When, therefore, we read the Fifth Article, made by him and his fellow Americans in those “conventions,” we recognize at once and we will never forget or ignore _their_ mention of _themselves_, in the very word by which he and they then described _themselves_, “conventions” in their respective states. In making the Eighteenth Amendment grant of power to interfere with American freedom, we--the American citizens and “conventions” of this generation--have been ignored as completely as if we were not named in the Fifth Article. We have been trying to ascertain “when” and “how” the American human beings, now ourselves, ceased to be “citizens of America” and again became “subjects” of governments. We have gone to the record of our Congress on those days in 1917, in which it acted on the assumption that the “when” and “how” were already history. We have found no Senator or Congressman who vouchsafed any information or displayed any knowledge of this matter, so vitally important to us who were born citizens and free men. We have seen the leader of the House advocates of the new constitution of government, the Eighteenth Amendment, read a Fifth Article in which the “conventions” of those who made it and the First Article are not mentioned. We have seen the leader of the same advocates in the Senate complacently assert the repudiated thought that the states made the First Article, our constitution of _our_ government. We have seen him follow up this error with the Tory mistake of assuming that the government of the state is the state. We have seen him point out, to our American amazement, the remarkable and hitherto unknown fact, never mentioned by the people who made the Fifth Article, that the state governments are the only tribunal in which our _national_ constitution of government can be changed, that those governments are a tribunal in which new enumerated power can be given by government to government to interfere with our own individual freedom. Fresh from our education with the Americans who made that Fifth Article in “conventions” of the very kind mentioned therein, we see that those legislators of 1917 know naught of American history or law or constitution of government of men, that from them we cannot learn “when” or “how” we ceased to be “citizens” and became “subjects.” But, there assembled in the Supreme Court in March, 1920, many renowned “constitutional” lawyers. Some came to challenge, some to uphold the new Amendment, the new government-made constitution of government right to interfere with individual human freedom. To the reading of all their briefs and arguments we bring our knowledge that the new Amendment never entered our Constitution _unless_ we were “subjects” before 1917 or _unless_ the new Amendment was itself a revolution (by government against citizens) which made us “subjects.”