The Supreme Court had listened, for several days, to many clever arguments against the new _national_ Article. The arguments had challenged validity on the ground that the new Article infringed upon the political freedom of some political entity, such as a state or its government. Sometimes the arguments had challenged validity on the ground that the new Article infringed upon the liberty of the citizens _of some particular state_. No argument had challenged validity on the one patent and unanswerable ground that the “conventions” of 1788 had provided that no _national_ Article, which (like the First Article and the Eighteenth Amendment) directly interferes with or grants power to interfere with individual liberty of the American citizen, could ever be CONSTITUTIONALLY made, except in the one CONSTITUTIONAL mode of procedure, in which the _only_ competent makers of _national_ Articles can make _such_ Articles, the “conventions in three fourths of” the states, mentioned in the Fifth Article. Rice of Rhode Island, one of the many prominent lawyers _against_ validity, was urging his particular argument. Ignoring the citizens of America in the “conventions” of the Fifth Article, he claimed that no power in America could interfere with individuals in Rhode Island, outside the First Article matters, without the consent of Rhode Island itself. He was interrupted by the Court. In substance, this is the question and answer that followed: Justice Brandeis: “The court is now fully acquainted with the nature of the arguments of the various counsel as to why the new Article has _not_ been validly made. The Court would like to know, In what way do counsel think that the new Article _could_ be _constitutionally_ made?” And the answer of Rice, undoubtedly voicing the conviction of all his colleagues, for none of them had any other answer to volunteer, was: “_In no way._”