The correct answer to this open question is the following.
In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions on who electors can vote for.
I agree with this decision because voting in the Electoral College is a serious thing, and members of the college have to assume this important and serious role. That is why they are members of the Electoral College and expressed their intention to vote for the candidate they supported.
I think there would be no room for faithless electors in the US Electoral College. There is no reason for them to vote for other people if they originally pledge to vote for their candidates.
On July 6, 2020, the case of Chiafalo v. Washington was decided.
In 1969, President Richard Nixon unveiled the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), which called for a guaranteed minimum income for all families with children in place of the nation's largest welfare programme at the time, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Family Assistance Plan (FAP)
President Richard Nixon initially proposed welfare reform in 1969, and it would have guaranteed a basic income for low-income families. When libertarian economist Milton Friedman proposed enacting a negative income tax to create a safety net for the underprivileged while still rewarding labour in the middle of the 1960s, the idea of a guaranteed minimum income started to gain acceptance in conservative circles. On August 8, 1969, in a nationally televised speech, President Nixon unveiled the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), a radical plan that would eliminate the current welfare system. The average family of four is anticipated to receive $1,600 in monthly benefits under the FAP, which included an increase in federal welfare spending of almost $2.5 billion.
To learn more about the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) refer here:
brainly.com/question/23398848
#SPJ1
Answer:
answer d
Explanation:
i just did this so i know what it is
