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.
Answer:
They became centers of agriculture and many were located in towns.
Explanation:
Answer: The consumer has more advantage than the seller
Explanation:
The seller depends on the consumer. If the consumer does not purchase then the seller doesn’t make a profit and vise versa. The consumer needs what the seller is offering because the may be essential life items. Hope this helped :)
Answer: it is c. Pueblo
Explanation: I took the test
