Hybrid Intelligent Systems 19th

International Conference on Hybrid

Intelligent Systems HIS 2019 held in
Bhopal India December 10 12 2019 Ajith
Abraham
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-19th-international-conferen
ce-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-his-2019-held-in-bhopal-india-december-10-12-2019-
ajith-abraham/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications 19th

International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design
and Applications ISDA 2019 held December 3 5 2019 Ajith
Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-design-and-
applications-19th-international-conference-on-intelligent-
systems-design-and-applications-isda-2019-held-
december-3-5-2019-ajith-abraham/

Hybrid Intelligent Systems Ajith Abraham

https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-
ajith-abraham/

Hybrid Intelligent Systems 15th International

Conference HIS 2015 on Hybrid Intelligent Systems Seoul
South Korea November 16 18 2015 1st Edition Ajith
Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-15th-
international-conference-his-2015-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-
seoul-south-korea-november-16-18-2015-1st-edition-ajith-abraham/

Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on

Hybrid Intelligent Systems HIS 2016 1st Edition Ajith
Abraham

https://textbookfull.com/product/proceedings-of-the-16th-
international-conference-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-
his-2016-1st-edition-ajith-abraham/
Hybrid Intelligent Systems: 18th International
Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS 2018)
Held in Porto, Portugal, December 13-15, 2018 Ana Maria
Madureira
https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-18th-
international-conference-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-
his-2018-held-in-porto-portugal-december-13-15-2018-ana-maria-
madureira/

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications: 18th

International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design
and Applications (ISDA 2018) held in Vellore, India,
December 6-8, 2018, Volume 1 Ajith Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-design-and-
applications-18th-international-conference-on-intelligent-
systems-design-and-applications-isda-2018-held-in-vellore-india-
december-6-8-2018-volume-1-ajith-abraham/

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications: 18th

International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design
and Applications (ISDA 2018) held in Vellore, India,
December 6-8, 2018, Volume 2 Ajith Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-design-and-
applications-18th-international-conference-on-intelligent-
systems-design-and-applications-isda-2018-held-in-vellore-india-
december-6-8-2018-volume-2-ajith-abraham/

Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems 14th

International Conference HAIS 2019 León Spain September
4 6 2019 Proceedings Hilde Pérez García

https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-artificial-intelligent-
systems-14th-international-conference-hais-2019-leon-spain-
september-4-6-2019-proceedings-hilde-perez-garcia/

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications Ajith

Abraham

https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-design-and-
applications-ajith-abraham/
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 1179

Ajith Abraham
Shishir K. Shandilya
Laura Garcia-Hernandez
Maria Leonilde Varela Editors

Hybrid
Intelligent
Systems
19th International Conference
on Hybrid Intelligent Systems
(HIS 2019) held in Bhopal, India,
December 10–12, 2019
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

Volume 1179

Series Editor
Janusz Kacprzyk, Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland

Advisory Editors
Nikhil R. Pal, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Rafael Bello Perez, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Computing,
Universidad Central de Las Villas, Santa Clara, Cuba
Emilio S. Corchado, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Hani Hagras, School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering,
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
László T. Kóczy, Department of Automation, Széchenyi István University,
Gyor, Hungary
Vladik Kreinovich, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas
at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
Chin-Teng Lin, Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Jie Lu, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Patricia Melin, Graduate Program of Computer Science, Tijuana Institute
of Technology, Tijuana, Mexico
Nadia Nedjah, Department of Electronics Engineering, University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Ngoc Thanh Nguyen , Faculty of Computer Science and Management,
Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland
Jun Wang, Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
The series “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” contains publications
on theory, applications, and design methods of Intelligent Systems and Intelligent
Computing. Virtually all disciplines such as engineering, natural sciences, computer
and information science, ICT, economics, business, e-commerce, environment,
healthcare, life science are covered. The list of topics spans all the areas of modern
intelligent systems and computing such as: computational intelligence, soft comput-
ing including neural networks, fuzzy systems, evolutionary computing and the fusion
of these paradigms, social intelligence, ambient intelligence, computational neuro-
science, artificial life, virtual worlds and society, cognitive science and systems,
Perception and Vision, DNA and immune based systems, self-organizing and
adaptive systems, e-Learning and teaching, human-centered and human-centric
computing, recommender systems, intelligent control, robotics and mechatronics
including human-machine teaming, knowledge-based paradigms, learning para-
digms, machine ethics, intelligent data analysis, knowledge management, intelligent
agents, intelligent decision making and support, intelligent network security, trust
management, interactive entertainment, Web intelligence and multimedia.
The publications within “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” are
primarily proceedings of important conferences, symposia and congresses. They
cover significant recent developments in the field, both of a foundational and
applicable character. An important characteristic feature of the series is the short
publication time and world-wide distribution. This permits a rapid and broad
dissemination of research results.
** Indexing: The books of this series are submitted to ISI Proceedings,
EI-Compendex, DBLP, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Springerlink **

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11156

Ajith Abraham Shishir K. Shandilya
• •

Laura Garcia-Hernandez•

Maria Leonilde Varela

Editors

Hybrid Intelligent Systems

19th International Conference on Hybrid
Intelligent Systems (HIS 2019) held
in Bhopal, India, December 10–12, 2019

123
Editors
Ajith Abraham Shishir K. Shandilya
Scientific Network for Innovation School of Computer Science
and Research Excellence and Engineering
Machine Intelligence Research Labs (MIR) VIT Bhopal University
Auburn, WA, USA Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Laura Garcia-Hernandez Maria Leonilde Varela

Area of Project Engineering Escola de Engenharia
University of Cordoba Universidade do Minho
Córdoba, Spain Guimarães, Portugal

ISSN 2194-5357 ISSN 2194-5365 (electronic)

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
ISBN 978-3-030-49335-6 ISBN 978-3-030-49336-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49336-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Welcome Message

Welcome to VIT Bhopal University, India, and to the 19th International Conference
on Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS 2019) and the 14th International Conference on
Information Assurance and Security (IAS 2019). In 2018, HIS and IAS were held at
Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto (ISEP), Portugal, during December 13–15.
Hybridization of intelligent systems is a promising research field of modern
artificial/computational intelligence concerned with the development of the next
generation of intelligent systems. A fundamental stimulus to the investigations of
hybrid intelligent systems (HIS) is the awareness in the academic communities that
combined approaches will be necessary if the remaining tough problems in com-
putational intelligence are to be solved. Recently, hybrid intelligent systems are
getting popular due to their capabilities in handling several real-world complexities
involving imprecision, uncertainty, and vagueness. HIS 2019 received submissions
from 15 countries, and each paper was reviewed by at least five reviewers in a
standard peer-review process. Based on the recommendation by five independent
referees, finally 34 papers will be presented during the conference (acceptance rate
of 35% including virtual presentations).
Information assurance and security have become an important research issue in
networked and distributed information sharing environments. Finding effective
ways to protect information systems, networks, and sensitive data within the critical
information infrastructure is challenging even with the most advanced technology
and trained professionals. IAS aims to bring together researchers, practitioners,
developers, and policy makers involved in multiple disciplines of information
security and assurance to exchange ideas and to learn the latest development in this
important field. IAS 2019 received submissions from ten countries, and each paper
was reviewed by at least five reviewers in a standard peer-review process. Based on
the recommendation by five independent referees, finally eight papers will be
presented during the conference (acceptance rate of 30% including virtual
presentations).
Conference proceedings will be published by Springer Verlag, Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing Series, which is now indexed by ISI
Proceedings, DBLP, SCOPUS, etc. Many people have collaborated and worked

