And so, coming from the only “conventions” of that kind yet held, we grasp at once the absolute accuracy of the statement in the fourth conclusion of the Court in 1920. The _mention_ of the same “conventions” in the Fifth Article, a mention made by the “conventions” of the Seventh Article, is the sound basis for our knowledge that, as the Tenth Amendment expressly declares, those “conventions” of the Seventh expressly _reserved_ to themselves (the same “conventions” named in the Fifth, “the people” of America in the Tenth Amendment) their own exclusive ability to make _national_ Articles, like the First Article and the Eighteenth Amendment. For which reason, we know the truth of the Court statement in its fourth conclusion, that the power to make the Eighteenth Amendment “is within the power to amend _reserved_ by Article V.” The _exclusive_ ability of the “conventions” of 1787 and 1788--to make the Article which is that new Amendment--is something known to all who were in those “conventions.” That the ability--to make Articles like the First Article and the new Amendment--_remained_ exclusively in such “conventions” of the American citizens, because such Articles are _national_ and either directly interfere with or are the basis for direct interference with individual freedom of the American citizen, was also known to every one in those “conventions.” That is why the Americans in those early “conventions” insisted that the Tenth Amendment expressly declare that such exclusive ability _was_ reserved to them, “the people” of that Amendment, and why the same “conventions” mentioned themselves, the “conventions,” in the Fifth Article and provided therein the CONSTITUTIONAL mode of procedure in which that exclusive ability could thereafter be exercised by those who had it, the “conventions” of the American citizens.