When we do come later herein to the briefs and arguments of the opponents and supporters of the supposed Eighteenth Amendment, we shall look in vain to find therein the faintest suggestion of a claim that there is anything in the record of September 10, 1787, to justify their extraordinary and unfounded assumption that the Fifth Article, on that day, was changed so as to make it a grant of power from the “conventions” of the people to the “conventions” of the whole American people and to the state legislatures. On the contrary, we shall find every opponent of the supposed new Amendment making easy the way of its supporters by joining in the common assumption of all and predicating every argument against the new Amendment on the same extraordinary assumption that the Fifth Article _is_ a grant of power to the grantors and to the state governments. Not once, in any brief or argument of the most renowned lawyers in America, shall we find even the faintest knowledge of two facts which must be so _if_ the Fifth Article _is_ a grant of power to the two supposed grantees. That each of the two facts is a patent absurdity will not alter the logic that they must be facts, _if_ the Fifth Article is a grant to those two grantees. The first patently absurd fact is that, if the Fifth Article is a grant, the “conventions” of 1788 granted to _themselves_, the supposed grantors, exactly the same omnipotent power to make all Articles, which the grantors (a supposed grantee) were exercising at the very moment when they made the Fifth Article. The second patently absurd fact, if the Fifth Article is a grant, is that the whole people of America, assembled in their “conventions,” after eleven years as free men, voluntarily relinquished that status to become, as the whole people of America, “subjects” of the same legislative governments who are one of the supposed donees of the absurd and imaginary grant. This remarkable fact follows as the logical conclusion of the concept that the “conventions” granted to the “conventions” and to the state governments, with Congress to determine which shall exercise it, the very omnipotent power which the people themselves (the supposed grantors) were then exercising in their “conventions” and which eleven years before they had denied to the British Parliament. When we later realize that none of our modern leaders saw either absurd fact to be the certain result of the concept that the Fifth Article _is_ a grant, we average Americans ought certainly to be convinced that, if we wish to keep our individual rights in any matter, it is going to be necessary for us to understand _for ourselves_ how our Constitution secures those rights to us.