v
vi Welcome Message

hard to produce this year successful HIS–IAS conferences. First and foremost, we
would like to thank all the authors for submitting their papers to the conference, for
their presentations and discussions during the conference. Our thanks to program
committee members and reviewers, who carried out the most difficult work by
carefully evaluating the submitted papers. We are grateful to our three plenary
speakers for the wonderful talks:
• Prof. Dr. Arturas Kaklauskas, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Lithuania
• Prof. Dr. Pawan Lingras, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada
• Prof. Dr. Stephen Huang, University of Houston, USA
Our special thanks to the Springer Publication team for the wonderful support
for the publication of these proceedings. We express our sincere thanks to the
session chairs and local organizing committee chairs for helping us to formulate a
rich technical program.
We are thankful to administrative officers of VIT University Bhopal for hosting
HIS–IAS 2019. Special thanks to Dr. Shishir Shandilya (General Chair: HIS–IAS
2019, VIT University Bhopal) and his team for the great local organization.
Looking forward to interacting with all of you during the conferences.

Ajith Abraham
Steering Committee Chairs (HIS–IAS Conference Series)
HIS–IAS 2019 Organization

Chief Patron

G. Viswanathan (Chancellor) VIT Bhopal University, India

Patrons
Sankar Viswanathan VIT Bhopal University, India
(Vice President)
Kadhambari S. Viswanathan VIT Bhopal University, India
(Assistant Vice President)

Advisors
P. Gunasekaran VIT Bhopal University, India
(Vice Chancellor)
Jayasankar Variyar VIT Bhopal University, India
(Executive Director
(Academics))

General Chairs
Ajith Abraham Machine Intelligence Research Labs (MIR Labs),
USA
Shishir K. Shandilya VIT Bhopal University, India

vii
viii HIS–IAS 2019 Organization

Program Chairs
Laura Garcia-Hernandez University of Cordoba, Spain
Maria Leonilde Varela Universidade do Minho, Portugal

Organizing Chairs
Sanju Tiwari University of Polytecnica, Madrid, Spain
S. Sountharrajan VIT Bhopal University, India

Web Master
Kun Ma University of Jinan, China

Program Committee
Ajith Abraham Machine Intelligence Research Labs (MIR Labs)
Laurence Amaral Federal University of Uberlandia
Babak Amiri The University of Sydney
Heder Bernardino Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora
Jànos Botzheim Budapest University of Technology and
Economics
Joseph Alexander Brown Innopolis University
Alberto Cano Virginia Commonwealth University
Paulo Carrasco Univ. Algarve
Oscar Castillo Tijuana Institute of Technology
Lee Chang-Yong Kongju National University
Phan Cong-Vinh Nguyen Tat Thanh University
Gloria Cerasela Crisan “ Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacau
Alfredo Cuzzocrea ICAR-CNR and University of Calabria
Haikal El Abed German International Cooperation (GIZ) GmbH
El-Sayed M. El-Alfy King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Carlos Fernandez-Llatas Universitat Politècnica de València
Xiao-Zhi Gao Aalto University
Laura Garcia-Hernandez University of Córdoba
Elizabeth Goldbarg Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte
Thomas Hanne University of Applied Sciences Northwestern
Switzerland
Leticia Hernando University of the Basque Country
Biju Issac Teesside University
Atif Ali Khan University of Chicago
Kyriakos Kritikos Institute of Computer Science, FORTH
Vijay Kumar VIT University,Vellore
HIS–IAS 2019 Organization ix

Simone Ludwig North Dakota State University

Ana Madureira Departamento de Engenharia Informática
Efrén Mezura-Montes University of Veracruz
Jolanta Mizera-Pietraszko Wroclaw University of Technology
Holger Morgenstern Sachverstaendigenbuero Morgenstern, GI, ACM,
IEEE
Paulo Moura Oliveira UTAD University
Diaf Moussa UMMTO
Ramzan Muhammad Maulana Mukhtar Ahmad Nadvi Technical
Campus
Akila Muthuramalingam KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology
Janmenjoy Nayak Aditya Institute of Technology and Management
(AITAM)
C. Alberto Ochoa-Zezatti Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez
Varun Ojha University of Reading
George Papakostas Human-Machines Interaction (HMI) Laboratory,
Department of Computer and Informatics
Engineering, EMT Institute of Technology
Konstantinos Parsopoulos University of Ioannina
Carlos Pereira ISEC
Eduardo Pires UTAD University
Dilip Pratihar Department of Mechanical Engineering
Radu-Emil Precup Politehnica University of Timisoara
Shishir Kumar Shandilya Cyber Security & Digital Forensics, SCSE, VIT
(Division Head) Bhopal University, India
Mansi Sharma Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
Tarun Kumar Sharma Amity University Rajasthan
Mohammad Shojafar University of Surrey
Patrick Siarry Universit de Paris 12
Shing Chiang Tan Multimedia University
Sanju Tiwari National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra
Shu-Fen Tu Department of Information Management, Chinese
Culture University
Eiji Uchino Yamaguchi University
Leonilde Varela University of Minho
Lin Wang University of Jinan
Daniela Zaharie West University of Timisoara
x HIS–IAS 2019 Organization

Additional Reviewers

Das Sharma, Kaushik

Diniz, Thatiana
Graff, Mario
Lee, Huey-Ming
Medeiros, Igor
Mizera-Pietraszko, Jolanta
Santos, André
Contents

