I had heard rumors of this report (or one like it) circulating in private for some time now. We have had some direct evidence that Rob has been expressing these opinions in private discussions while publicly claiming to be neutral on the issue. For example, in mid-January 2016, we came into possession of emails sent by Rob to a private Article V yahoo group expressing essentially the same opinions.
But now Rob is fully "out of the closet" with his longstanding opposition to the merits of the Compact for America approach to Article V.
And we think that's good!
It is much more healthy for the Article V movement that our differences be aired and debated publicly. The issues involved in the movement are of the highest importance and magnitude. No one with serious doubts, however mistaken, about any part of the movement should feel forced to hide in the shadows, privately expressing those doubts, while publicly and disingenuously claiming neutrality.
For this reason, we welcome Rob's recent public candor.
But that does not mean we agree with Rob's conclusions.
Far from it.
Unfortunately, the report Rob and the Independence Institute have published does not appear to grapple with any of the research we’ve published since January 2016. This is not terribly surprising because, based on its website address (https://www.i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CFA-Report-final.pdf) the report was apparently uploaded to a slot designated for the year 2015, possibly in . . . 2015.
However outdated it may be, here are the basic problems with Rob's report:
First, Rob does not grapple with the mechanics of the Compact or the law of interstate compacts.
Second, Rob misunderstands the legal theory(ies) that sustain the Compact. The Compact is actually capable of working with just about any legal theory of Article V, even Rob's preferred theory, although we prefer the theory that the Founders’ intended and repeatedly articulated.
Third, Rob asserts that there is a body of binding case law governing the Compact approach to Article V, when in fact there is not. There is very little, if any, directly relevant persuasive precedent, much less binding precedent on the matter. That's why we prefer to resort to first principles.
Soon, our Council of Scholars will engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of every adverse argument made by Rob in his report.
In the meantime, we suggest reading the following policy briefs as a preview of what's to come: