|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
Vermont’s Constitution has guided the state for more than two centuries, but how well do we really know what it says—and how closely are we following it today?
While many Vermonters are familiar with the Bill of Rights and high-profile amendments like the recent Article 22, few could name Articles 9, 66, or 68—let alone describe what they say or how they affect the laws we live under. Yet these three articles remain binding law. They have never been repealed, never been amended, and they were written with the intent to guide Vermont’s government across centuries.
In practice, however, modern policies and statutes often run counter to these provisions. And because Vermont courts don’t enforce constitutional limits on their own, these conflicts remain unresolved unless someone brings a legal challenge.
The Provisions: What Do They Say?
Article 9: Expenses of Protection
Article 9 explains why Vermonters pay taxes:
“…every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection…”
This provision is clear about the purpose of taxation. It is to fund government functions that protect individuals’ rights—not to redistribute wealth or provide comforts beyond that scope.
Article 66: Free Denizenship
This article defines who is a Vermonter:
“…Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath… and after one year’s residence shall be deemed a free denizen… entitled to all rights of a natural-born subject of this State.”
According to Article 66, full rights of citizenship—including access to state benefits and legal protections—are only conferred after meeting three conditions:
- One year’s residence
- Taking an oath of allegiance to Vermont
- Being of “good character”
Today, however, residency requirements for most purposes have been replaced by statutory definitions. In many cases, individuals arriving in Vermont can vote, collect state-funded benefits, and even run for local office almost immediately.
Article 68: Encourage Virtue, Prevent Vice
“Laws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and immorality ought to be constantly kept in force…”
This article establishes a duty for Vermont’s government to maintain laws that promote civic virtue and discourage vice. In 1777, “virtue” referred to honesty, industriousness, and lawfulness. “Vice” referred to behaviors like drunkenness, gambling, and prostitution.
Modern policies—such as legalized marijuana, Burlington’s proposals to decriminalize prostitution, and lenient bail reforms—could be seen as conflicting with this constitutional mandate.
The Conflicts: Modern Policies vs. Old Principles
Dozens of statutes and policies now in effect in Vermont appear to conflict with these articles. Among them:
- State-funded welfare programs that provide benefits to individuals with no history of residence in Vermont.
- Sanctuary laws and policies refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement
- Criminal justice reforms that critics argue have created a revolving-door system for repeat offenders.
- Legalized marijuana markets and municipal pushes to decriminalize sex work.
Under Articles 9, 66, and 68, these initiatives raise questions:
- Should taxpayer funds be used to provide comforts or protections to individuals who have not yet become “free denizens” under Article 66?
- Do current laws encourage virtue and discourage vice, as Article 68 demands?
- Has the state overstepped its constitutional bounds by redefining residency outside of the one-year requirement?
Why the Courts Stay Silent
It’s important to understand that Vermont’s courts do not proactively enforce constitutional provisions. They require a lawsuit. Someone with standing must file a case demonstrating harm caused by a conflicting statute or policy.
Until such a case is brought, courts assume that legislative actions are valid—even if they seem to contradict the Constitution.
A Historical Lens on Today’s Challenges
If we could chart Vermont’s fiscal and criminal data from 1777 to 2025, we might see a pattern: as laws and policies have drifted away from Articles 9, 66, and 68, costs of living have increased and crime rates have risen.
This isn’t to say modern lawmakers acted with ill intent, but it raises an important question: have we lost sight of constitutional principles designed to preserve order, self-reliance, and community stability?
Why It Matters
The Vermont Constitution remains the supreme law of the state. It does not change simply because legislators overlook it or because modern preferences shift. It is the responsibility of Vermont citizens to insist on its enforcement and to challenge laws and policies that conflict with it.
Only through such challenges can the courts be triggered to examine these issues and reconcile modern governance with constitutional limits.
The Takeaway
In Vermont—and in every state—the Constitution isn’t just a suggestion. It is the foundation. Every statute, every rule, every policy passed by the legislature must conform to it. The Constitution sets the rules. The legislature writes laws within those rules. The courts apply those laws. That is the chain of authority.
Whether you personally like or dislike a law doesn’t change that hierarchy. A statute can only stand if it fits within the Constitution. If it doesn’t, it must either be overturned in court, or the Constitution must be amended first. That is the proper process for changing how a government operates.
Take Burlington’s recent effort to decriminalize sex work. The motivation is understandable—reducing harm for victims of human trafficking. But under Article 68, which requires laws to “encourage virtue and prevent vice,” such a policy arguably violates Vermont’s Constitution as written. The proper course of action would be to amend the Constitution first, then enact the policy. Anything else puts the cart before the horse.
This is what many citizens—and apparently many legislators—misunderstand. Constitutions aren’t about how you feel about a law. They are about whether that law is even permissible under the governing framework. It doesn’t matter if a statute is wildly popular or despised. If it conflicts with the Constitution, it is invalid. Period.
If this sounds rigid, that’s because it’s meant to be. Constitutions are designed to be difficult to change so they can serve as guardrails against government overreach and short-term political whims. They are the reason Vermont’s government can’t—on a whim—decide to hand every citizen a one-ounce gold coin. There’s no constitutional authority for it, no matter how much people might like the idea.
