Keeping in mind the object of that intense concentration, the First Article grants of power _of that kind_, we average Americans note, _with determined intent never to forget_, the effect of that concentration upon the wording of our Fifth Article up to that tenth day of September. We note, _with determined intent never to forget_, that, from May 30 to September 10, the _only_ maker of future changes mentioned was the “people” of America, the most important reservee of the Tenth Amendment, the “conventions” of the American people named in both the Seventh and the Fifth Articles. As this fact _and its tremendous meaning_ have never been known or mentioned in the sorry tale of the five years from 1917 to 1922, we average Americans are determined to dwell upon it briefly so that we cannot escape an accurate appreciation of the short remaining story of the one week at Philadelphia, in 1787, in relation to our Fifth Article. Only a week earlier, _because_ the First Article did grant enumerated powers to interfere with individual rights, the Convention had known that the seven articles must go to the people directly to say _their_ “Yes” or “No” to those grants of the First Article. For that reason the Convention (considering limited legislative ability to make _federal_ Articles and omnipotent ability of the “people” to make all Articles) had decided that it MUST propose the mode of ratification by the “people,” the “conventions” of the Seventh and the Fifth Articles. As Marshall later authoritatively stated in the Supreme Court, the _legal_ necessity of deriving national powers from the people themselves, the “conventions,” was _then_ known and acknowledged by all. It was natural, therefore, up to that September 10, that a convention, concentrated entirely upon grants _of that kind_, when wording its Article with a mode of procedure for making future changes, should have forgotten any changes except _of the kind_ on which its own mind was concentrated and should have mentioned in its amending Article, up to September 10, no maker of future changes except the people themselves, “conventions” of the Seventh and the Fifth Articles. And, at this point, we average Americans note, _again with intent never to forget_, that if the one competent maker of such Articles, the “conventions,” had remained the only maker of Articles _mentioned_ in the Fifth Article, even the great “constitutional” lawyers of 1920 would never have made the monumental error of assuming that the Fifth Article was a grant of power (to those who made it and all the original Constitution) to make future Articles. Even _they_ would have noticed and _applied_ to their reading of the Fifth Article the well known legal fact that grantors never can and never do grant to themselves what they already have or a part of it.