[416] _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_, McMaster and Stone, 254. Both Hamilton and Wilson were overruled by the public demand for a Bill of Rights, and the first ten Amendments were speedily added to the Constitution. [417] Ogden _v._ Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 332 (1827); Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816); United States _v._ Aaron Burr, Cotton’s _Constitutional Opinions of John Marshall_, 1.100; Sturgis _v._ Crowningshield, 4 Wheaton, 122 (1819); Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264 (1821); Cooley, _Constitutional Limitations_, 6th Edition, 204. [418] Norton _v._ Shelby County, 118 U. S., 425. [419] The relation of the judiciary to ministerial officers has already been examined; see Chapters VII and VIII. But see in this connection, the Secretary _v._ McGarrahan, 9 Wallace, 298; United States _v._ Black, 128 U. S., 40; United States _v._ Windom, 137 U. S., 636; United States _v._ Blaine, 139 U. S., 306; State _ex rel._ _v._ Stone, 120 Missouri, 428. [420] Pennsylvania, 1873, Art. iv. §16. This provision does not empower the Governor to cut down an item, but in practice, it is so construed. [421] As sovereignty is a unit, any examination of particular aspects of it must be but a partial examination of its operations. The Constitution of the United States is a unit, in so far as the sovereignty,—the people of the United States,—have made it the expression of their plan of government. It follows that close examination of any department or feature of the Constitution as a plan of government discloses that feature in relation with other features; the Constitution is an expression of a mass of relations. Thus it is that a decision of the Supreme Court may relate to several matters, seemingly without relation, but necessarily co-related. The present chapter on _The Law of Limitations_ discusses executive, legislative, and judiciary and the principles of government by which it acts. _The entire subject of American constitutional law must be viewed as a whole._ See Pollock _v._ Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 158 U. S., 601 (1895); Field _v._ Clark, 143 U. S., 649 (1892). Also _The Federalist_, Nos. xliv.-lvi. [422] Art. ii., 2: 2. [423] American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511. [424] Amendments IX., X. [425] Art. vi., 3. The ratifying conventions, 1788–9, formulated in the aggregate some two hundred amendments in the nature of provisions in a Bill of Rights. These, reduced to twelve, were presented by Madison (May 25, 1789) in the House of Representatives and were duly submitted to the States for ratification. Ten were ratified (1790). [426] Reynolds _v._ United States, 98 U. S., 145 (1878). [427] Davis _v._ Beason, 133 U. S., 333. [428] Cooley, _Principles of Constitutional Law_, 3d Edition, 226. As to “Readings from the Bible” in public schools, _see_ Pfeiffer _v._ Board of Education, 77 N. W. Reporter, 250 (1898); State _ex rel._ Weiss _v._ District Board, 76 Wisconsin, 177 (1890).