_Why_ none of these briefs did make this challenge became known to us when Rice of Rhode Island, with the silence of his colleagues marking their approval, answered the Court that the new Article could not be _constitutionally_ made. _Why_ they did not make the challenge will be emphasized when we read the leading brief against the new Amendment. Over fifty times it will admit and state that the Fifth Article _is_ a “_grant_” of power to _state_ legislatures from _American_ citizens and claim the “_granted_” power is a limited power and does not include ability to make an Amendment like the Eighteenth because such Amendment takes away the reserved power _of a state or political entity_. Then, to emphasize what it does not know about the “conventions” of the Fifth Article and the reserved powers of the citizens of America, this brief will go on to tell us that there is no _constitutional_ mode in which can be made an Article which takes more power away from any state; that such an Article may only be made, outside any _constitutional_ mode, by having the people themselves rescind “the social compact” which is their American Constitution and having them make “such new compact as they please”; but that such new compact, such new Article of that kind, cannot “be validly and legally made to come to pass against the objection and protest of _any_ state.” All this clearly explains _why_ none of the briefers were able to answer correctly the question asked by the Court. How could they tell the Court in _what_ way the Eighteenth Amendment could be _constitutionally_ made, when all of them “knew” that there was no _constitutional_ mode in which the “conventions” of the American citizens could make it, and when they “knew” that it could not be made, even outside the Constitution, without the consent of the citizens of _every_ state? The most important words in the Fifth Article, “in conventions in three fourths thereof,” did not mean to these briefers what they meant to the Americans who made the Fifth Article or to Madison and Hamilton who wrote the Fifth Article and suggested it at Philadelphia. In the word “conventions,” they did not recognize the Seventh Article “conventions” of the American citizens describing themselves by exactly the same word, “conventions,” in the Fifth Article. In the words “in three fourths thereof” after the word “conventions,” they did not recognize the great security to human freedom which we have learned with the Americans who wrote and who made the Fifth Article. They did not recognize how the American people, by these words, made it _their_ constitutional command that they themselves, again assembled in their conventions, by a “Yes” from three fourths of their “conventions” _and without_ the consent of the Americans in the other “conventions,” might withdraw any power granted in the First Article and might add any new power to its enumerated grants, whenever _they_ deemed such withdrawal