Connect with us


National divorce redux

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) once again is talking national divorce. But her proposal is unworkable and fatalistic.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.-1) once again is talking national divorce. She dropped a thread on that subject two days ago. But she isn’t the only one talking about it. Furthermore, we hear of active campaigns for interstate (Greater Idaho) and even international (Texit) secession. So now would be a good time to review the concept, review her current proposal, and see whether it’s feasible.

National divorce – a review

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene first broached the term national divorce on New Year’s Eve, 2021. Twitter, then being in its Dark Ages, suspended her account shortly thereafter. When they did that, many of her tweets disappeared, though not forever.

As long-time readers will recall, Hari Raghavan started the talk. He dropped a thread saying why he was moving out of San Francisco, California, to Florida.

Raghavan cited several grounds for moving out. The first was personal danger, and in this context he quoted the anchor tweet from another thread addressing that problem.

Next he cited breach of social contract, and hostility to business. In this context he cited a thread by future Twitter Files journalist Michael Shellenberger. Author of San Fransicko:

Then this liberal observed, with shock, that San Francisco made Atlas Shrugged real, by deprecating material success.

In summary, the Bay Area, instead of harvesting the golden eggs, bled the magical goose dry.

Result: Hari Raghavan moved to Florida. Naturally he got advice not to vote for the same policies that ruined San Francisco (and the rest of California).

Someone else shared this migration chart – originally on Twitter, but Twitter suspended the account, which remains suspended.

National divorce? Dreamer nomads on the move

Pedro Gonzalez then shared this thread:

That same day, Mr. Gonzalez proposed a moratorium on voting for blue-to-red transplants, and even a “voter’s sin tax.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene first mentions national divorce

CNAV said before, and will say again: that would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder that would apply indiscriminately. But his first proposal recalls the durational residency requirements many States once had. Restoring the right of States to impose durational residency requirements for voting would require overruling a Supreme Court precedent. (Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)) It would also require the repeal of Title 52, United States Code, Section 10502.

Dr. Steve Turley has observed repeatedly that most (though not all) who move from blue States to red, do so in full recognition that the blue States’ policies ruined those States. So they have no intention of “voting blue” in a red State.

Nevertheless, Rep. Greene first mention the national divorce concept in response to Mr. Gonzalez’ proposal.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Ca.) accused her of wanting to stop people from voting.

She had two specific accusations to drop against him:

Then she dropped this thread:

In it she wasn’t quite ready to call for a national divorce, but she set forth her grounds. In reply, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.-7) accused her of treason.

The thread – more details

Now, more than a year later, Marjorie Taylor Greene is back with a comprehensive plan. Here it is, in a Twitter thread:

The reaction to this thread clearly indicates that most people have not thought her proposal through. For instance, one user says:

False. The Greene proposal would limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and make that kind of outcome impossible.

But this thread shows exactly how bitter the left-right divide already is:

Note that this thread begins with a county-by-county map of Election of 2020 results. It shows that America actually is a sea of red with islands of blue, chiefly in America’s largest cities.

These two reactions probably speak correctly to the mind-set of the left:

This user made direct reference to the Greater Idaho movement, or at least to its goal:

Someone else made direct reference to Texit.


Marjorie Taylor Green did not propose having two federal governments, each controlling non-contiguous clumps of States. Instead, she proposed limits, not only on national government but also on judicial review.

Most Cabinet departments would disappear, with State governments taking over their functions completely, without federal interference. To achieve the national divorce goals Greene set forth, only four federal departments need remain: State, Treasury, Defense, and Justice. The Bureau of the Census would move from the Commerce Department to the State Department. Immigration Services would move to State, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement would move to Defense. Agriculture and Interior would disappear. States would manage their own interiors. But Native American reservations would create a thorny issue indeed. The weakening of the national government that Greene contemplates, would require recognition of these reservations as truly sovereign entities. The analogues to that would be Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Ciskei inside South Africa.

The “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” would be weaker. This would require a Constitutional Amendment placing enforcement of the Bill of Rights upon the States beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts or the power of Congress. Some things, like voter qualifications, should be beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts or powers of Congress. But decisions like New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen or Carson v. Makin would lose all force. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would disappear, but blue States would eagerly replace its functions.

Analysis – continued

Interstate travel could see far greater State government intrusions – and under national divorce terms, the federal government could not interfere. Today all States weigh trucks as they drive in (at least during the daytime). Now imagine truck weigh stations going on a twenty-four-hour schedule. Then imagine random or even universal mandatory car searches, looking not necessarily for drugs, but for guns. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 would go – so that all States would lay and collect imposts and duties on imports and exports, and keep the money. Probably they would use it to support financially the twenty-four-hour weigh station operations. Perhaps Clause 1 would also disappear – so that blue States would “emit bills of credit,” i.e., print their own money.

Blue States would lay and collect exit taxes on residents and businesses moving out, or forbid moving out. (Shades of Directive 10-289 from Atlas Shrugged!) That would be a logical extension of allowing blue States to keep their Environmental, Social and Governance regulations.

Red States would respect religion, but blue States would completely disrespect it. As Greene admitted.

What would happen to movements like Greater Idaho? Today the State of Oregon would cede two-thirds of its territory to Idaho only to solve a fiscal crisis. Under national divorce, States could print their own money, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recommends at the Federal level. So, no cession. But if they forbid people to move, or simply confiscate their land as an exit tax, that could cause an explosion.


Given the temperament of blue State leadership, the blue States might see their population decline totally within two generations. Then populations of red States might move in and establish proper constitutional government in those States. Indeed, Todd Starnes predicted that:

[Red] States [would] have all the food [and] guns[,] and [their] women folk [would] actually [be] women.

But Starnes got one thing wrong. Marjorie Taylor Greene did not propose a “moratorium on migrants from blue States.” Nor did she specifically mention durational residency.

A far better solution than what Marjorie Taylor Greene proposes, is to strengthen the protections of the Bill of Rights. That probably requires nullification of intrusive laws and precedents, by red State governments, and red county sheriffs. It definitely requires overruling of a few more Supreme Court precedents, like:

  • Dunn v. Blumstein, forbidding durational residency requirements for voters, and
  • Reynolds v. Sims, forbidding States to assign equal suffrage in their Senates to counties, parishes, and other independent units.

If “demography is destiny,” that applies also to the Total Fertility Rate, which is demonstrably higher in conservative women. So as long as the red States protect fertility, conservatives win. But this national divorce proposal has deep flaws and will enshrine curtailments of civil liberties. Then again, leftist politicians have no room to complain about proposals like this. Not when they disrespect freedom of religion, self-armament, and the right to life itself.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Click to comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x