|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Michael Boutin
Our state constitution is a sacred document. It is supposed to be timeless. It should not be amended casually or without serious public understanding and debate.
Prop 4 is commonly referred to as the “Equal Rights” constitutional amendment. But after reading the language and reviewing the testimony, I do not believe this amendment is written correctly nor do I believe it delivers on the promise of equal rights for all. That is important because this is not just some law that can be undone. There is a four-year process to make a constitutional amendment. It should be difficult and should be done correctly.
The proposed Article 23 begins with language I strongly support: “That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law.” Then followed by a finite list of specific protected categories and adds a final sentence saying the article shall not prevent measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for groups that have historically been subject to discrimination. Because this issue is already being misrepresented, I want to be very clear: my concern is not with any of the groups listed in the amendment. I support equal protection under the law, and I support protecting people from discrimination. It is a finite list and ambiguous third sentence that concerns me.
I understand the intent of the last sentence. But I do not believe our Constitution should be written in a way that appears to create different standards of equality for different groups. Equal protection should mean equal protection for every Vermonter.
Professor Peter Teachout, a constitutional law professor who supported adding an equal protection clause to the Vermont Constitution, raised a serious concern with this language. He said the language protects the groups listed, but it leaves unclear whether, and to what extent, it protects others who are not listed. He said the problem comes largely from the use of closed list of protected classes.
He also pointed out that once the Constitution lists some protected groups, it raises the question of why others were left out, including age, weight, body type, height, past criminal record, genetic makeup, or temporary homelessness.
Professor Teachout offered a simple fix: make the list representative instead of exclusive by using language like “on grounds such as” before the list. That would make the amendment more inclusive, not less.
I believe part of the reason there has been so little pushback is that people are hesitant to speak up. There have been a few voices, but they were drowned out. Even today during vote explanations someone said “I find it unfathomable that anyone in our Chamber would vote against this proposition to secure human rights for all who live here.” That is exactly the kind of framing that makes people afraid to raise legitimate concerns or recommendations. Had there been an opportunity for me to amend it, I would have made an amendment to add in the language suggested by Prof Teachout. But there was not an opportunity. Nevertheless I cannot let fear of backlash decide how I vote on the Vermont Constitution or any bill for that matter.
Originally, I was going to support this. Then I looked more closely. The more I read, the more concerned I became. Then I made the decision. I would vote no and I did. The political pressure to vote yes on what I believe is a subpar amendment was heavy. But I believe people elected me to do what I believe is right and not succumb to the pressure, no matter how great.
Maybe I am wrong, and maybe I am reading it wrong. I wish I could amend it to make it better. But I could not. We either pass it as written or reject it.
I chose to reject it. I cannot support sending flawed constitutional language to the voters. I believe we need to vote it down in November and go back to the drawing board, and bring back language that truly protects everyone.
Equal rights must mean equal protection for all — clearly, plainly, and without ambiguity.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Legislator Perspectives
They are very, very clever.
They have found that Vermont is fertile soil for easy constitution changes, for complete press coverage to cover up true intents (otherwise known as propaganda)
This is truly a change to protect groomers and pedophiles, those who want to corrupt your children. It protects the school from keeping parents from knowing about gender dysphoria. It gives the state protection and power to teach your child all sorts of sexual fetishes and lusts, all while calling it love. And what is 6 year old to think?
Love is love
Sex is sex
Lust is lust
When constitutional law protects groomers from subjecting your children to things not allowed on the pubic television or is x rated in movie theaters but given to 6 year old children, you know what is truly going on.
This is epically evil on so many fronts, it’s chilling.
It’s a diabolical communist smokescreen for the identity politics of hell. The devil has always trafficked in lies and twisting words to hoodwink humans. That’s his strategy, but we must be as Jesus who could and would not be deceived by the crafty clever traps of satan.
This is Prop 5/Article 22 2.0.
Where Adam and Eve ate the bait and set the whole government on earth on a course of destruction, Jesus refused and rejected that bait. For all who fear and love and follow Him, we can live and work to see His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is on heaven, in and through our lives.
There are several heroes who contribute here and in our state government whom I admire and commend who are refusing to follow the crowd. They are standing in the truth and living into their callings with faith, love, and courage to bring His kingdom here. Thank you for your work.
We already have equal rights for all. It’s called the Bill of Rights.
One thing that is to be remembered, according to our legislators some are more equal than others
I want to be clear about my take on this.
I do not think there is some nefarious plot behind PR.4. I think the problem is that the minute someone raises a concern about the language, the knee-jerk reaction is to accuse that person of being racist, sexist, or homophobic.
Because of that, I believe this amendment moved forward without the level of scrutiny a constitutional amendment deserves. The rhetoric around it has been very heated, and that makes honest discussion harder.
Based on the legal opinion from Professor Teachout, I agree that Vermont should have an equal rights amendment so courts do not have to rely so heavily on the Common Benefits Clause.
But in my opinion, this amendment is not it.
I support equal protection. I just think constitutional language should be clear, durable, and written to protect everyone.
