It will serve no useful purpose for us to dwell further upon the briefs against validity. They all show the universal conviction that the Fifth Article _is_ a “grant” and makes the state legislatures attorneys in fact for ourselves, the citizens of America, who elect not a single member in the state legislatures. Naturally, as this fundamental error is the invincible conviction of all counsel against validity before any brief is written, none of those briefs mentions such simple facts as the fact decided by the Supreme Court in Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 _Pet._ 243. That decision, by John Marshall, decisively settled the legal fact that the Fifth Article grants no power to the state legislatures to make the Eighteenth Amendment. _And_, as it also decisively settled that the Fifth Article _does not give_ the state legislatures _any_ power whatever, it destroys the absurd concept that the Fifth Article makes the state legislatures attorneys in fact for those who made the Fifth Article, the citizens of America, the “conventions” of the Fifth Article and the Seventh Article. But lawyers, who start to write briefs with the certain (although false) “knowledge” that the Fifth Article _does_ make the state legislatures attorneys in fact for the citizens of America, neither know the meaning of that decision nor state the decision and its meaning and its effect upon the Eighteenth Amendment in the briefs which they write. The decision is very clear. We have met it earlier in our education herein. It will bear repetition right now, when we find fifty-seven lawyers all “knowing” that the Fifth Article (despite the declaration of the Tenth Amendment) does give power to the state governments and, by giving it, makes these governments attorneys in fact for the citizens of America. Barron claimed that a state statute was void because it came in conflict with the restriction imposed by the Article which is the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution. If the restriction applied to the state legislatures and their powers, the statute was clearly void. Therefore, as Marshall pointed out, the Court had but one question to solve, whether the American Constitution (in which is the Fifth Article) granted _any_ power to the state governments. If it did, then general restrictions in that Constitution, as they clearly applied to all powers _granted_ in that Constitution, applied to the state governments. On the contrary, if the Constitution granted _no_ power to the state governments, general restrictions in the Constitution would not apply to the state governments. For which reason, the decision of the case itself was to depend on one thing alone, whether there _was_ any power granted in the entire Constitution to the state governments. If there was not, the decision would be against Barron.