When, therefore, in the year 1920, we shall hear these Amendments, which establish _universal freedom_, cited as Articles of exactly the same nature as a supposed new Article, directly interfering with the freedom of the American citizen on a matter not enumerated in the First Article, we shall be rather surprised. But we shall be more than surprised, when we hear the reason of the modern “constitutional thinker” why _both_ Articles are within the power of the state governments, who are his clients, to put into our Constitution. Not knowing that our Constitution is a _federal_ as well as a _national_ Constitution, not knowing that his government clients always had the ability to make _federal_ Articles and never had and have not now the ability to make Articles which interfere with human freedom, we shall find him stating, as axiomatic, that the slavery Amendments, which _establish_ universal freedom, and the supposed Article of 1917, which _interferes with_ freedom of the individual, are identical, for the reason that both affect the individual and his rights and liberties. On the remarkable nature of this identity, that one _secures_ and the other _interferes with_ individual _liberty_ and, therefore, both _affect_ individual liberty, we shall find that he bases the Tory concept that state governments can do as they please with all liberties of the American citizens. While his theory will serve only to amuse us, we commend, to his reading, this extract from a better _American_ lawyer:--“The legislature may not confer powers by law inconsistent with the rights, safety, and liberties of the people, because no consent to do this can be implied, but they may pass limitations _in favor_ of the essential rights of the people.” (Woods appeal, 75 _Pa._ 59.) The Sixteenth Amendment simply removes, from one of the great powers granted to Congress by the citizens of America in their First Article, a _federal_ limitation upon its exercise, a limitation entirely for the benefit of the states which are political entities.