The powers the people have given to the General Government are named in the Constitution, and all not there named, either expressly or by implication, are reserved to the _people_ and can be exercised only by _them_, or upon further _grant_ from _them_. (Justice Brewer in Turner v. Williams, 194 _U. S._ 279.) CHAPTER XIV SEVENTEEN ARTICLES RESPECT HUMAN FREEDOM “For my own part, I acknowledge a thorough conviction that Amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers.” (_Fed._ No. 85.) This was the statement of Hamilton to the American people when he was asking them, about to assemble in their conventions, to make their First Article grants of enumerated powers to interfere with their individual freedom and to make their Fifth Article mode of procedure, in which they could exercise CONSTITUTIONALLY their exclusive ability, assembled again in “conventions,” to add or subtract from that grant of enumerated powers of that kind. When he used the words, “mass of its powers,” he referred directly to that First Article grant. It contains all the powers that were ever given to any government to interfere with the individual freedom of the American citizen. He knew what the Supreme Court clearly declared in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 _U. S._ 542, that, beyond the scope of its enumerated powers, there is _no_ government of the American citizens. He knew that, in the geographical territory which is each state, there would thereafter be two governments, the government of enumerated powers, governing the American citizens in that state under the First Article grants from the American citizens, and the state governments, governing the citizens of the state, under whatever grants of national power its state citizens gave that government. The two governments in each state stand in their respective spheres of action in the same independent relation to each other, except in one particular, that they would if their authority embraced distinct territories. That particular consists in the supremacy of the authority of the United States when any conflict arises between the two governments. (Justice Field, in Tarble’s case, in the Supreme Court, 13 _Wall._ 397.) With such knowledge, he would have found it impossible to make the blunder of assuming that either government could give or join with governments in giving to the other any power to interfere with the citizens of the grantee in their enjoyment of individual liberty. He knew that, “In our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state.” (Story, 1 _Ell. Deb._ 65.)