Dimension Reduction with Extraction Methods

(Principal Component Analysis - Self Organizing
Map - Isometric Mapping) in Indonesian Language Text
Documents Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Muhammad Ihsan Jambak, Ahmad Ikrom Izzuddin Jambak,
Rahmad Tirta Febrianto, Danny Matthew Saputra,
and Muhammad Irfan Jambak
Reducing Data Volume in Instance Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Maria Do Carmo Nicoletti and Luis Andre Claudiano
State Estimation of Moving Vehicle Using Extended Kalman Filter:
A Cyber Physical Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ankur Jain and Binoy Krishna Roy
ADAL System: Aspect Detection for Arabic Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Sana Trigui, Ines Boujelben, Salma Jamoussi, and Yassine Ben Ayed
Modelling, Analysis and Simulation of a Patient Admission
Problem: A Social Network Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Veera Babu Ramakurthi, Vijayakumar Manupati, Suraj Panigrahi,
M. L. R. Varela, Goran Putnik, and P. S. C. Bose
Short-Term Load Forecasting: An Intelligent Approach Based
on Recurrent Neural Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Atul Patel, Monidipa Das, and Soumya K. Ghosh
Design and Analysis of Anti-windup Techniques for Anti-lock
Braking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Prangshu Saikia and Ankur Jain

xi
xii Contents

Wind-Power Intra-day Statistical Predictions Using Sum PDE

Models of Polynomial Networks Combining the PDE
Decomposition with Operational Calculus Transforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Ladislav Zjavka, Václav Snášel, and Ajith Abraham
Heterogeneous Engineering in Intelligent Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Yury Iskanderov and Mikhail Pautov
Extracting Unknown Repeated Pattern in Tiled Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Prasanga Neupane, Archana Tuladhar, Shreeniwas Sharma,
and Ravi Tamang
Convolutional Deep Learning Network for Handwritten Arabic
Script Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Mohamed Elleuch and Monji Kherallah
Diversity in Recommendation System: A Cluster
Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Naina Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Mundotiya, Anil Kumar Singh,
and Sukomal Pal
Contribution on Arabic Handwriting Recognition Using Deep
Neural Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Zouhaira Noubigh, Anis Mezghani, and Monji Kherallah
Analyzing and Enhancing Processing Speed of K-Medoid
Algorithm Using Efficient Large Scale ProcessingFrameworks . . . . . . . . 134
Ayshwarya Jaiswal, Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, and Om. Prakash Yadav
Multiple Criteria Fake Reviews Detection Based on Spammers’
Indicators Within the Belief Function Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Malika Ben Khalifa, Zied Elouedi, and Eric Lefèvre
Data Clustering Using Environmental Adaptation Method . . . . . . . . . . 156
Tribhuvan Singh, Krishn Kumar Mishra, and Ranvijay
Soft Computing, Data Mining, and Machine Learning Approaches
in Detection of Heart Disease: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Keshav Srivastava and Dilip Kumar Choubey
A Novel CAD System for Breast DCE-MRI Based on Textural
Analysis Using Several Machine Learning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Raouia Mokni, Norhene Gargouri, Alima Damak, Dorra Sellami,
Wiem Feki, and Zaineb Mnif
An Adversarial Learning Mechanism for Dealing
with the Class-Imbalance Problem in Land-Cover Classification . . . . . . 188
Shounak Chakraborty, Indrajit Kalita, and Moumita Roy
Contents xiii

An Integrated Fuzzy ANP-TOPSIS Approach to Rank and Assess

E-Commerce Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Rim Rekik
Implementation of Block Chain Technology in Public
Distribution System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Pratik Thakare, Nitin Dighore, Ankit Chopkar, Aakash Chauhan,
Diksha Bhagat, and Milind Tote
Chaotic Salp Swarm Optimization Using SVM for Class
Imbalance Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Gillala Rekha, V. Krishna Reddy, and Amit Kumar Tyagi
Three-Layer Security for Password Protection Using RDH,
AES and ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Nishant Kumar, Suyash Ghuge, and C. D. Jaidhar
Clothing Classification Using Deep CNN Architecture Based
on Transfer Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Mohamed Elleuch, Anis Mezghani, Mariem Khemakhem,
and Monji Kherallah
Identification of Botnet Attacks Using Hybrid Machine
Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Amritanshu Pandey, Sumaiya Thaseen, Ch. Aswani Kumar, and Gang Li
Congestion Control in Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANET’s):
A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Lokesh M. Giripunje, Deepika Masand, and Shishir Kumar Shandilya
Advances in Cyber Security Paradigm: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Shahana Gajala Qureshi and Shishir Kumar Shandilya
Weighted Mean Variant with Exponential Decay Function of Grey
Wolf Optimizer on Applications of Classification and Function
Approximation Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Alok Kumar, Avjeet Singh, Lekhraj, and Anoj Kumar
Enhanced Homomorphic Encryption Scheme with Particle Swarm
Optimization for Encryption of Cloud Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Abhishek Mukherjee, Dhananjay Bisen, Praneet Saurabh, and Lalit Kane
Detection and Prevention of Black Hole Attack Using Trusted
and Secure Routing in Wireless Sensor Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Dhananjay Bisen, Bhavana Barmaiya, Ritu Prasad,
and Praneet Saurabh
Recursive Tangent Algorithm for Path Planning
in Autonomous Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Adhiraj Shetty, Annapurna Jonnalagadda, and Aswani Kumar Cherukuri
xiv Contents

Marathi Handwritten Character Recognition Using

SVM and KNN Classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Diptee Chikmurge and R. Shriram
Whale Optimization Algorithm with Exploratory Move
for Wireless Sensor Networks Localization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Nebojsa Bacanin, Eva Tuba, Miodrag Zivkovic, Ivana Strumberger,
and Milan Tuba
Facial Expression Recognition Using Histogram of Oriented
Gradients with SVM-RFE Selected Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Sumeet Saurav, Sanjay Singh, and Ravi Saini
Automated Security Driven Solution
for Inter-Organizational Workflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Asmaa El Kandoussi and Hanan El Bakkali
Network Packet Analysis in Real Time Traffic and Study
of Snort IDS During the Variants of DoS Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Nilesh Kunhare, Ritu Tiwari, and Joydip Dhar
Securing Trustworthy Evidences for Robust Forensic Cloud
in Spite of Multi-stakeholder Collusion Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
Sagar Rane, Sanjeev Wagh, and Arati Dixit
Threat-Driven Approach for Security Analysis: A Case Study
with a Telemedicine System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Raj kamal Kaur, Lalit Kumar Singh, Babita Pandey,
and Aditya Khamparia
Key-Based Obfuscation Using Strong Physical Unclonable
Function: A Secure Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Surbhi Chhabra and Kusum Lata
A Survey on Countermeasures Against
Man-in-the-Browser Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Sampsa Rauti
Towards Cyber Attribution by Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Sampsa Rauti
Tangle the Blockchain: Toward IOTA and Blockchain Integration
for IoT Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Hussein Hellani, Layth Sliman, Motaz Ben Hassine, Abed Ellatif Samhat,
Ernesto Exposito, and Mourad Kmimech
Towards a Better Security in Public Cloud Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Sonia Amamou, Zied Trifa, and Maher Khmakhem

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

 Dimension Reduction with Extraction Methods
(Principal Component Analysis - Self Organizing
Map - Isometric Mapping) in Indonesian
Language Text Documents Clustering

Muhammad Ihsan Jambak1(B) , Ahmad Ikrom Izzuddin Jambak1 ,

Rahmad Tirta Febrianto1 , Danny Matthew Saputra1 , and Muhammad Irfan Jambak2
1 Faculty of Computer Science, Sriwijaya University, Inderalaya, Indonesia
jambak@unsri.ac.id
2 Faculty of Engineering, Sriwijaya University, Inderalaya, Indonesia

Abstract. Clustering algorithms such as k-Means, fail to function appropriately

when used to analyze data with high dimensions. Therefore, in order to achieve a
good clustering, a feature selection or a feature extraction dimensional reduction
is needed. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) algorithm often utilized
the extraction methods, however, the reduction result is not too good, due to low
quality of clustering and lengthy processing time. Therefore, it is necessary to study
other algorithms methods to obtain alternatives to the PCA. This study therefore
was conducted by comparing the results of Indonesian text document clustering,
which had been reduced in dimensions by PCA, Self-Organizing Map (SOM),
and Isometric Featuring Mapping (Isomap). The measurements were made on
clustering quality parameters using the Davies Bouldin Index, computational time,
and iterations. The results shows that SOM tend to improve cluster quality to
269.084% better than the k-Means, while, Isomap has the ability to speed up
the clustering computing time by 190 times. In addition, the qualitative outcome
determines the most appropriate algorithm extraction method capable of reducing
clustering features of Indonesian language text documents.

