Because we have lived through the experience of the Americans to whom the tribute was paid, we know the distinction between a constitution of _national_ government, “unalterable by government,” and Articles constituting government of political entities or states, alterable by the states or the legislatures of the states. Moreover, by reason of our experience, we sense the clear recognition of the distinction in the Fifth Article distinct mention of the people or “conventions,” as _sole_ makers of _national_ Articles, and the similar mention of the “legislatures” as competent makers of _federal_ Articles. To our regret, we have found that our Congress, in 1917, knew naught of the distinction and naught of its recognition in the language of the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Article. It is with relief, therefore, that we turn to the great litigations in the Supreme Court of 1920, in which the lawyers of the America, where the important distinction was _once_ so clearly known, attacked and defended the proposal from the Congress of 1917 and the action of the state legislatures on that proposal. Fresh from the utter legislative ignorance of that distinction, it is with relief that, in our first glance at the briefs of those lawyers, we find what seems the clear echo of the accurate knowledge we have acquired in the company of those earlier Americans. “There is only one great muniment of our liberty which can never be amended, revoked or withdrawn--the Declaration of Independence. In this regard, it ranks with the Magna Charta.”