There is, however, this comfort. If, _because_ the counsel in opposition to the new Amendment do not know and urge our legal protection against any new constitution of _national_ government except by ourselves, the citizens of America, the “conventions” of the Fifth Article, and if, _because_ of such ignorance on the part of counsel, the Court should not be called upon either to consider or pass upon our protection, no decision of the Court will be intended to have--as no decision of the Court could have--any effect upon our protection. If counsel fail to bring before the Court the legal facts which demonstrate that the new Amendment is not in the Constitution unless we Americans are “subjects,” our day in Court is merely postponed. And when that day shall come, when that Court is addressed by counsel who do represent the citizens of America and who accurately know the constitutional protection which we have for all our rights, there is not the slightest danger that the Court, established and maintained by us for the sole purpose of protecting our individual rights against usurpation by government, will decide that we are subjects and that governments can create new government power to interfere with the freedom of the individual American citizen. Meanwhile, let us examine the briefs of March, 1920. In them, despite our regret that not one of them was written in our behalf, it may be possible, it ought to be a certainty, that we will hear something about the “when” and the “how,” _after_ 1907, we are supposed to have lost our status as free men and citizens of America. CHAPTER XXI BRIEFS IGNORE THE AMERICAN CITIZEN There is one man whose skill as an artist could do justice to the atmosphere in which all the briefs of that March must have been written. Unfortunately, the reports of the death of that man are no longer greatly exaggerated. It is unfortunate that the man who pictured the sensations of a Yankee in King Arthur’s Court could not have lived to reverse the feat. Only his genius could picture one of the Americans of 1790 living in the atmosphere of the briefs of 1920 _for_ the new Amendment and learning therein that the Americans of his own day never became citizens of America. Only the unique word-artist, who defined a cauliflower as a cabbage with a college education, could adequately state the startling fact that not one of the briefers knew that all were assembled in the court room of March, 1920, seriously to debate whether the Americans in 1788 voluntarily surrendered their status as free men and, repealing their Statute of ’76, declared themselves and their posterity subject to a legislative government superior to what they called their supreme legislature, a legislative government “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”