Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts More on double standards
|
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
More on double standards
Sandy Levinson
Imagine that Bill Richardson (who, by the way, has far more executive experience than all of the rest of the candidates put together, should we really believe that such experience is the most important single attribute in choosing a President) gave a cordial greeting to a gathering of La Raza Unida, which, altogether plausibly, claims that the United States basically stole what is now New Mexico from Mexico by precipitating a totally indefensible "war of choice" in order to expand American territory, and has called in the past, I believe, for either independence or returning the land to the "mother country." Or imagine that his wife was actually a member of La Raza Unida. I literally cannot imagine that the bloviators in the right wing would refrain from trying to drum the good Governor out of "respectable" politics.
Comments:
Well, I completely disagree about the merits of the secessionist argument -- there are none.* That doesn't make me very sympathetic to the AKIP.
Your point about the double standard, though, is well-taken. The right has never needed or even bothered with an excuse to attack the patriotism of the left; Lord knows they would re-double their fury if there were the semblance of cause. *A negotiated departure with the consent of everyone is a different story.
Speaking as a southwesterner, I regard our absence of secessionist movements a remarkable tribute to our country and its skill at assimilating and winning loyalty. The Southwest was, indeed, stolen from Mexico in a shameless act of aggression against a weaker neighbor. The local Hispanic population has been culturally distinct and in a real sense outside. But we do not have any sort of "reunion" movement equivalent to, say, the IRA in North Ireland, nor a secessionist movement like the ETA in Spain.
Surely that says something remarkable about this country.
Your point about the double standard, though, is well-taken. The right has never needed or even bothered with an excuse to attack the patriotism of the left...
Yes, but there's a reason for the double standard - namely, that the left doesn't really care about patriotism. If McCain refused to wear those stupid flag pins, no one on the left would bring it up - not because of an invidious double standard, but because the left simply doesn't care about flag pins. If, on the other hand, McCain went to AIPAC and said he was for an "undivided Jersualem," as Obama did, we'd hear no end of stories about how ignorant he was, or how senile he'd become. To say nothing of what would happen if Palin made the same gaffe. The left likes to portray the opposition as stupid; the right likes to portray the opposition as snobbish and unpatriotic. I'll leave it to you to decide what's a better political strategy.
I speculate idly here whether Russia, as prior sovereign over Alaska, might have a reversionary claim to the place if the US abandons it to secessionists. The same argument could hold for Mexico and the US Southwest. There's actually nothing in the 1867 Alaska treaty that supports such a reading, but even the thinnest of cases hasn't deterred Putin in the Caucasus.
Does the Alaskan Independence Party claim that the state has a right to secede without the consent of the federal government? Wanting to be a separate country is different from claiming the unilateral right to be one.
FWIW, Amar's argument about the New York convention's discussion of secession--the state's rights people wanted to reserve a right to secede for a limited time, which wouldn't make sense if there was already a permanent right to secede--seems pretty compelling to me.
[Mark Field]: Your point about the double standard, though, is well-taken. The right has never needed or even bothered with an excuse to attack the patriotism of the left...
[tray]: Yes, but there's a reason for the double standard - namely, that the left doesn't really care about patriotism. I beg pardon to disagree. I think it more obvious that the right really doesn't care about hypocrisy and integrity. The left, albeit, doesn't care about stoopid lapel flag pins as much as the RW purportedly does ... at least on days when the RW foamer brigades are wearing theirs ... oh, waidaminnit, oooops!. Tray, you're packing in the RNC Post It!™ points here; soon they'll send you one of those neat tote bags... Cheers,
Yes, but there's a reason for the double standard - namely, that the left doesn't really care about patriotism.
Nice way to permanently discredit all your posts.
My vert good friend and co-editor Akhil Amar does indeed make a good case for the anti-secessionist position. The problem is that it rests on some statements at the New York ratifying convention (which, of course, made its decision after the nine states required by Article 7 had ratified the Constitution) and, in addition, requires accepting a certain form of originalism. It is beyond dispute that the Constitution does not speak explicitly to secession, and anyone who takes seriously a combination of "state compact/sovereignty" and "self-determination" must acknowledge that there is at least a tenable argument, within American political thought at least up to 1865, for secession.
I find it interesting that Mark field, after dismissing any potential merits to a secessionist argument, goes on to say that "a negotiated departure with the consent of everyone is a different story." Isn't the key question the circumstances under which "everyone" (else) should consent to the claims of a particular area of the country to go its own way? If Texas wishes to secede, what, precisely, are the arguments for refusing to consent to such a desire? That the rest of the US is better off with Texas? So that Texas is simply a means to an end of gratifying the desires of non-Texans? (To make it clear, I do not advocate Texas's secession. I am interested only in the structure of arguments pro and con. I am against secession because I think that Texas benefits from being in the Union.)
Even if NY was number 10, it's still mighty strong evidence of the assumptions of the time. And, of course, there are reasons to accept Amar's brand of originalism. (First chance to flog my new paper!) I suppose it depends what we mean by "explicitly." I've always liked Lincoln's argument that a perpetual union, made more perfect, is inconsistent with a unilateral right of secession.
Isn't the key question the circumstances under which "everyone" (else) should consent to the claims of a particular area of the country to go its own way?
