We are not misled because the Article prescribes this one _constitutional_ mode to evoke the existing limited ability or the existing unlimited ability. Providing a CONSTITUTIONAL mode for the exercise of either does not lessen one ability or increase the other. By reason of our education, we know the difference between the _revolutionary_ exercise of existing power and the _constitutional_ exercise of existing power. Because we have become of the “people better acquainted with the science of government than any other people in the world,” we know that to do something in a revolutionary manner does not necessarily mean to do it by bloodshed or on the battle-field. We know that to do something in a revolutionary manner means to do it outside of any legally prescribed mode of procedure for the exercise of existing power. We know that to do the same thing, in a _constitutional_ mode, is to do it in some mode prescribed by human law or constitution. And that is why we understand, as did the men with whom we are sitting in those conventions, that Congress, in the future, is to do exactly what the Philadelphia Convention did _and nothing more_. Congress is to do it _constitutionally_ (where the Philadelphia Convention did it outside of any human law and in a _revolutionary_ manner) _because_ the Fifth Article commands that Congress alone shall do it. Congress, when doing it, will be exercising no power. The Philadelphia Convention exercised no power when it did exactly the same things. And, when Congress does it, Congress will be bound, as Philadelphia was bound, to ascertain and propose the mode of ratification by which the proposed Article will be ratified by ratifiers competent to make that particular kind of an Article. As we sit in the “conventions” and keep clearly in our mind that the “conventions” and the “state legislatures” (both of which are mentioned in the Fifth Article) each have existing but very different abilities to make Articles, every part of the language of the Fifth Article confirms our knowledge that the whole Article is no “grant” of power but is a “constitutional” mode for the exercise of existing powers.