Keywords: Dimensional reduction · Feature extraction · Principal component

analysis · Self-Organizing map · Isometric mapping · k-Means

1 Introduction
When data derived from text documents are converted to numeric, it turns each word into
a separate feature with many dimensions [1]. These numeric data are high-dimensional
with large number of features, thereby, causing several problems related to noise, anoma-
lies (outliers), missing values and discontinuities [2, 3]. Every feature of the text doc-
ument is significantly influenced during texts document clustering, in accordance with
its location placement. Furthermore, when a data has many diverse features, it finds
it difficult to determine it’s the closeness or similarity between clustering algorithms,
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
A. Abraham et al. (Eds.): HIS 2019, AISC 1179, pp. 1–9, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49336-3_1
 Reducing Data Volume in Instance Based Learning 13

the storage requirements it imposes. The NN has been considered in the experiments
described in Sect. 4 for comparison purposes only.
The IB2 is the second algorithm of the IBL family proposed by Aha [1, 2], and can be
described as an algorithm which, given a training set, starts by randomly choosing and
storing a data instance; if the next randomly chosen instance is correctly classified by the
stored instance, it is discarded, otherwise, it is also stored. This process repeats itself until
all instances from the given training set have been considered. As pointed out in [1, 2],
the IB2 reduces considerably the need for storage; this fact, however, has the side effect
of turning the algorithm more sensitive to the presence of noise. As noisy instances are
prone to be incorrectly classified, they end up being stored, and this becomes a serious
disadvantage of this algorithm. The IB2 is quite similar to the CNN algorithm, which is
described next, except that it does not go over the data twice, as the CNN does.
The NN variant named Condensed Nearest Neighbor (CNN), proposed in [14], seeks
to reduce the volume of data stored by the NN (i.e., the set noted as TNN in the procedure
described in Fig. 1), by choosing a representative subset TCNN ⊆ TNN , as described in
its pseudocode, in Fig. 2.

procedure cnn_gates
Input: TNN % training set
Output:TCNN % reduced training set

1. TCNN first instance of TNN

2. TCNN is used to classify each instance of TNN, from the first.
The process is repeated until one of the two situations arises:
(a) every instance of TNN is correctly classified and the algorithm ends.
(b) one of the instances of TNN is incorrectly classified and then, go to step 3.
3. Add the instance of TNN incorrectly classified to TCNN and go to step 2.
return TCNN
end procedure

Fig. 2. Pseudocode of the CNN [15].

For constructing the TCNN set the CNN algorithm uses the concept of consistent sub-
set of TNN , defined as a subset of TNN that classifies correctly all data instances in TNN .
The minimal subset is the smallest, in number of elements, among all consistent subsets
and, consequently, the one that will classify every instance in TNN more efficiently and
appropriately. The CNN algorithm, however, always finds a consistent subset that, not
necessarily, is minimal. The difference between the NN and CNN is the training set each
one of them stores; while the NN stores the entire original training set, the CNN seeks
to reduce the original training set and thus, storage requirements.
The Reduced Nearest Neighbor (RNN) algorithm [15] can be approached as an
extension of the CNN, considering that its first step is the CNN algorithm, as can be
seen in its pseudocode presented in Fig. 3.
Aiming at pre-processing the original set of instances in order to identify represen-
tative training instances to pass them on to the CNN, the Method2 algorithm [16] imple-
ments a procedure that collects, from the given training set, pairs of training instances
14 M. D. C. Nicoletti and L. A. Claudiano

that define the so called Tomek’s links. In a two-class training set, where class 1 is rep-
resented by instances {x1 , …, xi } and class 2 is represented by instances {y1 , …, yj },
a pair (xip , yjq ) defines a Tomek’s link if there is no training instance xz of class 1 such
that distance(xz ,yjq ) < distance(xip , yjq ) and no training instance yk of class 2 such that
distance(xip ,yk ) < distance(xip , yjq ).

procedure rnn
Input: training set TNN
Output: reduced training set TRNN
TCNN cnn(TNN)
TRNN TCNN
while there are instances in TRNN which have not been removed do
begin
FP remove_next_instance(TRNN) % the removal is sequentially conducted
okay classify(TNN, TRNN) % classifies instances in TNN using RRNN
if not okay then TRNN {FP} TRNN
end
return TRNN
end procedure

Fig. 3. A rewriting of the RNN algorithm as proposed in [15].

If two data instances are connected by a Tomek’s link, each of them is a boundary
instance of the class it represents. In a two-class situation if two data instances define
Tomek’s link, both are each other’s nearest neighbor of the opposite class.

