In every argument against the Eighteenth Amendment, possible changes in the Constitution (which is both federal and national) have been divided into two classes, but not into the federal class and the national class. It has been invariably contended that the first class include those which _can_ be made under the imaginary “grant” of power in the Fifth Article and in the mode of procedure therein prescribed. On the other hand, it has been invariably contended that the other class includes those which _cannot_ be made under that imaginary “grant” or in _any_ CONSTITUTIONAL procedure _because_ they take away from the citizens _of a state_ their right to govern themselves. All arguments alike, whether for or against the Eighteenth Amendment, have wholly ignored the fact that the citizens of _America_, for the protection of the individual liberty of the one American people, IN THAT CHARACTER, established the Constitution and made it the supreme law over the citizens of the respective states and the states themselves and the state governments and the league of the states, which the citizens of America continued as subordinate to their nation of men. For this reason probably, no argument, on either side, has ever recognized the identity of the “conventions” of the Seventh Article with the “conventions” of the Fifth Article. For this reason probably, no argument has ever recognized the identity of both “conventions” with the most important factor and reservee in the Tenth Amendment, “the people” of America, as distinguished from the lesser reservees, the peoples or citizens of each state, “the states respectively.” It is this very failure to recognize this identity which has forced the opponents of the new Amendment into the “nonsense” of assuming and asserting, with their adversaries, that the Fifth Article _is_ a “grant” to the “conventions” and the state “legislatures.” If there had not been this failure, everyone would have recognized that the “conventions,” which made the Constitution, neither could nor did “grant” to themselves, the “conventions” named in the Fifth Article, any or all of the very power which they were then exercising. The “nonsense” of the concept of such a “grant” is patent once there is recognized the identity between the “conventions” with the most important reservee of the Tenth Amendment, the one American people of Marshall.