Changing residence

[Sanford Levinson]

My thanks to Rick Friedman for his illuminating discussion.  I'm not sure,
though, that White helps him all that much, because, given the description,
it really does sound as if White "had abaondoned the old WV home," even
though it turns out, because of circumstances (more of less) beyond his
control, he never actually spent the night in Pa.  With Cheney, it's hard
to see the abandonment.  Again, I point to the fact that, so far as I know
(I could be wrong, of course), he hasn't put up the Dallas homestead for
sale and/or announced that he will start living in Wyoming at the earliest
possible (realistic) opportunity.  (I think it is a proper question to ask
where we expect Cheney to live if he does *not* become VP.  That is, he may
well choose Wyoming as his vacation refuge if he's VP, since most rich
Texans head for the hills, whether in New Mexico or Colorado, for their own
vacations.  But the real test is if he pledges, plausibly, to return to
Wyoming as non-VP.  Nobody really expected Bob Dole to return to Russell,
or Gerald Ford to return to Lansing, but they had never renounced their
initial habitation by starting new lives in other states.  And I've already
conceded that we have adopted, as a constitutional convention (perhaps in a
British sense) that one can live in DC forever as an elected official and
maintain residence and habitation in one's original state.  But Cheney
breached that convention, and now he wants to take advantage of it.  How
very Clintonian!  (Gratuitous slap.)

I think Rick (and most others) are willing to cut him slack because they
(properly?) believe that the 12th amendment issue is absolutely trivial, if
not "stupid."  And, of course, they are probably right.  But this doesn't
affect my major point, which is that if we, as a constitutional culture,
perceived that something important really *were* (I use the subjunctive
precisely to underline the contrary-to-factness) at stake, whether it be
collecting inheritance taxes or anything else, then we might be more
rigorous (I hesitate to say "strict") in our interpretation.

Sandy

At 03:20 PM 08/07/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>It doesn't take long to change domicile.  One case that might be of
>interest is the classic White v. Tennant, 31 W Va 790 (1888).  Michael
>White lived in WV all his life, decided to move over the border in PA onto
>a corner of a family farm.  They move all their stuff there but don't spend
>the night, because the house is damp and Mrs. W feels sick.  So they go to
>the mansion house, which is in WV.  Turns out Mrs W has typhoid; Michael
>cares for her, going to the PA house to tend the animals, but of course he
>comes down with it too and dies about 2 weeks later, never having spent a
>night in the PA house.  WV court holds he died a domiciliary of PA for
>purposes of intestacy law.  White had abandoned the old WV home, but I'm
>not sure it would have changed the result if, say, he had kept it with the
>intention of spending summers there.  (I have to say, though, that I fought
>one of these moving-to-Florida cases on behalf of my parents, and what
>finally persuaded the NYS tax folks to drop the whole thing was that after
>the years in dispute they had sold the NY house.)
>
>I do think that this is an area where words can have different meanings in
>different contexts.  And even if inhabitant is taken as a synonym for
>domiciliary, I think it may make sense to put more emphasis in the
>political context than in other contexts on the exercise of political
>rights.  That's what the Beck committee did, and it emphasized Beck's being
>part of the body politic of PA.  I think there's more to the comment that
>Cheney is "from Wyoming" than Sandy was willing to grant.
>
>Sandy -- let's say Cheney now ran for the House from Wyoming, but being
>confident of victory he spent most of his time campaigning all over the
>country for other Republicans.  Would you say he's ineligible?  Of course,
>you might not, and yet say that he's an inhabitant of both Texas and
>Wyoming for purposes of the 12th amendment.  But again note, for what it's
>worth, that the Beck Committee, in the art. I context, said a person
>could be an inhabitant of only one state.
>
>Rich Friedman
>
>At 09:47 AM 8/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Marty Lederman writes;
>> >Small qualification:  The 12th Amendment question is not whether Cheney
>>inhabits Wyoming; but whether he inhabits Texas.  Isn't it possible --
>>indeed, likely -- that for purposes of the 12th Amendment, Cheney is an
>>inhabitant of both states?
>> >
>>
>>
>>Let me offer another analogy:  I recall from my father-in-law's adopting,
>>about fifteen years ago, Florida as his primary residence (in order to
>>escape more onerous Ohio estate taxes), that it wasn't enough even to buy a
>>home there, but that he had to spend most of the year in Florida.  Needless
>>to say, this is another area of law I am totally ignorant about, so I ask
>>the following as a genuine question:  Had my father-in-law died only a
>>couple of months after moving to Florida (and retaining an Ohio home),
>>would Ohio have been estopped from collecting estate taxes, or could Ohio
>>have properly said that he didn't lose his status as an inhabitant of Ohio
>>until, say, a year had passed in which he spent most of his time in
>>Florida?  Could Florida (or Delaware or Nevada, etc.) offer new
>>residents-inhabitants a guarantee that they would escape their prior
>>habitation immediately upon arrival in the new state, purchasing a piece of
>>property, and declaring, "I'm home"?  Was my father-in-law an "inhabitant"
>>of both Ohio and Florida at least until enough time had passed to meet any
>>durational requirements?  And is any of the answers to these questions, or
>>to earlier questions about diversity of citizenship, at all relevant to
>>constitutional interpretation?  I.e., is the just one more area where the
>>answer to the question, "Of what state is X an inhabitant (or resident,
>>etc.)" depends on the specific area of law, or even particular statute,
>>that is being interpreted?
>>
>>Sandy
>