The Washington Post

What if Putin threatens us with war over Alaska?

This isn’t related to the core enumerated powers questions in Bond but struck me as sufficiently interesting that it was worth posting about separately. In his post about Bond, Mark Tushnet writes:

[T]his isn’t Justice Thomas’s problem but James Madison’s [but] Justice Thomas quotes Madison to the effect that treaty cannot “dismember the empire.” Really? Suppose Vladimir Putin lets the United States know that he’s going to bomb the bejeezus out of the “red” states of the United States unless we negotiate a treaty returning Alaska to Russia. Work out the scenario as you wish, but I doubt that it’s a good constitutional design to require the U.S. government to take the negotiating position, “We’re fine with giving up Alaska but unfortunately we can’t do it, so bomb away.”

I don’t know what the optimal constitutional design is, but I confess that my intuitions are the opposite of Tushnet’s. Presumably the rule only has bite if a state does not consent to being turned over. (The Constitution requires the United States to “protect each” state “against invasion” and elsewhere requires state consent to interstate reallocations of territory.) Under those circumstances, would it really be such a bad idea to promise to each state in the union that we won’t sell them out to foreign powers?

I would have thought that a very simple game-theory cooperation model could plausibly provide that it’s rational for all of the states to promise to protect one another against foreign enemies. After all, that is part of what makes it safe for states to provide money and land and personnel to the federal government. If there were a serious risk that the rest of us would sell Alaska out to the Russians, presumably Alaska would have wanted to hoard assets and invest in a bigger militia.

And of course, if we were serious about keeping our constitutional commitments, and Putin knew it, would he have any reason to follow through on his threats?

Will Baude is an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, where he teaches constitutional law and federal courts. His recent articles include Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power, (Yale Law Journal, 2013), and Beyond DOMA: State Choice of Law in Federal Statutes, (Stanford Law Review, 2012).



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
What can babies teach students?
Unconventional warfare with a side of ale
A veteran finds healing on a dog sled
Play Videos
A fighter pilot helmet with 360 degrees of sky
Is fencing the answer to brain health?
Scenes from Brazil's Carajás Railway
Play Videos
How a hacker group came to Washington
The woman behind the Nats’ presidents ‘Star Wars’ makeover
How hackers can control your car from miles away
Play Videos
Philadelphia's real signature sandwich
Full disclosure: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1 ghoul
Europe's migrant crisis, explained
Next Story
Stewart Baker · June 7, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.