Why has every argument, for or against the new Amendment, ignored the simple and impressive fact that the one word “conventions” was written into the Fifth Article and the Seventh Article by the delegates at Philadelphia, very shortly after they had reasoned out and reached their famous legal decision as to the difference between the ability of “conventions” and the ability of “state legislatures,” also named in the Fifth Article? Why completely ignore the decisive effect of this fact when considered with the fact, that Philadelphia mentioned “conventions” in both Articles and only in the Fifth mentioned “state legislatures”? If we put ourselves exactly in the position of Philadelphia when it was doing this, we see at once why state “legislatures” are pointedly absent from the Seventh Article. Philadelphia knew the nature of the First Article, that it constituted government ability to interfere with individual freedom. Philadelphia knew that neither “state legislatures” nor any combination of governments can make an Article _of that kind_ in any land where men are “citizens” and not “subjects.” That is why “legislatures” are not mentioned in the Seventh Article. But Philadelphia did not know the nature of any Article which might be _proposed_ at any particular time in the future by the body which was to perform the duty of proposing, the duty which Philadelphia was then performing. And Philadelphia knew that any future _proposed_ Article might be of the kind which state legislatures could make. It was the conviction of Hamilton that _all_ future _proposed_ Articles would be of the kind that “legislatures” could make because they would be of the kind that did not relate to “the mass of powers” to interfere with individual liberty. That is why Philadelphia, almost immediately after it had omitted any mention of “legislatures” in the Seventh Article, did mention “legislatures” in the Fifth Article, which related to the making of future Articles whose nature Philadelphia could not possibly know. Let us not forget what Madison told us about the Seventh Article: “This Article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution.” (_Fed._ 43.) This is his statement that the Article itself tells us that “the express authority of the people” _will_ make the Articles proposed from Philadelphia. How does the Article speak for itself and tell us that? By its one word “conventions.” Could Madison tell us more plainly that the word “conventions,” which he and his associates wrote into the Seventh and which he wrote into the Fifth Article, means “the express authority of the people”?