the power of "amendment" contained in Art. V does not authorize the invasion of the sovereign powers expressly reserved to the states and the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, except with the consent of _all_ the states.... If amendment under Art. V were unlimited, three-fourths of the legislatures would have it in their power to establish a state religion and prohibit free exercise of other religious beliefs; to quarter a standing army in the houses of citizens; to do away with trial by jury and republican form of government; to repeal the provision for a president; and to abolish this court and with it the whole judicial power vested by the Constitution. [Footnote 1: Id., pp. 357-361.] Elihu Root, preëminent as a constitutional lawyer, appeared as counsel in one of the test cases. His main contention was summarized in his brief as follows:[1] (a) That the authority to amend the Constitution is a continuance of the constitution-making power and as such is a power quite different and altogether distinct from the law-making power under the Constitution. (b) That a grant of the one power does not include or imply a grant of the other. (c) That the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in Article V of the Constitution [the article providing for amendment] limits the power granted to the function of constitution-making as distinguished from ordinary law-making. (d) That the purposes of the grant imply the same limitation. (e) That other parts of the Constitution--notably Article I--express the same limitation. (f) That the existence of authority under Article V to enact ordinary laws regulating the conduct of private citizens under color of amendment, would be so in conflict with the fundamental principles and spirit of the Constitution that such a construction is not permissible. [Footnote 1: For the Reporter's Summary see 253 U.S., pp. 361-367.]