Tomek´s link
X7
X8 Y1 Y5
X6 X1
Y6
X4 Y8
X5
Y2 Y7
X2
Y9
X3 Y3
Y10
Y4

Fig. 4. Training set containing 18 instances, 8 belong to class (•) and 10 to class (*). Note that
among the three lines, only the dashed line, marked with an arrow pointing down, is a Tomek’s
link.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Indeed, we need no Marshall to make us fully understand that
when human beings constitute a government, the one important
thing which they do is to grant government power to interfere, within
a limited discretion, with their own individual freedom by issuing
commands in restraint of the exercise of that freedom. Anything else
that the government is authorized to do is a mere incident of its
existence as a government. The power to issue commands
interfering with human freedom is the substance and essence of
government. That is why all the national powers of any American
government are included in whatever ability its legislature has to
make valid commands of that kind. The letter which went from the
Philadelphia Convention, with the proposed Constitution, accurately
expresses this fact in the words, “Individuals entering into society
must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” (1 Ell. Deb. 17.)
By surrender of some of their liberties is meant their grant of power
to make commands or laws interfering with those surrendered
liberties. Whenever government is constituted, “the people must
cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite
powers.” (Jay, Fed. No. 2.)
We thus know for a certainty that the First Article of our
Constitution is the only one which purports to vest in government any
national powers.
The Second Article deals entirely with the executive department,
the authority of the president and that department to enforce valid
laws, the election of the president and vice-president, etc. The Third
Article deals with the authority of the judicial department [including
authority to declare what laws have been validly passed, etc.] and
with the manner of the appointment of the members of that
department, etc. The Fourth Article contains miscellaneous
declaratory statements of certain things which the citizens of
America make the fundamental law of America. The Sixth Article
contains other declaratory statements of what is also made the
fundamental law of America.
This leaves to be considered only the Fifth and the Seventh
Articles. Like the First Article, they relate to the vesting of national
power in our American national government; but, unlike the First
Article, neither of them purports to grant any such power to any
government. They deal with the manner of its grant by the only
competent grantors of power of that kind, the “conventions” of the
American people, called by that name, “conventions,” in the Fifth and
Seventh Articles. As the Seventh Article was intended by those who
worded it to accomplish its purpose simultaneously with and by
reason of its ratification, and as its purpose was the main object of
the Convention which framed all the Articles, we will consider it
before the Fifth.
The Seventh is merely the explicit declaratory statement of those
whose “expressed authority ... alone could give due validity to the
Constitution,” the Americans themselves assembled in their
conventions, that when the Americans, assembled in nine of those
thirteen conventions, have answered “Yes” to the entire proposed
Constitution, the American nation shall instantly exist, all Americans
in those former nations where those nine conventions assembled
shall instantly be the citizens of the new nation, and all the grants of
national power, expressed in the First Article of that Constitution,
shall have been validly made as the first important act of that
collective citizenship.
We now consider for a moment the Fifth Article, the only remaining
one which relates to grant of national power. That Fifth Article does
not relate to grant of national power alone. It also relates to grant of
federal power. It relates to the future grant of either of those vitally
distinct kinds of power. It is further proof of the logical mind of the
man who wrote that extraordinary letter of April, 1787, and who
largely, in substance, planned the entire system of a constitution of
government, both federal and national, which is embodied in our
Constitution. Madison and his associates, in The Federalist and in
the Philadelphia Convention and in the various ratifying conventions,
repeatedly stated their knowledge that the proposed Constitution
could not possibly be perfect. With the utmost frankness, they
expressed the sane conviction that it would be contrary to all human
experience, if it were found perfect in the working out of an entirely
new and remarkable dual system of government of a free people by
themselves, For this reason, the Fifth Article was worded so as to
prescribe a constitutional mode of procedure in which the existing
ability of the American citizens to make any kind of Article, whether
national or federal, could thereafter be invoked to exercise and be
exercised. It was also worded so as to provide a constitutional mode
of procedure in which there could be likewise invoked to exercise
and be exercised the existing limited ability of the state legislatures
to make articles which were not national. As a matter of fact, it was
only at the last moment, in the Convention, that Madison and
Hamilton, remembering this limited ability of those legislatures, wrote
into Article V any mention of it and its future constitutional exercise.
As the story of the First, Fifth and Seventh Articles, at Philadelphia in
1787, will be more fully treated hereinafter, we leave them now to
continue the brief story of the voluntary and direct action of the
Americans themselves, by which they created the nation that is
America, became its citizens and, as such, vested its only
government with its enumerated national powers.
When the Philadelphia Convention, on September 17, 1787, had
completed its voluntary task of wording the proposed Constitution of
a nation and its supreme government of enumerated powers, the
proposed Constitution was referred to the American people, for their
own approval or rejection, assembled in their conventions.
In many respects, the Philadelphia ascertainment of the legal
necessity that it must be referred to those people themselves and
the Philadelphia decision to that effect, following that ascertainment,
constitute the most important and authoritative legal reasoning and
decision ever made in America since July 4, 1776. Both reasoning
and decision were naturally based upon the fact that the First Article
purports to give national powers to Congress to make laws,
interfering with the individual freedom of the citizens of America. In
the face of that decisive fact, it was impossible for the Americans at
Philadelphia, who had worded that proposed Article with its grant of
enumerated powers of that kind, to have made any other legal
decision than a reference of such an Article to the American people
themselves assembled in their conventions, as the only competent
grantors of any national power.
 The Americans at Philadelphia were human beings of exactly the
same type as all of us. They had their human ambitions and
differences of opinion and jealousies. They were not supermen any
more than we are. They were grappling with tremendous problems
along an uncharted way in the comparatively new science of self
government by a free people, sparsely settled along the extensive
easterly coast of a continent and, at the time, citizens of thirteen
distinct and independent nations. Their personal ambitions and
differences of opinion and jealousies, for themselves and their
respective nations, made the problem, which they set themselves to
solve, one almost unparalleled in history. If they had wholly failed in
their effort, as men with any other training and dominant purpose in
life would certainly have failed, no just historian would ever have
attributed such failure to any lack of intelligence or ability or
patriotism on their part.
It was, however, their fortune and our own that their training and
dominant purpose in life had been unique in history. Among them
were men, who only eleven years earlier, at that same Philadelphia,
in the name and on behalf of the American people, had enacted the
Statute of 1776. As their presiding officer, in their effort of 1787, sat
the man who had led the same American people in their successful
effort, by the sacrifices of a Valley Forge and the battlefields of the
Revolution, to make the declarations of that Statute the basic
principle of American law. Prominent in the Convention was
Hamilton, who had left college at seventeen to become a trusted
lieutenant of the leader in that war which did make that Statute our
basic law. Among the delegates were quite a few others who had
played similar parts in that same war for that same purpose. Most of
the delegates had played some part, entailing personal sacrifice and
effort, in that same war and for that same purpose. With such an
education in the school whose training men find it impossible to
ignore, the school of actual life, it was mentally impossible that this
body of men could either forget or ignore or disobey the basic
American law, which then commanded them and still commands us,
that no government in America can ever have or exercise any valid
national power to interfere with human freedom except by direct
grant from its citizens themselves. If the education of the leaders of
the present generation had been the same, American history of the
last five years could have been differently written in a later chapter
herein.
Because the Convention was educated to know the Statute of ’76,
the proposed grant of enumerated national powers in the First Article
was necessarily referred to the only competent grantors, the
American people themselves, assembled in their conventions.
Familiar as we are with the result of their effort to solve their great
problem, a result told in the history of the ensuing one hundred and
thirty-five years in America, it seems fitting here to have Madison
describe the closing moment of that Philadelphia Convention, in his
own words: “Whilst the last members were signing, Dr. Franklin,
looking toward the president’s chair, at the back of which a rising sun
happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that
painters had found it difficult to distinguish, in their art, a rising from a
setting sun. ‘I have,’ said he, ‘often and often, in the course of the
session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue,
looked at that behind the president, without being able to tell whether
it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to
know that it is a rising, and not a setting sun.’” (5 Ell. Deb. 565.)
The story of the actual making of that Constitution by the people of
America, assembled in their conventions, is a marvelous story. No
American can fully grasp what an American really is unless he
personally reads that story, not as told even by the most gifted writer,
but as told by the recorded debates in the very conventions
themselves of the very Americans who created the nation which is
America, made themselves its citizens and, as its citizens, made the
only valid grants of enumerated national power, the grants in the
First Article. In a later chapter, somewhat of that story will be told,
mostly in the very words of those who made those grants. At this
point, we are concerned only to set out the hour and the moment
when American human beings, as such, in their greatest Revolution,
exercised their exclusive ability to give their one government some
national power to interfere with individual freedom.
 Each of them was already a citizen of one of the existing nations.
It was, however, as American human beings, always collectively the
