Rita Peters Rebuts Article V Convention Criticisms, Emphasizing Historical Precedents and State Control
Rita Peters, Senior Vice President for Legislative Affairs at Convention of States, has penned a sharp response to criticisms leveled against the prospect of an Article V Convention. In a recent op-ed, Brian Almon of The Gem State Chronicle voiced concerns about the potential unpredictability of such a convention, suggesting a lack of control over its outcomes. Peters, however, contends that Almon’s arguments are grounded in fear rather than factual analysis, and systematically dismantles his claims by highlighting historical precedents, legal frameworks, and the inherent structure of the Article V process.
Peters emphasizes that the very purpose of the Article V convention mechanism, as documented in James Madison’s notes and other historical writings, is to empower states to propose amendments independently of Congress. This, she argues, debunks the notion that states cannot define and limit the scope of a convention, a scenario that would portray the Founding Fathers as inept. Further strengthening her argument, Peters points to the extensive history of interstate conventions in the United States, where states have consistently demonstrated their ability to set agendas, instruct delegates, and maintain equal voting rights.
Citing both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, Peters underscores the intended role of Article V in preserving state sovereignty. Both Founding Fathers viewed this mechanism as a critical safeguard against federal overreach, ensuring that states retain ultimate authority within the federal system. This historical context, according to Peters, provides further evidence of the controlled and limited nature of Article V conventions, where delegates are bound by the directives of their respective state legislatures.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. Washington serves as another cornerstone of Peters’ argument. This ruling affirmed the power of states to bind their electors through pledge laws, emphasizing their role as agents of the state. Peters argues that the same principle applies to delegates at an Article V convention, solidifying the authority of state legislatures to control and limit their delegates’ actions. This legal precedent, she points out, was instrumental in shifting the perspective of influential figures like John Malcolm at The Heritage Foundation.
Addressing Almon’s specific fears regarding a convention potentially exceeding its mandate, Peters challenges his hypothetical scenario where a convention called to address fiscal restraints, federal power limits, and term limits might instead propose an amendment abolishing the Electoral College. She counters this by posing several questions that expose the illogical nature of such a scenario. Why, she asks, would Congress wait for 34 applications on unrelated topics if it desired to abolish the Electoral College? And if Congress and the states truly favored abolishing the Electoral College, wouldn’t they pursue this through existing legislative channels? Peters’ questions highlight the inherent limitations embedded within the Article V process, where the topics specified in state applications define the scope of the convention. She further points to the lack of Democratic support for the Convention of States movement in Idaho and the active opposition from Democratic organizations as evidence against Almon’s claims of a leftist takeover.
Peters concludes by acknowledging the inherent impossibility of guaranteeing any future outcome with absolute certainty. However, she argues that this is not a valid reason to forgo the use of the Article V convention process. Such logic, she asserts, would paralyze any political action, as there are no absolute guarantees that any institution will function precisely as intended. She appeals to those who revere the Constitution to trust the very processes it outlines, rather than allowing fear to undermine its mechanisms.
Peters’ comprehensive rebuttal provides a robust defense of the Article V convention process, emphasizing its historical context, legal grounding, and practical safeguards against runaway conventions. She directly addresses the concerns raised by critics like Almon, providing counterarguments rooted in historical evidence and legal precedent. Ultimately, she calls for a reasoned and informed approach to Article V, urging trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the system they designed.