modest proposal of secession

Volokh, Eugene VOLOKH at
Fri Jan 27 10:40:19 PST 2006

	Of course it is -- but sometimes even tearing things down is
pretty difficult, no?  Seriously, as I asked, can anyone please name the
states which they think will actually secede -- states in which a
temporary annoyance with this current batch of political leaders (who
could easily be replaced in 2008 or 2012 with a Democrat, who might not
be as far left as a few people might like but who'd likely be not far
from that state's median voter) will overcome feelings of (1) American
patriotism, (2) concerns about economic practicalities, (3) deep
connections to friends and family in other states, friends and family
whom people have always seen and will always see as fellow citizens, and
more?  Can anyone name the states in which a secession movement would
even garner 30% of the vote?  In which it would be anything but
political suicide for whatever party should tolerate it within its


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Sheridan [mailto:bobsheridan at] 
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:32 AM
> To: Volokh, Eugene
> Cc: conlawprof at
> Subject: Re: modest proposal of secession
> It's a lot easier to tear things down than to build them up...
> rs
> sfls
> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> >	I'm sorry, but I'm a little puzzled here.  Why would 
> Bush's government 
> >*need* to resist a secession movement?  As the old political 
> saw goes, 
> >don't try to kill a guy who's already committing suicide.
> >
> >
> >	It seems to me that someone in this conversation is not 
> fully in touch 
> >with political reality.  I fully recognize that it might 
> possibly be me 
> >-- but is it really?
> >
> >	Eugene
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: conlawprof-bounces at
> >>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at] On Behalf Of guayiya
> >>Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:43 PM
> >>To: lawcourts-l at; Discussion list for con law professors
> >>Subject: Re: modest proposal of secession
> >>
> >>
> >>Some comments on responses to my post:.
> >>Professors Sheridan and Volokh: Why would Bush's government
> >>be compelled 
> >>to resist a secession movement, forcibly or otherwise?  If 
> >>it's obvious 
> >>that Bush would emulate Milosevic and not Havel, what does that say 
> >>about Bush?  It would further his domestic agenda if New York, 
> >>Hollywood, Boston and other liberal dens of iniquity were 
> >>gone.  Surely 
> >>the downside is not just that red states, unwilling to tax 
> >>themselves, 
> >>need the federal subsidies they get from blue states?  How do blue 
> >>states benefit?  Likewise, why wouldn't both sides gain if pro-life 
> >>states seceded?
> >>Professor Yin: I agree that secession by states is less 
> conducive to 
> >>individual self-determination than secession by individuals (a la 
> >>Nozick) would be.  But that's even less practical.
> >>Professor Noble: I was not alive during Monroe's "era of good 
> >>feeling", 
> >>but I'm certain no one would call our period by that name.  
> >>It is true 
> >>that most ordinary Americans know and care little about 
> >>politics, but  
> >>congressional voting patterns, media channels and interest group 
> >>activities are all very highly polarized.  Moreover, distrust of 
> >>politicians, traditional procedures and institutions is very high, 
> >>especially among Democrats.  Lack of support for decisive measures 
> >>probably reflects weak leadership, ignorance and apathy more 
> >>than belief 
> >>in the system or content with the situation.
> >>Daniel Hoffman
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> >
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as 
> >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages 
> that are 
> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members 
> can (rightly 
> >or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >  
> >

More information about the Conlawprof mailing list