Can any supporter of the Eighteenth Amendment find any statement from Madison in which he tells us his word “legislatures” means what he has just told us his word “conventions” means? And, when “conventions” meant the “express authority of the people” before the Fifth or Seventh Articles were written, how could the mention of “conventions” in the Fifth imply a grant from the “conventions” to the “conventions”? Why not admit the simple truth overlooked for the past five years? The respective mentions of “Congress,” of “conventions” and of state “legislatures” in the Fifth Article speak plainly of each body respectively doing something which it could do if there were no Fifth Article. If there were no Fifth Article, could not Congress draft an Article and _propose_ it and _propose_ a mode of ratification? Philadelphia did all these things and knew and stated that it exercised no power in doing any of them. The mention of Congress implies no “grant.” On the contrary, it is a command which prevents the rest of us from making such proposals and prevents “conventions” or state “legislatures” from making Articles, within their respective abilities, _unless_ proposed to them by “two thirds of both houses of Congress.” If there were no Fifth Article, could not “conventions” make any kind of an article, as they had made the National Articles of 1776 and as they were making the Articles of 1787? The mention of “conventions” implies no grant. On the contrary, it is a command telling the “conventions” that a “Yes” from three fourths of the “conventions” shall be necessary and sufficient for “_constitutional_” exercise of the power they have. It is a great security for human freedom. It makes very difficult oppression of the people by the people. If there were no Fifth Article, could not state “legislatures” make declaratory or _federal_ Articles, which neither exercise nor create power to interfere with human individual freedom? They had, in 1781, made an entire constitution of Articles _of that kind_. The mention of “legislatures” implies no “grant.” On the contrary it is a command to these “legislatures,” representing the members of the union of states. The command comes from the superiors of the states, the “conventions” of the whole American people. It is not the only command which the “conventions” of that one people made to the states and _their_ “legislatures.” How absurd to imply from that command that it is a “grant” of power to those commanded governments, giving them omnipotence over every human freedom of the American people who made the command!