I don’t have to “reach” for a process that has never been done, and that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, says would not be limited — when there is a perfectly good process that has worked for Constitutional Amendments since right after the formation of this country, from the 11th Amendment to the 27th Amendment.
Why am I going to go to something that has never been done, is said to not be limiting (by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) — when something else works?
It’s a simple matter for me (and also I think you’ll find that it’s a simple matter for a large majority of other citizens, too) — when you’ve got something that works just fine over the history of our country, you don’t go looking for some other way to do it, especially when no one can guarantee anything about it and there are warnings against it from authoritative people.
Not much analysis is needed here... not for me and not for a lot of other people.
I like the Constitution just the way it is, thank you... :-)
You were politely asked a question and decided to lecture on your dogma or whatever without answering the question.
Was the question too hard for you to understand?