possessors of the supreme will in America, and not as citizens of any
nation, that they assembled in the conventions and, in the exercise
of that supreme will, created a new and one American nation, by
becoming its charter members and citizens. That was the first and
immediate effect of the signing of that Constitution in the ninth
convention of the American people, the convention in New
Hampshire, on June 21, 1788. That is the actual day of the birth of
the American nation as a political entity. It is the day on which the
American citizen, member of the American nation, first existed. While
it is true that there yet was no actual government of the new nation, it
cannot be denied that legally, from that June 21, 1788, there did
exist an American nation, as a political society of human beings, and
that its members were the human beings in the former nations of
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, and New Hampshire. The
very moment the Americans in those nine former nations had signed
that Constitution of government, they had constituted themselves a
nation and had become its citizens.
Simultaneously therewith, as its citizens, they had made their
grant of enumerated national powers to interfere with their own
human freedom. Simultaneously therewith, they had destroyed
forever the absolute independence of their nine nations; they had
kept alive those nations, as partially independent political societies,
each to serve certain purposes of its members who still remained
citizens of that political society as well as citizens of the new nation;
they had taken from the government of each of those nations much
of its national power, had given to each such government no new
power whatever, but had left with it much of its former national power
over its own citizens; they had kept alive the federation of nations,
now a federation of partially independent states; they had made their
own new national government also the federal government of that
continuing federation and their own national Constitution also the
federal Constitution of that continued federation; they had
subordinated all those nine states and the government of each and
of the federation to their own supreme will, as the citizens of the new
nation, expressed in its Constitution. This was the meaning of the
second section of the Sixth Article in the document, which they had
signed, which reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The makers of the new nation are identified by the opening words
of the document: “We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.”
It would be diverting, were it not somewhat pathetic, to hear that
the Constitution was made by the states. From that quoted Preamble
alone, volumes might be written to show the absurdity of such
thought. It identifies the makers as “people” and not as political
entities. It expressly says that its makers, “the people,” ordain it “in
order to form a more perfect Union.” The states already had a
perfect union of states. But the human beings or “people” of all
America had no union of themselves. The only “people” in America,
who had no union of themselves, identify themselves unmistakably
when they say, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form
a more perfect Union, etc.” They are the “people” or human beings of
America, the whole people of America, the collective possessors of
the supreme will which had enacted the Statute of ’76.
If this fact had been kept clearly in mind by our modern leaders
and lawyers, the history of the supposed Eighteenth Amendment
would never have been written. When the whole American people
assembled in their conventions in their respective geographic states,
they did not assemble therein as the citizens of their respective
states. It is true that the Americans, who assembled in any particular
convention, happened to be citizens of a particular state. But they
were also part of the whole American people, whose act as a whole
people had freed all the colonies and had permitted the Americans in
each colony to constitute a nation for themselves. And, when the
Americans in each convention assembled, it was to decide whether
that part of the American people, which resided in that state, would
agree with the American people residing in other states to become
members and citizens of an entirely different society of men and
grant to the government of the new society power to interfere with
the individual rights of the members of the new society.
How could the “citizens” of an independent nation, in their capacity
as such citizens, become “citizens” of an entirely different nation,
with an entirely different human membership or citizenry? If the
individual members of a large athletic club in the City of New York
should assemble in its club house to determine whether they, as
individual human beings, should join with the human members of a
number of other athletic clubs and create a large golf club, with a
large human membership, and become members of that large golf
club, would any of them entertain the absurd thought that he was
becoming a member of the golf club in his capacity as a member of
his existing and smaller athletic club? This is exactly what happened
when the American people as a whole assembled in their
conventions and decided to become members or citizens of the new
and larger political society of men, while still remaining members and
citizens of their respective smaller societies of men.
The vital distinction between the citizen of America and the citizen
of a state, although oftentimes one is the same human being, is
probably known to many of the modern leaders and lawyers who
have considered and argued about the supposed Eighteenth
Amendment. But it has been wholly ignored in every argument for or
against the existence of that Amendment. As a matter of fact, that
vital distinction has always been so important a part of our American
institutions that it has been the subject-matter of repeated decisions
in the Supreme Court. It is a distinction amazingly important, in
substance, to individual freedom in America. So true is this that one
of the most important Amendments ever made to the federal part of
our Constitution was primarily intended to require that every state
must extend to the “privileges or immunities of citizens” of America
the same respect and protection which the American Constitution
had previously only required that each state must extend to the
citizens of the other states.
When the conventions made the original constitution, Section 2 of
Article IV commanded that “The Citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.” After the Civil War had closed, it quickly was realized that
this federal command of the Constitution did not protect the citizens
of America in any state. And so this command was added to the
federal part of the Constitution by the Fourteenth Amendment,
namely, that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens” of America.
It would be idle to repeat here the famous Supreme Court
decisions in which that Court has been obliged to dwell upon the
important result accomplished by this vital change in the federal part
of our Constitution. In such cases as the Slaughter House Cases, 16
Wall. 36, Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436,
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239,
Maxwell v. Sow, 176 U.S. 581 and numerous other cases the
important decisions have turned entirely upon the vital distinction
between a citizen of America and a citizen of a particular state, even
though the same man had the two capacities. Each decision turned
upon the fact that the protection given to him in one capacity, by
some constitutional provision, did not extend to him in the other
capacity.
If all this had not been forgotten and ignored during the five years
which began in 1917, the story of that five years would have been
entirely different. Everyone would have known that the respective
attorneys in fact for societies or states could not grant new power to
interfere with the individual freedom of the members of an entirely
different society, America.
There never was a day at Philadelphia in 1787 when the clear-
minded Americans did not remember and realize this vital distinction
between Americans, in their capacity as members of their respective
existing societies, and Americans, in their capacity as members of
the prospective society of the whole American people. There never
was a day when they did not realize that the members of the
proposed new and supreme society of men would never have but
one attorney in fact for any purpose, the government at Washington,
while the members of each small and inferior society would still
have, as they already had, in their capacity as such members, their
own attorney in fact, their own government.
One instance alone is sufficient to show how that Philadelphia
Convention never forgot these important things. When the
Committee of Detail, on August 6, 1787, reported to the Convention
the first draft ever made of our Constitution, the Preamble read: “We,
the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc.”
(enumerating all the states), “do ordain, declare, and establish, the
following constitution for the government of ourselves and our
posterity.” (5 Ell. Deb. 376.) But, so that future generations, like our
own, should not ignore the fact that it was not the people of the
respective states but the whole people of America who made the
Constitution, before the proposal was made from Philadelphia, the
Preamble, identifying the makers of the Constitution, was changed to
read, “We, the people of the United States,”—the whole people of
the new nation, America.
In the Virginia convention, Patrick Henry put the clear fact all in
one pithy statement. He made that statement in one of his eloquent
arguments against ratification of the Constitution. Many Americans
today do not know that Patrick Henry was the most zealous
opponent of the proposed Constitution. He was a citizen of the
nation of Virginia. His human liberty as an individual could not be
interfered with by any government or governments in the world
except the Virginia government and only by it, under grant of national
power to it from him and his fellow citizens of Virginia. That is exactly
the status which he wished to retain for himself and which he
insisted was the best security for individual freedom of all Americans
in Virginia. “This is an American government, not a Virginia
government!” he exclaimed. Nothing could more clearly express his
knowledge, the common knowledge of all in that day, that he and his
fellow Americans in that convention were being asked as Americans,
not as citizens of Virginia, to constitute a new nation of the American
people and a national government for that people.
That is why the Tenth Amendment, responsive to the demand of
that Virginia convention and other similar conventions of the
American people, names the citizens of the respective states as one
class of reservees and the citizens of America as the great reservee
and “most important factor” in the Tenth Amendment. This is the
plain meaning of the language of that Tenth Amendment, to those
who know what America is, where that language reads “to the states
respectively, or to the people.” The word “respectively” is pointedly
present after the word “states” and it is pointedly absent after the
word “people.” Nothing could make more clear, to those who do not
forget that the citizens of each state were the state itself, that the
words “to the states respectively” mean to the respective peoples or
citizens of each state and that the words “or to the people” mean to
the people or citizens of America, in that capacity.
 CHAPTER V
THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

