> which is why they're called amendments.
You're an idiot. An "amendment" is a change… by definition.
>Check for yourself how they had to change the constitution after FDR.
The same way they changed it every other time. Not hard to research them. Every one was
an Amendment proposed by Congress, ratified by the states. Pretty easy to research.
Given that Brennan likely understands how the 25th works, his comments w.r.t. implementing it
must mean something else. This is true of all of them (well, maybe not Maxine). They're doing this
to get normies stirred up.
>There is a VAST difference between an amendment and a Constitutional Convention.
I never said there wasn't. As a matter of fact, I specifically said that an Amendment proposed
by Congress doesn't require a convention. You high or something?
>FDR has zero to do with the rules.
I'm not the one that said he did. Are you sure you're replying to the right anon?
I'm pretty sure he was doing that as a civics lesson to teach normies what it takes to be President.
He also highlighted how anchor babies work in the process when all the retards went to look up
"citizenship in the US" or similar on gaggle.
>A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS A COMPLETE RE-WRITE
It can be, nobody knows since we've never had one except the first.
Which still has nothing to do with your original nonsense claim that I replied to. You're
so stupid you probably don't even remember it.
Requires double secret quarantine.