At once we notice with interest that these men, renowned as the marvelous leaders of a people better acquainted with the science of government than any other people in the world, men who have spent three entire months and fifteen days in their wonderful effort to frame a constitution which will secure “the Blessings of Liberty” to all American individuals and their posterity, still have no knowledge whatever, the weird and marvelous knowledge of 1917 and 1920, that this Madison Fifth Article gives to the state governments the very omnipotence which the American people, by a successful Revolution, had just wrested from the British Parliament. We note with interest Mason’s objection to the Madison “mode of procedure” in which may thereafter be exercised the limited ability of these very state governments to make _federal_ Articles and the unlimited ability of the people or conventions to make _national_ Articles. Mason’s objection, having direct reference to the grant of _national_ powers in the First Article and his fear (the continued and expressed fear for the next two years in the “conventions” of the Seventh and the Fifth Articles) that the people may find these _enumerated_ powers oppressive, is that, if the people _do_ find them oppressive, Congress, which has these powers, will never _propose_ an Amendment to take any of these powers away from Congress. For which reason Morris and Gerry moved to amend the Article so that, if Congress does not propose an Amendment for which there seems to be a demand, the legislatures of two thirds of the states may insist that Congress call a convention and that such convention may _propose_ an Amendment. This suggestion was carried. We next find Sherman moving to strike out the words “three fourths” after the word “legislatures” and after the word “conventions.” This motion was defeated. We next find, _and we fix firmly in our mind with intent never to forget_, that Gerry moved to strike out of Madison’s Article all reference to the “people” of the Preamble and the Tenth Amendment, the “conventions” of the Seventh and the Fifth Article, as the makers of any future Articles or changes in the Constitution. His motion was “to strike out the words ‘_or by conventions in three fourths thereof_.’” As _almost_ every one, during the last five years, including the sponsor of the Eighteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives, seems to have had an edition of our Constitution, in which the Fifth Article does not contain these words, and as _everyone_, during the same five years, has argued and acted as if these words were not in the Fifth Article or have no meaning whatever of the slightest importance, we intend to note _and never forget_ that Gerry’s motion to strike these words out was beaten by a vote of ten to one.