Any concept to the contrary is the most Tory doctrine ever stated as American law since July 4, 1776. It is blind to the fact that, by the Constitution, the whole American people, “in their aggregate capacity,” created a new nation of men and set it above the existing and continued federation of states; to the fact that the whole American people made that Constitution one with _national_ Articles, relating to the government of men, and with _federal_ Articles, relating to the government of states; and to the fact that the whole American people knew and settled that only “conventions” of themselves could make _national_ Articles, although state legislatures, as attorneys in fact for their respective states, could make _federal_ Articles; and to the fact that the Tenth Amendment names two distinct reservees of existing power, “the states respectively,” who are the members of the subordinate federation, and “the people,” who are the members of the supreme nation of men; and to the fact that the Fifth Article grants no power whatever but mentions the “state legislatures,” who act for the members of the federation, and the “conventions,” who alone can ever act for the members of the supreme nation, when the latter are to make a change in _their_ part of the Constitution, the _national_ part. But we find the brief of Hughes, like the briefs of his associates, actually challenging any right of review by the Supreme Court, when the attorneys in fact for the states and state citizens, although the states have nothing whatever to do with _that_ part of the dual Constitution which relates _to the nation of men_, actually attempt to change the quantum of power (to interfere with their own individual freedom) granted by the nation of men to their only government. His challenge even goes to the extreme of boldly asserting that the “propriety and advisability of amendments,” even though they infringe upon the individual freedom of the members of the nation of men, must be finally determined by the governments of state citizens, which have nothing to do with the nation of men which is America. His challenge is that the Supreme Court is powerless to protect the liberty of the American citizens if thirty-six governments of state citizens decide to interfere with that liberty in matters not enumerated in the First Article. The challenge is exactly the challenge of Lord North to the Americans in 1775. It is exactly the challenge which the British Parliament would make, if we were still its “subjects.” As basic American law, it is sheer nonsense.