be in a democracy.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Maceman]

The Amendment you propose would never go through because that would essentially give the Federal Government the power to amend the Constitution without the consent of the States. No way the states would go for it.

No it wouldn't, because the process could only be triggered by a Supreme Court ruling. Whereas now the Supreme Court has the power to amend the Constitution without the consent of ANYBODY.

Given a choice between the two scenarios, mine is infinitely preferable in terms of saving us from tyranny, because at least the final decision makers are answerable to the majority of the people -- without having our laws created by the tyranny of a plebiscite.

And you haven't explained what would stop the Supreme Court from ruling the Electoral College invalid tomorrow as I have suggested. If your answer is: "Trust them, they wouldn't do it," forgive me if I don't take you seriously.