• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Despite a widespread belief that support for secession is limited to society’s radical fringe, modern secessionist movements remain surprisingly legitimate. In Vermont, several well-organized secessionist groups draw on the state’s history as an independent republic to justify the state’s withdrawal from the United States. Nationwide, popular support for secession is surprisingly strong. And internationally, the right of “peoples” to self-determination is well-entrenched but riddled with complexities. Secession remains a perennially controversial and divisive subject, but one that merits debate.

This article describes the intersections between Vermont's modern secessionists, its independent history, and the international right to self-determination. The article focuses on the potential international legitimacy of Vermont secession. Part I provides an overview of the development and claims of modern Vermont secessionist movements. Part II gives a short history of Vermont independence, focusing on how this history has been misinterpreted by modern secessionists. Part III outlines the international right of peoples to self-determination, demonstrates the nebulous and confusing nature of the right, and ultimately shows that Vermont secessionists cannot invoke it. Part IV describes the right of self-determination as applied to Hawai'i and Kosovo, and uses these points of reference to illuminate the relative weakness of Vermont secessionists' claims and the complexities inherent in the right to self-determination. The article concludes by suggesting that Vermont's independent tradition is best honored by engaging modern secessionists in serious debate.

international law, self-determination, secession, Vermont history, Hawai'i, Kosovo, Quebec

Abstract:
In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a Ten Commandments monument in a small park near the center of Pleasant Grove City, Utah constitutes government speech unbound by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Therefore, the Court held that Pleasant Grove was not required to accept a monument donated by the religion of Summum. This holding came with the clear expectation that Summum will now challenge the Ten Commandments monument under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This claim would allow the Roberts Court to clarify its stance on the Establishment Clause, and it might be successful. However, Justices Scalia and Thomas have already made clear that they do not believe Pleasant Grove’s monument violates the Establishment Clause. Given the Court’s holding in Van Orden v. Perry that a nearly identical Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause, and the Court’s more conservative makeup, Scalia and Thomas might be part of a majority when ruling against Summum in a future Establishment Clause case.

This article argues that Summum should focus not on the vague Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but on the detailed provisions of Article I § 4 of the Utah Constitution. Part I provides an overview of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. Part II analyzes Summum’s still-viable claim under the Federal Establishment Clause, pointing out a potentially successful argument that Summum could make but then demonstrating that the Federal Establishment Clause is simply too unpredictable. Part III outlines the history of Utah’s establishment clause, including its importance in the history of Utah and the unique case law governing its interpretation. Part IV analyzes Summum’s claim under the first prong of the test developed for the Utah establishment clause, arguing that the Ten Commandments monument in Pioneer Park constitutes a “religious exercise.” Part V analyzes Summum’s claim under the second prong of the test, arguing that Pleasant Grove City has not acted neutrally towards religion. Finally, the article concludes by reiterating Summum’s higher likelihood of success under Utah’s establishment clause.

constitutional law, state constitution, church and state separation, establishment clause, first amendment, free speech, government speech, Utah constitution, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

Abstract:
Vermonters share a variety of personal, emotional, and economic bonds. They forge these bonds by choice and by chance. Platonic friends live together for companionship; strangers live together for economic convenience. Onto this panoply of relationships the State of Vermont imposes three mutually exclusive classifications for legal recognition. Every relationship, no matter how diverse, is eligible for one set of benefits or none at all. This unequal distribution of benefits does not comport with the Vermont Supreme Court's interpretation of the common benefit clause of the Vermont Constitution. This paper argues that it is time for Vermont to recognize and support close personal relationships, whatever form they take.

law, state constitutional law, same sex marriage, marriage law, marriage benefits, Vermont constitution