to the meaning of sovereignty, it seems that term should be used only with the greatest circumspection". He rejects the concept of sovereignty of the people as too vague and meaningless. And, for the reasons given above, he rejects the theory of a sovereignty of the amending body. His final conclusion seems to be that it is better to avoid altogether entanglement in the concept of sovereignty. This view, however, overlooks the fact that lawyers need a working theory of sovereignty to be able to decide legal questions before them. As between the sovereignty of the amending Article and the sovereignty of the constitution there should be little doubt that lawyers should and would prefer the sovereignty or supremacy of the whole constitution rather than of any part of it. On the face of it, it appears more reasonable and respectable to swear allegience to the whole Constitution, as we actually do, rather than to Article 368 or to the amending powers contained in it. If there is a part of our Constitution which deserves greater devotion than any other part of it it is certainly the preamble to our Constitution. 568A. The American Supreme Court, in the context of the especially American conditions and needs, after leaning sometimes towards a recognition of "State Sovereignty" (See: ware v. Hylton. (1876) 3 Dall 199. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) 19 How 393) and at others towards a recognition of the dual system of Government which has prevailed in America (See: e.g. Gibbus v. Ogden, (1824) 9 Wheat 1) has, on the whole opted for the "Sovereignty of the People" which unifies the nation (see: e.g. White v. Heart, (1871) 13 Wall 646: Keith v. Clark, (1878) 97 US 454: National Prohibition Cases (1920) 253 US 350). 569. I cannot, while I am on the subject of American conditions, resist the temptation to quote the trenchant comment of Prof. Willis on what he considers to be the dangers of the American system of government. He wrote (at pp. 68-69). "But the greatest danger in popular sovereignty does not lie in the intellectual field but in the moral. While our intellectual level is not as high as it ought to be, our moral level is much lower than it can safely be if our form of government is to endure permanently. Millions of our citizens are already members of the criminal class. Millions of other citizens who are not yet members of the criminal class are in the economic world doing things just as bad as the things which members of the criminal class are doing. Millions of our people are concerned with their own selfish interests instead of the common good. Millions of our citizens are only too ready to ruin themselves and the rest of our people physically, intellectually, and morally by drugs and intoxicating liquors and vices. Our people do not seem to be much concerned with high ideals in any of the fields of human endeavour. Our people as a whole do not seem to be seriously concerned with social planning for the purpose of obtaining an ideal social order. They are more interested in rotation in office than they are in good government. They are more interested in winning law suits than in ideal system for the administration of justice.