The key is that when a state joins the Union, it agrees to be bound by the decisions of the Union (that's the Supremacy Clause). That gives the rest of us the right to participate in the decision. I'm sure Texas would never want to leave. Texans, I've no doubt, believe every word of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase "one nation, indivisible". I'm sure most Alaskans believe this also, even if the First Dude doesn't.
The key is that when a state joins the Union, it agrees to be bound by the decisions of the Union (that's the Supremacy Clause). That gives the rest of us the right to participate in the decision.
That's part of it. The other part of it is that forming a union involves MUTUAL benefit. For instance, if Beverly Hills were to secede from Los Angeles County, it would not only affect Beverly Hills, but also the rest of Los Angeles County (including, most obviously, by denying poorer sections of Los Angeles County access to the tax revenues generated by Beverly Hills). If California secedes from the United States, the US is deprived of its tax revenues, its beaches, the industry of its people, etc. So it isn't simply California's business; it's the country's. For that reason, the only truly legitimate secessions occur when both the seceding state and the remainder of the nation agree (or when the seceding state wins a war).
Me:Yes, but there's a reason for the double standard - namely, that the left doesn't really care about patriotism.
Mark: Nice way to permanently discredit all your posts. Me: I'm not saying that liberals are lacking in patriotism - just that I don't believe liberal commentators spend much time worrying about whether the opposition is sufficiently patriotic, or views a lack of patriotism as a disqualifying factor. Suppose it came out that Obama, in private conversation, said that he wasn't really so high on America - we're way too religious, backwards on healthcare and education, Europeans laugh at us, we're probably in decline, our institutions are poorly designed, in an ideal world we'd have some form of proportional representation, etc. - would the people who write the NYT editorial page mind? Or would they silently think, "right on"? I'd say the latter. Whereas the right would mind because they're committed to the belief that we really are the finest, most perfect nation in the world. Mistakenly so, probably. But you can't really believe that the left values patriotism as highly as the right.
But you can't really believe that the left values patriotism as highly as the right.
Actually, yes you really can. I think you're close, though. If you were to rephrase it "the left doesn't value conspicuous displays of patriotism as much as the right," I'd have no quibble. The left is ever-so-conscious of the fact that a display of patriotism (a flag pin, singing the national anthem, etc.) is worth nothing if the person is not willing to stridently defend America's ideals (e.g. be a patriot). The divide is not truly over patriotism, but over what America's ideals truly are. Reconcile those, and you'll heal the cultural divide.
"assuming that the 'founders' of a state have agreed to the supremacy clause, why should that be perpetually binding on everyone who comes later. perhaps compelling reasons may arise in which such submission no longer makes sense."
Article VI requires officeholders to take the oath themselves, though. They're free not to, but if they do, they're bound, not because of what the Founders said, but because they agreed to it today. For more see here.
assuming that the 'founders' of a state have agreed to the supremacy clause, why should that be perpetually binding on everyone who comes later. perhaps compelling reasons may arise in which such submission no longer makes sense.
In addition to Chris's point, I'll add that yours might have more force for older states.* However, AK voted for statehood in my lifetime. Unless you take the extreme Jeffersonian position that we have to re-do the Constitution every 19 years, that's awfully recent to be arguing that it shouldn't apply "later". *I don't think it does, I'm just noting the possibility.
"if it comes from a state level, why don't they have the right to secede and form a better union?"
State officeholders have to swear to support the federal Constitution too under Article VI: "[T]he Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
And an old favorite:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. A lot of people on the left have been very public in their displays of their patriotism, then (when they have been allowed).
Tray:
Whereas the right would mind because they're committed to the belief that we really are the finest, most perfect nation in the world. You just gotta love people who are "committed to [] belief[s]" ... particularly and most vehemently when they're contrary to fact. Tray needs to get out more (sez the guy that's been to more than three dozen countries [albeit with no claim that they're "better" than the U.S. overall or in any particular] around the world so far). Might give him a better picture of "facts on the ground", even if he ignores such facts as the dismal U.S. rankings among developed nations in such things as health care, infant mortality, quality of life, education, etc.... Cheers,
And JOOC, Tray:
Whereas the right would mind because they're committed to the belief that we really are the finest, most perfect nation in the world. Mistakenly so, probably. But you can't really believe that the left values patriotism as highly as the right. Why should we value mistaken judgements? There's a couple of quotes fron the early 19th century that I liek to juxtapose; one famous: "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong." -- Stephen Decatur ... and the one that should be famous: "I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the papers attributed to one of our gallant naval heroes. I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right." -- John Quincy Adams Those that assume perfection and that don't work towards such are traveling on the dime of others far more worthy. Cheers,
Sandy Levinson said,
>>>>>> At the very least, I think that the Confederate arguments for secession were certainly plausible; the defense of Lincoln's actions in refusing to let them go peacefully depend on one's views of slavery rather than Lincoln's "Union mysticism." <<<<<< Why can't those views on secession be independent of views on slavery? And why can't you see that people of the 1860's had different views of the federal government than we have today? Anyway, secession is completely impractical today because the federal, state and local governments are too greatly intertwined. There is hardly a pie that the federal government doesn't have its finger in. Anyway, I happen to believe in a strong central government.
what if they commit treason like the founding fathers?
There's always the natural right of revolution. There's just no legal right of secession. IOW, you can always accomplish by force what you can't accomplish by law.
IOW, you can always accomplish by force what you can't accomplish by law.
Post a Comment
That sounds like reasoning that is too common these days, in many venues.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |