n it was adopted by any nine of them. It will not be pretended
that this decision would be binding on the other four, and yet it is
possible that these four dissenting states should contain more than half
of all the population of the confederation. It would be very easy to put
a proposition, in which it might be demonstrated arithmetically, that
the constitution could have been adopted against a considerable majority
of whole numbers. In the face of such a fact, it is folly to suppose the
term "people" is used in any other than a conventional sense. It is well
known, in addition to the mode of its adoption, that every provision of
the constitution can be altered, with a single exception, by
three-fourths of the states. Perhaps more than half of the entire
population (excluding the Territories and the District), is in six of
the largest states, at this moment. But whether this be so or not, such
a combination could easily he made, as would demonstrate that less than
a third of the population of the country can at any time alter the
constitution.

It is probable that the term "we the people," was used in a sort of
contradistinction to the old implied right of the sovereignty of the
king, just as we idly substituted the words "God save the people" at the
end of a proclamation, for "God save the king." It was a form. But, if
it is desirable to affix to them any more precise signification, it will
not do to generalize according to the argument of one party; but we are
to take the words, in their limited and appropriate meaning and with
their accompanying facts. They can only allude to the constituencies,
and these constituencies existed only _through_ the states, and were as
varied as their several systems. If the meaning of the term "we the
people" was misconceived, it follows that the argument which was drawn
from the error was worthless. The constitution of the United States was
not formed by the _people_ of the United States, but by such a portion
of them as it suited the several states to invest with political powers,
and under such combinations as gave the decision to anything but a
majority of the nation. In other words, the constitution was certainly
formed by the _states_ as _political bodies_, and without any necessary
connexion with any general or uniform system of polity.

Any theory based on the separate sovereignties of the states, has, on
the other hand, a frail support. The question was not _who_ formed the