Keeping all these settled facts clearly in our minds, we now take up the arguments and the briefs in which, in March, 1920, the constitutional lawyers of America, who disputed the presence of the new Amendment in our Constitution, should have presented these irresistible facts. Then we shall take up the arguments and briefs of those other renowned lawyers in which _they_ presented those other facts (still unknown to us average Americans) which can alone refute our knowledge that the new Amendment never went into our Constitution, because we are still citizens and governments are yet unable to create government power to interfere with our individual freedom. CHAPTER XX LEST WE FORGET “The important distinction so well understood in America, between a _Constitution_ established by the people and _unalterable by the government_, and a _law_ established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country.... Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. _They_ [the legislature] have accordingly, in several instances, _actually changed_, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental Articles of the government.” (_Fed._ No. 53.) Coming from Madison or Hamilton, this is the best kind of testimony that the earlier Americans, who established that constitution of government which is the First Article, knew that it was “unalterable by government.” And it is the best kind of testimony that the same American makers of the Madison Fifth Article knew that it did not grant to state governments any ability to add to or subtract from the First Article enumerated and constituted powers in government to interfere with the freedom of American citizens. If Madison and Hamilton had been with us in our Congress of 1917, their statement would have been slightly altered. They would have spoken of “the important distinction so well understood in America” in 1787, as one which “seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country” and not known or observed at all by our Senators or Congressmen of 1917.