If we want further confirmation of our knowledge that this brief does not make the real challenge, namely, that the Fifth Article is no grant to the supposed grantors and the state governments, we find it in the fact that the brief itself refers over fifty times to the Fifth Article _as a “grant”_ of limited ability to make Articles. If we need further confirmation, we find it in this fact. After the Supreme Court had negatived every proposition in that brief, its writers made application for a reargument. The application was based on one ground as far as concerned the _validity_ of the Amendment. That one ground was that the Court had written no opinion. From this one fact, the claim was made that the Court could not have considered the potency of the three challenges which had been urged in the brief. Educated with the earlier Americans, we believe that each of these three challenges, in its very statement, shows why it is unsound, and that no opinion was needed to explain its refutation. But the nature of the application shows the continued concept of the Fifth Article as a “grant.” If we look at the other briefs against validity, we will find all arguments based on the same monumental error that the Fifth Article _is_ a “_grant_” and that the state legislatures are therein named the attorneys for the citizens of America, although the latter, _as citizens of America_, never elect a single member in those legislatures and the Tenth Amendment expressly declares that the Constitution gives no power of any kind to the states or their legislatures. On the impossible hypothesis of this monumental error are budded the most extraordinary arguments. In more than one brief, it is urged that, in the Fifth Article, the whole people of America made a certain number of state legislatures their own attorneys in fact to amend the _American_ Constitution. But, urges the brief, the _American_ people have no power to change the state constitutions, and “therefore, the grantees,” the state legislatures, “cannot exceed the powers of their principal, the people of the United States.” And, the brief goes on, as the people of America cannot change a _state_ constitution, neither can the attorneys in fact of that whole American people, the state legislatures, change it. The ability of the people or citizens of America and of “_their_” attorneys in fact, the state legislatures, is only competent to change the Constitution of the citizens of America. But this Eighteenth Amendment changes the Constitution of each state. Ergo, that change is clearly beyond the power of the citizens of America and “_their_” attorneys in fact, the state legislatures!