Because of this monumental error, every brief against the Amendment asserts that the state legislatures are attorneys in fact for the citizens of America but insists that the Fifth Article (the assumed power of attorney in a Constitution which expressly declares that _no_ power is given to the state legislatures) grants to the state legislatures (as well as to the “grantors” themselves) only _limited_ ability on behalf of the principal, the citizens of America. On this altogether unique argument, it is contended that the limited power of attorney does not confer ability to make an Amendment like the Eighteenth. Because all briefs make the same monumental error, there is no challenge on the ground that the state legislatures, not a member of which is elected by the citizens of America, hold _no_ power of attorney from the citizens of America to interfere in any way, in any matter, with the individual freedom of the American citizens. Because all briefs against the Amendment make the same monumental error, the fourth challenge (which _was_ made and considered by the Court) is based upon the heretical doctrine--the heresy being clear from what we have heard in the “conventions” where we sat--that the Fifth Article does not mention a CONSTITUTIONAL mode in which the citizens of America, again assembled in their “conventions,” can take back from their American government any enumerated power of the First Article which they find oppressive to their individual rights and freedom. And, perhaps most amazing and amusing fact of all, because all briefs make the same monumental error, the briefs _for_ the Amendment make no effort to support and the briefs _against_ the Amendment make no attempt to challenge the clear paradox, on which the Eighteenth Amendment depends for its existence, that there never has been a citizen of America if it be true that the Fifth Article makes the state governments the attorneys in fact _for_ the citizens of America with _unlimited_ ability to interfere with the individual freedom of the citizens of America. Where such unlimited ability _is_ in government, men are not “citizens” but “subjects.” But we ourselves come from the “conventions” where the Americans knew that they entered as free men and left as citizens of America, not as “subjects” of any governments. Therefore, we need no lawyer to tell us--and no lawyer can deny our knowledge--that, if the state governments are the attorneys in fact for the American citizens and have ability either to interfere with or to grant power to interfere with the individual liberty of the American citizens, or, if _any_ governments can interfere with that liberty on a matter not enumerated in the First Article, there never were American citizens and the early Americans entered their “conventions” free men but left those “conventions” as “subjects” of an omnipotent government. CHAPTER XXIV GOVERNMENTS CLAIM AMERICANS AS SUBJECTS