We average Americans have now lived with those earlier

Americans through the years in which they were educated to their
making of the American nation, to their constitution of its only
general government with national powers.
We have been with them in those early days when legally they
were subjects, inasmuch as their British Legislature at London had
unlimited ability, not delegated by them, to interfere with the
individual human freedom of each of them and all of them. We have
realized that, in those very early days, despite their legal status,
those Americans were actually and in substance citizens of their own
respective communities, inasmuch as the legislatures which actually
did interfere with such freedom were the legislatures of their own
choosing to which they themselves delegated such powers of
interference.
We have been with them when their British Government began its
attempt to exercise its omnipotent ability. We have seen the
inevitable result, the American Revolution, by a people, educated
through actual experience in self government, against the attempt of
any government to exercise a national power not directly granted by
its citizens. We have seen their invincible determination, in an eight
year war of sacrifice, that no government in America shall ever have
any national power except by direct grant from its citizens. We have
seen them, in their Statute of ’76—never repealed—declare this
principle to be the basic law of America.
We have been with them when the Americans in each former
colony constituted for themselves a government and gave it limited
ability to interfere with their individual freedom. Living with them at
that time, we have realized how accurately they then grasped the
vital fact that the granting of such national ability is the constitution of
government and that no people ever are free or self-governing
unless every grant of that kind is made directly by the citizens of the
nation themselves.
We have realized that, in constituting their respective national
governments, the citizens of each of those nations withheld from its
government many possible national powers, such, for example, as
those mentioned in the various Bills of Rights or Declarations of
human liberty in the different written constitutions of those nations.
We have realized—a vital legal fact never to be forgotten—how
accurately those Americans and their governments knew that not all
of those sovereign legislatures of those independent nations could,
even together, exercise or grant a single one of those possible
national powers reserved by the people to themselves. We have also
realized—again a legal fact which should have sunk deep into our
souls—that the very national powers, which the citizens of each of
those nations had granted to its legislative government, were to be
exercised only by that legislative government and could not be
delegated by it to any other government or governments. “The
powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by
themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created
by themselves.” (Marshall, M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.)
We have lived with those Americans in those Revolutionary days
when the legislative governments of their thirteen nations created “a
distinct and independent sovereignty” to govern a federal union of
those nations but not to govern, by the exercise of national powers,
the human beings who were the American people. We have seen
those legislative governments then aware of their existing ability,
each as the representative or attorney in fact of its own nation for all
federal purposes, to vest federal powers in a federal government. “To
the formation of a league, such as was the Confederation, the state
sovereignties were certainly competent.” (Marshall, M’Culloch v.
Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.) But those legislative governments knew
that they could not delegate to any government even those limited
national powers “delegated to the state sovereignties” by their
respective citizens. “The powers delegated to the state sovereignties
were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and
independent sovereignty created by themselves.” (Marshall, supra.)
As to the national powers not delegated but reserved by the people
to themselves, the legislative governments of that day (as well as the
American people) knew what the Supreme Court still knew in 1907
as to national powers similarly withheld from the later national
government of America:
The powers the people have given to the General
Government are named in the Constitution, and all not there
named, either expressly or by implication, are reserved to the
people and can be exercised only by them, or upon further
grant from them. (Justice Brewer in Turner v. Williams, 194 U.
S. 279.)
We have been with those Americans in the few short years in
which they learned that the maximum of protected enjoyment of
individual freedom could never be obtained through a general
government possessing naught but federal powers, the only kind of
power which any American government can ever obtain through
grants made by governments or, in any way, except by direct grant
from its citizens themselves.
We have been with those Americans through the greatest
Revolution of all, when their leaders and the average Americans
themselves, still determined to obtain that maximum protected
enjoyment of individual human liberty and awake to the knowledge
that it could not be obtained through a general government with
naught but federal powers, rose again to the great occasion. We
have been with them when, outside of all then existing constitutions
and outside of all written American law except the Statute of ’76,
those Americans, at the suggestion of their American leaders, made
themselves the members of one great political society of human
beings, the nation which is America. We have been with them when
they gave the government of America, by direct grant from
themselves, such enumerated national powers to command them,
the citizens of America, as they—not the state governments—
deemed wise and necessary to protect their human liberty against all
oppressors, including all governments. We have been with them—
and we have marveled—while they themselves actually made, by
their own action, their amazingly effective distribution of all delegated
powers to interfere with individual freedom.
We have seen that they gave to the new government, the only
government of the citizens of America, naught but enumerated
national powers, with the ability to make all laws necessary for the
proper execution of those enumerated powers, and reserved to
themselves alone—not to any government or governments in the
world—all other possible national powers over the self-governing
people, the citizens of America.
We have seen how they, the citizens of America, the possessors
of the supreme will in America, then ended the complete
independence of each of the thirteen nations but reserved to the
citizens of each nation much of their former ability to exercise their
own national powers of government over themselves, through their
own delegation of such power to their only attorney in fact for such
purpose, their own legislature.
We have seen those American citizens, while destroying the
complete independence of those former nations, incorporate the
former federation of states into their own system of a society or
nation of all the human beings of America. We have seen them, in
the constitution of their own national government, make it also the
federal government of that federation and leave with it such federal
powers as they themselves deemed wise. We know, therefore, as
they knew in 1790 when their great distribution of power had become
effective, that no legislature in America could exercise a national
power not granted by its own citizens, and that no legislature or
legislatures in America could give any national power to any
government.
We average American citizens of this present generation must
now feel qualified to understand the Constitution and its settled
distribution of all national powers to interfere with individual freedom.
If these Americans could use their knowledge intelligently to make
that amazing Constitution to protect our human liberty and their own,
it cannot be beyond us, now also taught by their experience, to
understand the protection which that Constitution gave to them and
gives to us against even the usurpation of our own governments.
Only by that understanding may we hope to keep that legacy of
protection. No longer, now that we have acquired that understanding,
can we make the great mistake of believing that the public leaders or
lawyers of this generation are qualified to teach us anything about
that protection.
The experience of our leaders and lawyers has given them an
entirely different education, in the science of government, than was
the education of these earlier average Americans and their leaders,
than is our own education in having lived over again the days in
which all valid grants of national power in constitutions of American
government were made by the people themselves because people
and governments alike knew that such grants could never be made
by governments. The experience of public leaders and lawyers in
America, for the past thirty years, has been almost exclusively
concerned with property and with law and Constitutions in relation to
property.
In the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36
at page 116, Justice Bradley points out that the Declaration of
Independence was the first political act of the American people in
their independent sovereign capacity and that therein they laid the
foundation of national existence on the basic principle that men are
created with equal and inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.” He then goes on to state that “Rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of
life, liberty, and property.” We thus realize that the education of the
Americans, who made all our constitutions, trained them to make
Articles of government which would secure protected enjoyment of
these three human rights. And we have learned that to those
Americans, life and liberty came before property in importance.
On the other hand, the leaders and lawyers of the present
generation have been educated to think that property is the one
important right which constitutions are made to protect. Wherefore it
would be extraordinary if any of them knew that the American people
constituted all their governments, and made their distribution of
national powers among those governments and reserved to
themselves many national powers, all for the main purpose of
securing individual life and liberty, and then, the enjoyment of
property. That these leaders and lawyers, so educated by
experience, have not known these things or understood at all the
constitutional Articles, an accurate understanding of whose meaning
depends upon a knowledge which their education has withheld from
them, the story of the last five years amply demonstrates. In its
detail, that story and that demonstration will be later dwelt upon
herein.
Fortunately, we average Americans of this generation have not
received any wrong education in the relative importance of human
life and liberty to property in the eyes of the American people who
constituted all governments in America, and in the constitutions
which those people made to secure all three human rights against
even the usurpations of delegated power by the very governments
which those constitutions created. Our wrong education in that
respect has undoubtedly been attempted. The events of the last five
years, however, while demonstrating the thoroughly wrong education
of our leaders, have also shown that the average Americans still
sense something extraordinary about governments exercising
undelegated power over citizens of which they are not the
governments and about governments claiming ability to give to
themselves and to other governments undelegated national powers
to interfere with individual human freedom. It has been entirely the
result of the wrong education of our leaders and “constitutional”
lawyers that we have not been told the legal fact that, and the
constitutional reason why, these extraordinary performances on the
part of governments in America have been just as void as they are
extraordinary.
Now that we have turned from the unsound teaching of those
wrongly educated leaders and lawyers and have educated ourselves
by living with the earlier Americans through their making of all our
constitutions of government, we are ready to approach, with clear
and understanding minds, a brief consideration of the great
Constitution proposed at Philadelphia and made by the citizens of
America. Only by such brief but accurate consideration can we ever
realize the distribution of delegated national powers between a
supreme government—legislating for all American citizens—and
lesser governments, each legislating only for its own citizens and
without any power to legislate for American citizens. Only by such
consideration can we realize the importance to us of the legal fact
that the citizens of America, when making that distribution of granted
national powers, reserved to themselves alone all other national
powers to legislate for American citizens except those national
powers granted and enumerated in Article I of our Constitution to the
only national government of the citizens of America.
 CHAPTER VI
THE CONVENTIONS GIVE THE CONSENT

