We have examined the four conclusions of the Supreme Court which deal with any argument _presented_ against the existence of the Eighteenth Amendment. Those conclusions negative every such argument that was presented. But, because every brief assumed and asserted that the amending power “_reserved_” in the Fifth Article had been “_granted_” therein, the four conclusions make clear that the Court has yet to hear and pass upon the challenge which reads the Eighteenth Amendment out of our Constitution. When that challenge is presented by American lawyers, who know what American basic law is and how American citizens are constitutionally protected against usurpation of power by governments in America, there can be no doubt of the decision of the Supreme Court. In _that_ decision, there will be no conclusion denying the most important legal fact in America, namely, that _governments_ cannot exercise ungranted power or create new government power to interfere with the individual freedom of the American citizen. In _that_ decision, there will be again the simple statement of the undoubted fact that the ability to make the Eighteenth Amendment “is within the power to amend _reserved_ by Article V.” But, in _that_ decision, there will be _added_ the plain statement of the Tenth Amendment that such ability was _not reserved_ to the state legislatures who never had it, but _was_ reserved to the “conventions,” who always had it and still have it. And, comparing that future decision (which is certain to come from the Supreme Court) with the decision, which merely negatived the four unsound challenges which _were_ made to the Eighteenth Amendment, we know that the first five conclusions of the latter decision--all the conclusions that have aught to do with the existence and validity of the Eighteenth Amendment--merely hold that the existence of the new Amendment is not affected by any of these challenges which _were_ made. With exceeding wisdom in our humble opinion, the Court carefully refrains from passing upon or determining any question except the exact challenges which _were_ presented. That is why no opinion was written. When any general statement (seeming to bear upon questions not presented or submitted) might come back to perplex and annoy the Court in future litigation where protected liberty of the American citizen was the challenge to the government-made new Article, common sense and sound reason and the experience of generations dictated that no general statement should be made. And, as there was but one way to avoid a single general statement, no opinion was written. This method of deciding those particular litigations, with their four unsound challenges, would leave the decision itself without even an apparent influence upon a litigation in which some _real_ challenge might be presented.