This is the civic logic many have forgotten: the Constitution is the rulebook, and laws are only the plays you can run within it. If we ignore that order, we no longer have a rule of law. We have a rule of preference—and history shows where that leads.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, State Government
Waiting for the constitutional amendments to make education and healthcare a right and give the Vermont government the power to tax for it. Comments from Richard Day.
Why not? Vermont gives them the “right” to “free” housing & “free” drugs, and free drug paraphernalia to use it with. All ya have to do is cross the invisible border and claim your victimhood.
We are lucky if our fellow citizens can spell the word Constitution or to define the word. I tried that in a social studies class, not one student knew what a constitution was. Civics is not taught in many Vermont schools, thus our incoming generation has no knowledge of government on the federal, state or even the local level of our society.
Awwww, it indeed is a FACT…..not only does the U.S. Constitution protect freedom of movement, but so does the Vermont state Constitution – ALL U.S. citizens of Vermont (here after one full year) are inasmuch “Vermonters” as are those born here and/or whose families go back generations.
After all:
All American citizens (with few exceptions such as Aboriginal populations) are decedents of European settlers, NOT native to Vermont or any other state.
“Out of many….ONE. Sound vaguely familiar to any long-ago former schoolchildren or those who carry coin?
All states have unique histories and populations, but none are “better” or “superior” to any other. To each his own. Reality.
With the younger generations who have left and are leaving Vermont in droves according to this publication and others – why, we wouldn’t wish our own VT residents being subjected to the petty discrimination or harassment certain posters subject newer residents coming here to VT from another part of this union, would we?
Lastly, it doesn’t matter so much where you come from as opposed to where you’re going anyway. As long as one is a patriot, Godfearing, decent human being, does it matter to God or to your plumber where they were born? Besides, two members of my family were born at SVMC in Bennington back in ’81. They left the hospital after three days, (twin birth) and moved straight into their crib (literally & figuratively) on Central Park West and never looked back – yet according to the VT constitution? They’re “natives”. Lol.
So much for anyone’s 15 minutes of fame, at least based upon some supposedly special birthright.
See Article 19 of the VT Constitution.
Re: “This article establishes a duty for Vermont’s government to maintain laws that promote civic virtue and discourage vice. In 1777, “virtue” referred to honesty, industriousness, and lawfulness. “Vice” referred to behaviors like drunkenness, gambling, and prostitution.
Modern policies—such as legalized marijuana, Burlington’s proposals to decriminalize prostitution, and lenient bail reforms—could be seen as conflicting with this constitutional mandate.”
This is the proverbial sticky wicket in our governance. That certain policies can be seen as conflicting with this constitutional mandate, they can just as well be seen as being supported by it. How we reconcile these inevitable differences of opinion is the key.
I give you free enterprise.
“The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”
“The key insight of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” ― Milton Friedman
Guy: would you be kind enough to publish the Pilgrim video I sent to you?
We in Vermont do not have a constitutional form of government. We are ruled by Communists who do whatever they want Constitutions, Vermont and U.S. Constitution be dammed. If they followed the constitutions we would not have any “No Kings” rallies.
RON PAUL: “If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations. Or the “poor”; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GAT or” fast track”; no arrogant federal judges usurping states’ rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax. We would get rid of most agencies and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal and limited”.
Ron Pauls observation is as the Framers and Founders intended according to the Federalist Papers, also shown by the States Rights amendment
The Constitutions Federal and Vermont’s were once considered sacred cows and the various political parties honored such. Then America and Vermont started to change from Democrats / Republican to Socialists / Liberals / Power Brokers / Money influence / Legal System / Corrupt Lawyers / etc. resulting In a downward spiral of human governance. Constitutions were ignored to suit the current means and to correct the Court Systems have become teeming with lawsuits challenging. Judges for their own political stature rule against Constitutions and they seek prominence. If the powers don’t get their way, it’s Constitution amendment time and Convention of the States to modify. What was very good for 250 years is now “out-of-date” restrictions. There’s not one person in government that has the intelligent of the Founding Fathers. Read the 85 issues of the Federalists Papers and judge for yourself who was more astute. Example, the intelligence portrayed by Sanders, Welch and Balint.
https://patriotpost.us/documents/299
It took a long time (in human terms) for the pendulum to reach this point from the beginning and the political atmosphere rapidly deteriorated and now (hopefully is at it’s apex and is now on it return path to the sanity we once had of common sense, prosperity, individualism, safety and the three wonders “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness’ defined in the Bill of Rights. Wikipedia has good read about the BOR. Past intelligence has to be respected and hope to be reverend again. Many of the types of government experienced in other countries have failed America has proved he best. Why do the sub-mental people want to try those experiments here? History is a teaching tool. Our Constitution was developed observing a previous paper, The Magna Carter (1215)
Well said Tom, not only are Constitutions ignored, but Oaths of Office are now considered just words you say during a ceremony!
Perhaps we could send copies of the Federalists papers, The Vermont constitution and some common sense over to the VT Supreme Court that never fails to disappoint with made up decisions.