The proposal which came from Philadelphia in 1787 was

absolutely without precedent in history. Simply stated it was that,
outside of all written law save the Statute of ’76, the entire American
people, who were not one nation or its citizens, should make
themselves one nation and the supreme nation in America; that,
simultaneously with the birth of this new nation, they should destroy
the complete independence of each existing society or nation, in
some one of which each American was a member or citizen, but
keep alive each such society or former nation, subject to the
supreme will of the citizens of the new nation; that they should keep
alive the federation of those old nations also subject to the supreme
will of the citizens of the new nation; that they should leave with each
former nation (now to be a subordinate state) and to its citizens
much of its own and their own national power to govern themselves
on many matters without interference from any government or
governments outside of that state; that they should leave with those
continuing states and their governments their existing and limited
ability to give federal power to government by making federal Articles
in the Constitution of federal government; that they should, as the
citizens of America, give to no state or states or their respective
governments any new power of any kind, leaving to the citizens of
each state to determine (within the limits fixed by the Constitution of
the American citizens) how much power its own national government
should have to interfere with the individual freedom of its own
citizens; that—most unique and marvelous conception of all—these
citizens of America, simultaneously with the birth of the new nation
and in their capacity as its citizens, should grant to its government,
the only government of those citizens of America, definite and
enumerated national powers to interfere with their individual
freedom; and that—probably the most important and the least
remembered feature of the whole proposal—all other possible
national powers over themselves, as citizens of America, should be
reserved exclusively to themselves and be exercised or granted by
them alone, “in the only manner in which they can act safely,
effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in
Convention.” (Marshall, in the Supreme Court, M’Culloch v.
Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.)
We have not forgotten that these Americans, to whom that
proposal was made, did act upon it in that only effective way, by
assembling in their conventions.
To the formation of a league, such as was the
Confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly
competent. But when, “in order to form a more perfect Union,”
it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an
effective government, possessing great and sovereign
powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of
referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly
from them, was felt and acknowledged by all. The
government of the Union, then, (whatever may be the
influence of this fact on the case,) is, emphatically, and truly, a
government of the people. In form and in substance it
emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are
to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.
(Marshall, M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.)
In view of the startling fact that our leaders and “constitutional”
lawyers have neither felt nor acknowledged the necessity that new
national powers of that government, new powers to interfere directly
with the individual freedom of its citizens, must be derived “directly”
from those citizens, in the only effective way in which they can act,
on such a subject, by assembling in their conventions, it is the duty
of ourselves, the average American citizens of this generation, to
insist that they learn this legal fact. When they shall have learned
what all Americans once knew, the freedom of the American
individual will be as secure as it was in 1790. No legislature, no
matter whence comes a suggestion to the contrary, will dare to issue
any command except to its own citizens, and only to them in matters