|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
Proposal 4, the Vermont constitutional amendment for Declaration of rights; government for the people; equality of rights, was passed out of House Judiciary 8-3 last week and goes to the House floor Tuesday.
The proposed amendment has already been approved by the Senate. If passed in the House, it will go to the governor’s desk for signature and will likely be on the November, 2026 general election ballot. If passed, the amendment will become a permanent amendment to the state constitution.
The proposal prompted a No vote from three House Judiciary members, and stirred Vermonters questions about the ‘who’ and the ‘what’ upon learning about the proposal this weekend on social media. It reads:
“That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination.”
The Who – adding gender identity, expression – i.e. the transgender T in LGBTQ – raises questions about cementing as a constitutional right the access to transgender medical services, including sex-altering surgery. Adding national origin is a clear reference to equal treatment under the law (presumably including services) to immigrants, including those living in Vermont illegally.
And the amendments adds a wide-open invitation to “provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination.” Such as… the homeless, perhaps? The Legislature has fought for years to pass a Homeless Bill of Rights, citing discrimination by local governments, landlords and business owners.
Steve Thurston of Ferrisburgh shared concerns on Facebook about how a bill by a homeless advocate, Rep. Jubilee McGill (D-Bridport), could get a big boost from Proposal 4:
“A separate bill – H.885, use of public lands by individuals for life-sustaining activities, gives homelessness the same protected status and allows homeless encampments on town greens and other public property such as recreation areas. It would “prohibit the municipal and county governments from regulating the use of municipal or county property for life-sustaining activities, except in specific instances in which a municipality has otherwise made public land within designated downtowns or growth centers available for these activities.”
Thurston comments: “If both the constitutional amendment and H.885 or a similar bill pass, homeless encampments on town greens may well become a constitutional right. Surely there must be a better solution to the very real homeless issue.”
Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (D-West Windsor, member of the Housing & General Committee) commented on Thurston’s post in an apparent attempt to pacify: “H. 885 did not go anywhere. It was not taken up by any committee. As the legislature enters the last week or so of the session, H. 855 is dead.”
Thurston replied that dead for now is not dead forever.
“H.885 shows the mindset of some members of the legislature. A similar bill can be proposed in the next session and depending on the results of the election in November could pass into law over the objections of the Governor and Republican legislators if a Democrat supermajority returns to power, in the same way that GWSA, Clean Heat, 100% renewable by 2030, Act 181 and many others became law.”
Equally concerning to Thurston and others is the What of the amendment – more specifically, what government could do if the proposed amendment succeeds. They worry that the following language gives big government a blank, constitutionally-required check to deliver ‘equality of treatment and opportunity’ to any group (not individual) perceived to have been discriminated against:
“Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination.”
This story is a subject of discussion on WDEV’s Hot Off The Press today at 11:05 AM. Call in 802-244-1777. Live and podcast episodes are available on wdevradio.com.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
It’s realy pretty simple, vote Republican, or be prepared to suffer more assaults on our liberties, and economic stability . The lefties under the “Golden Dome” are not our friends, and the only interests that they promote are the ones that are in their interests. Vote them out !
The purpose of a Constitution, at least from an American (USA) perspective, is (1) to define the framework of the government and (2) to elucidate the individual rights enjoyed by ALL citizens and upon which the government cannot infringe.
An American Constitution does NOT specify how rights are allocated BETWEEN individuals or groups of individuals. Such allocations are specified by laws enacted by elected legislatures.
If a state’s constitution specifies the allocation of rights, then the details about allocating rights are decided by unelected and unaccountable judges and lawyers. This is definitely NOT compatible with America’s foundational principles.
In my opinion, Constitutional Amendments such as Proposition 4 are completely incompatible with America’s founding principles.
The amendment as stated appears to present Government as “the LAW”. Government is formed to protect and uphold our rights. It has specific delegated authority, which is FROM the people to them, as instructed by the Constitution. Every person ALREADY has inalienable rights. The Law precedes government, our rights are better understood as our terms of existence as human beings. Our particular government now is operating in rebellion of the Constitution, acting on the presumption of authority where no authority is granted. This specific amendment serves the perception that government somehow creates rights. It doesn’t. It is a fact that government has been acting outside of their delegated authority for perhaps longer than a century, but the constitution has not been repealed. This amendment would in effect repeal the understanding of where law comes from and how the people’s authority generated government’s limited authority. For example, in the VT constitution there is no instructions that allow for property tax, or school tax. IN the absence of specific delegated authority it cannot be inferred, and any act that infers authority that is not specifically granted by our Constitution is void in its inception. Best wishes Vermont.
Just an FYI
The Governor does not sign constitutional amendments. Instead, the Governor issues a proclamation to provide public notice before the public vote.
Vermont needs to stop wasting their time and wasting taxpayers money. There are only two sexes. From idiots do not have the right to declare anything other. Democrats are domestic terrorists. Vermont needs to read themselves of domestic terrorist Democrats. They want to control how the state is run but they can’t even figure out what sex they want to be. It’s also in the constitution anyone eating or a bedding and illegal can be prosecuted by federal law so we are going to start prosecuting these illegals as well as the idiot Democrats that protect them