No brief recognizes that one of the supposed grantees _is_ the supposed grantor. No brief seems to know that the supposed grantees were respectively competent makers of certain kinds of Articles even before the Fifth Article was written at Philadelphia. No brief seems to know--or to sense the decisive effect of the fact--that, within the twelve years which immediately preceded the supposed “grant,” each of the two respective makers of Articles, who are mentioned in the Fifth Article, had exercised its respective ability to make Articles _of a certain kind_. No brief seems to know that one of the supposed grantees, the “conventions,” at the very moment of the supposed “grant,” was exercising its own unlimited ability to make Articles of every kind. For all that the briefs disclose, in the decisive effect of the two facts upon the supposed validity of the Eighteenth Amendment, the “state legislatures” might never have made the _federal_ Articles of 1781 and the “conventions” might never have made the _federal_ and _national_ Articles of 1788. No brief urges the greatest legal decision made at Philadelphia in 1787 as binding legal authority that the state “legislatures” of the Fifth Article _never_ can, while the Fifth Article “conventions” _always_ can, make a _national_ Article like the First Article or the Eighteenth Amendment. One brief does suggest that decision as authority for the absurd proposition that the Fifth Article mentions no CONSTITUTIONAL mode in which even the exclusive ability of the “conventions” of the American citizens can be again exercised to make Articles like the First Article and the Eighteenth Amendment. In urging that absurd proposition, the briefer wholly ignores the fact that the Philadelphia Convention, which made that legal decision, reached its conclusion by ascertaining what were and still are the _respective_ abilities (to make Articles) of the state “legislatures” and the “conventions,” both of which are named as future makers in the Fifth Article. No brief recognizes the fact (or urges any argument based upon it) that the Constitution _is_ both a _federal_ and a _national_ Constitution. For which reason, no brief points out that the Tenth Amendment expressly reserves the ability to make _federal_ Articles to the state “legislatures” and the exclusive ability to make _national_ Articles to the “conventions.” For which reason, no brief points out that each of the two reservees, named in the Tenth Amendment, is mentioned separately in the Fifth Article as a possible maker of future articles, whenever a proposed future Article is of the kind which the existing ability of the proposed maker is competent to make. No brief, _against_ the new Amendment, challenges the sheer and absurd assumption that the Fifth Article _is_ a “grant.” No brief, _for_ the new Amendment, offers or suggests the slightest fact in support of that sheer assumption.