And so, in those “conventions,” we need no constitutional thinker to tell us the simple fact that only those who have can give. If the state legislatures have not, as indisputably they have not, any ability to exercise or to grant power of _general_ interference with individual rights throughout America, and if, as the Tenth Amendment expressly declares, the entire Constitution adds naught to their existing ability to make Articles of another kind, the Fifth Article merely prescribes the _constitutional_ mode of procedure, in which, by command of the American people, that existing and limited ability shall thereafter be exercised. And likewise, if the American people themselves, the Seventh Article “conventions” in which we are sitting, have _exclusive_ ability to exercise or to give power of _general_ interference with their own individual rights, and if, as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments together expressly state, those “conventions” retain that exclusive ability, clearly the Fifth Article reference to the same “conventions” of the American citizens is but prescribing the _constitutional_ mode of procedure in which, by command of the American people, that exclusive ability of _their own_ shall thereafter be exercised. When the “apt, precise and classic English” of the Fifth Article permits no other meaning, we cannot imply that the Article intends to grant what one supposed grantee (who is the supposed grantor) already has and what the other cannot ever have. Nor can we imply that the Article intends to provide a _constitutional_ mode of procedure in which those, who have not, may give. Moreover, as this absurd implication would make the individual American people “subjects,” as soon as they adopted that Article, we now know, with absolute certainty, that the Americans, in the “conventions” in which we are sitting, adopted it as their fundamental law of procedure with the only meaning which its own “apt, precise and classic English” permits.