or such addition would better secure and protect American individual liberty. _That_ not one of the briefers _did_ make _our_ challenge is our certain knowledge when we read the four challenges they did make and which are negatived in the first four conclusions of the Court. The first two relate to the manner of the _proposal_ that governments create government of men in America. Who cares _how_ one government makes a silly _proposal_? The one important thing is that no governments shall attempt _to act upon_ a proposal which denies the most important legal fact in America, that _governments_ cannot constitute new government ability to interfere with individual liberty. The fourth challenge that was made is the absurd challenge that the Fifth Article does not _mention_ a CONSTITUTIONAL mode of procedure in which the citizens of America may again _directly_ grant to _their_ government new power to interfere with their own individual liberty and in which--far more important to the “conventions” which named themselves (the “conventions”) in their Fifth Article--the American citizens can directly take back any part of the granted power of the First Article which they find oppressive to their individual liberty. This challenge neither knows nor makes any distinction between the state “legislatures” and the “conventions” of the American citizens or the mention of either in the Fifth Article. It is a challenge which has not the knowledge we bring from the first “conventions,” the knowledge that “legislatures” are mentioned on account of their existing ability to make _federal_ or declaratory Articles and that “conventions” are mentioned on account of their exclusive ability to make Articles _of any kind_. It is a challenge which assumes and asserts and is based wholly upon the absurd assumption that the Fifth Article is a “grant” of power to make Articles. On this absurd assumption of this patently absurd “grant,” this fourth challenge, frankly stated in our own words, is as follows: “In the Fifth Article, the ‘conventions’ grant to the two grantees--the grantors and the state legislatures--an _identical_ ability to make new Articles. We admit that, if the ‘conventions’ of the Fifth Article could constitutionally make the Eighteenth Amendment, the state legislatures can also constitutionally make it. But our challenge is that the ‘grant,’ in the Fifth Article, is limited in extent and that neither the ‘conventions’ nor the state legislatures can constitutionally make the Eighteenth Amendment.”