Root was their leader. A distinguished public leader and considered by many to be the leader of the American Bar, there was special reason why _he_ should have known the ability of _government_ to _make_ national Articles in a Constitution, _only_ when men are “subjects,” and the inability of _governments_ to _make_ such Articles, when men are “citizens.” If his brief, or the brief of any challenger, had urged this real and invincible challenge, we would have found the mention of that challenge in the decision _and it would not have been a refutation of that challenge_. That we may confirm our knowledge that the brief of Root, _like the brief of every challenger_, did not make this challenge, the challenge that the Fifth Article is _no “grant”_ but a _mention_ of two existing abilities and a mode of CONSTITUTIONAL procedure for the respective exercise of each, let us read the brief’s own statements of the three challenges it does make. “The plaintiff contends that this attempted amendment to the Constitution of the United States is invalid (1) because it constitutes mere legislation, and is, therefore, not authorized by Article V of the Constitution, (2) because it impairs the reserved police or governmental powers of the several States and their right to local self-government, and (3) because it has not been ratified by three fourths of the several States since it has not been submitted to the electorate of the States in which the initiative, or the referendum, or both, prevail (assignment of errors Nos. 1-5). These questions are discussed in points II, III, and IV, respectively. In point I the prior amendments to the Constitution are considered with reference to these contentions, and in point V the justiciability of the contentions is maintained.” Its first challenge is itself the admission that all CONSTITUTIONAL ability to change our Constitution is ability “_granted_” in the Fifth Article. Moreover, it is the flat denial of any CONSTITUTIONAL mode of procedure in which the citizens of America, by a “Yes” from three fourths of their assembled “conventions,” can enact the legislation which is Section One of the supposed Eighteenth Amendment. Its second challenge is wholly on behalf of the political entities, which are the states. It not only makes no claim for the rights of American citizens, but it denies any CONSTITUTIONAL ability in the American citizens to interfere, by changing the American Constitution, with what _the American citizens_ reserved to each state and _its citizens_. The third challenge again fails to assert any claim on behalf of the rights of the _American_ citizens. It is the challenge negatived by the third conclusion of the Supreme Court. It is the challenge that the citizens _of the State_, in some of the states, are part of the state legislature.