Clearly not familiar with subversion. The fact that you would suggest there is no nefarious plot, after just our recent Covid experience is troubling.
We have to stop being so naive, look at the learing centers in Wisconsin, look at Eb5 in Vermont, look at our ethos grace of D -, look at the porn the have 6 year old kids reading on school, look at the crime they allow.
To suggest something is not nefarious in Vermont is really aiding and abetting the Marxist soft coup.
So, it didn’t spontaneously happen, Drag Queen story hour, across the United States all within a month.
It didn’t spontaneously happen the Pfizer, ran every tv ad during covid, but has yet to run another ad
It didn’t spontaneously happen the antifa riots across the United States.
It didn’t spontaneously happen that every major city in America is being taken over by “democratic socialists” and banning guns at every way possible,
It didn’t spontaneously happen that every zoning ordinance across the United States, matches the rule book for agenda 21, or 2030.
There is most definitely something nefarious going on, truly there are many useful idiots involved, being unwitting tools of the subversion. Friends don’t let friends be useful idiots, of which you will find what the term means in this video. There is something most definitely nefarious, going on! And one cure! 🙂 Yuri states it too!
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, doesn’t call them organizers for nothing, they are truly “organized”, as are all subversives. And if you look one page……you can read it for yourself in the book, but since AI is “never” wrong, here is what AI says…
Acknowledgment of Lucifer in Alinsky’s Work
Saul Alinsky acknowledges Lucifer in his book Rules for Radicals. This acknowledgment is notable for its metaphorical implications regarding rebellion against authority.
Key Points of the Acknowledgment
Context: Alinsky refers to Lucifer as “the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment.”
Purpose: This statement serves to illustrate the theme of challenging authority, which is central to Alinsky’s philosophy.
Interpretation: The acknowledgment is often viewed as a metaphor rather than a literal dedication, emphasizing the idea of rebellion rather than promoting any specific ideology.
Quote from the Book
Alinsky’s exact words are:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
This quote encapsulates Alinsky’s view on the nature of radicalism and its historical context.
YEAH, HE WON HIS OWN KINGDOM, IT’S CALLED HELL!!!!!!
NOTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON, NOPE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE….MOVE ALONG
Representative Boutin, I appreciate your courage to write this commentary. Everyone who knows the intent is communistic Equity and not Equality knows that there is a nefarious plot. Act 181 is not the only mechanism by which people’s land will be confiscated. Act 181 was the conservation argument. Prop 4 will provide an equity argument for confiscating property and resources and redistributing them equitably to “historically marginalized groups”. Do you have have enough empathy for persons who have entered the country illegally who are seeking freedom to share your land with them? Prop 4 is a legal framework by which the Vermont Supreme court must base its decisions. Justice under the law will take YEARS as discrimination cases make their way to the SCOTUS. Meanwhile “national origin” will allow legislators to pass laws that require state-wide non-citizen voting in ALL municipalities. This would completely destroy Vermont in one election. If there was a hill to die on, Prop 4 was that hill. If Republican leadership suppressed the speech of those that were willing to make an argument on the House floor – a solid argument about Teachout’s testimony in 2024 was delivered to representatives that were willing to speak up – well, then, Republican leadership heads need to rolll, figuratively speaking.
Thank you, Michael, for digging into the language of this legislation, for seeing it for what it is and voting accordingly. That’s what all representatives of the people should do. BTW, from what I understand, if this passes when it’s on the ballot in November, this will mean everyone can vote in Vermont, no matter what. If so, that’s a concern.
They know they can only win by cheating.
I have been digging into the language of Prop 4 and reporting on it in VDC since 2024. I testified against Prop 4 in both the Senate and House judiciary Committees in both 2024 and 2026. I reminded both Judiciary committees of Peter Teachout’s testimony. It was ignored. This explanation from Rep Boutin is delinquent but much needed. I definitely feel betrayed by Republican leadership for stifling the speech of those that were willing to speak on the floor against Prop 4. Now is the time to get the word out to people that Prop 4 is NOT about equality.
Exactly Michael. Look how the gerrymandering ruling from long ago is now looked on as discriminatory and the backlash of making it truly fair and equitable today. We have to do it correctly from the beginning or don’t toy with it at all.
The hats my longstanding complaint of the legislature. They operate based on ideas. The devil in the details and nobody pays attention to the details!
clear and simple should be clear and simple; do not include words and phrases for current and future lawyers to tear up and add to
Thank you, Representative Michael Boutin, for your courageous “no” vote and for writing this commentary. All Republicans sat silent as Democrats painted anyone who was against Prop 4 as racist. I testified against Prop 4 to both Senate and House Judiciary committees in 2024 and in 2026. In 2026, I specifically reminded them of expert witness Teachout’s suggestions to expand the language. Both the Judiciary committees rejected his advice. The statement on the floor should have been, “We support an equal rights amendment to the VT constitution. The language of this amendment fails this mission.” But pressure on the “no” voters to not make the “yes” voters look bad by not asking questions on the House floor won that day. And Vermonters will lose, as a result. I feel betrayed.