[Footnote 1: Id., pp. 354-356.]

The Attorney General of the State of New Jersey:[1]

attacked the amendment as an invasion of state sovereignty not
authorized by the amending clause and as not, properly
speaking, an amendment, but legislation, revolutionary in
character.

[Footnote 1: 253 U.S., pp. 356-357.]

The eminent Chicago lawyer, Levy Mayer, and ex-Solicitor General William
Marshall Bullitt, contended,[1] among other things, that

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.]