EDITORIAL: An Open Letter to Brian Almon at Gem State Chronicle

By Rita Peters, Senior Vice President for Legislative Affairs, Convention of States Action

Mr. Almon,

I was sorry to read your published opposition to Convention of States (COS) today (the very day of our Idaho House Committee hearing). While it contains a number of incorrect facts and raises a number of questions that, in fact, have answers, the worst thing about it is the way it slanders our Founding Fathers. They weren’t scoundrels who violated the public trust. They were honorable statesmen.

It is painful to me to see the leftist-originated myth of the “runaway convention” repeated in your article. Michael Farris has definitively refuted it in this Harvard law journal. I have yet to hear anyone who repeats the runaway myth explain where they find fault in Farris’ research. They just keep saying the same things over and over again, even though they have been proven incorrect. This does nothing to advance the public discussion; it does the opposite.

I’m writing to you in the hope that you are different and that you would be honorable enough to (1) actually read this research and (2) either explain where you find error in it or admit your mistake.

Of course, your article raises more objections to an Article V convention than just your belief that 1787 was a runaway. But it doesn’t even mention Professor Rob Natelson’s legal treatise on The Law of Article V, which addresses each one of the claims in your article with objective legal citations and facts.

Professor Rob Natelson (cited by SCOTUS 39 times at last count) and Michael Farris (former President of ADF, responsible for making homeschooling legal in all 50 states) are serious, credentialed conservatives who have done serious research and writing on this topic. Michael Farris actually litigated an Article V case in Idaho.

I believe it is irresponsible for a fellow conservative to take a position on an issue of national importance–a position that aligns with the radical Left– without at least considering or responding to the work that conservative experts like these have done on it. Serious scholarship always accounts for contrary research. While you point people to the Convention of States website, you don’t even mention the existence of these primary scholarly sources.

In case you are, as I hope, willing to give the other side a fair shake, Natelson’s treatise is available on Amazon. I also offer two additional articles, one written by David Horowitz, the other written by John Malcolm at The Heritage Foundation) in the hope that you will give them a fair reading, in the interest of giving the Founders’ solution to federal overreach a chance.

Originally published at conventionofstates.com