By Jason Herron

Approaching 250 years old, the Declaration of Independence is our nation’s defining legal document. History dictates that it should be treated as the foundation that supports our Constitution, but instead, and especially among the legal minds of recent generations, it’s treated like an obscure piece of parchment from a time long ago. 

Founder of the Sons of Liberty and signer of the Declaration, Sam Adams, claimed, “Before the formation of this Constitution, (…) This declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union & has never been disannulled.” Disannulled means “vacated or made void.”

With Sam’s quote in mind, it is best practice to view the Declaration like the Articles of Incorporation, and the Constitution as the subsequent By-Laws, of an organization. 

Articles of Incorporation establish the purpose of an organization as a legal entity. This enables them to enter contracts, incur debts, and own property independently. By-Laws dictate how the corporation will be governed and preserved. 

Here’s the thing, if the thought and spirit of an organization doesn’t align with the body and letter, there is a fundamental and incompatible legal conflict between the purpose of the corporation and their governing actions. 

In 1891, the US Supreme Court ruled on that issue when they wrote, “The latter [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

Then there is Article 7 of the US Constitution which dates the establishment of our Country to the Declaration, not the Constitution. 

“This has been done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the States who are present, on September 17^th, in the Year of our Lord 1787, which is also the 12^th year of the Independence of the United States of America. (…)

Following the ratification of the Constitution, and to this day, government acts are dated from the year of the Declaration, not the Constitution. Consider the first from George Washington.

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, in the city of New York, the 14th day of August, A.D. 1790, and in the fifteenth year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States. By the President: GEORGE WASHINGTON

All that evidence makes it clear; the US Declaration of Independence is our nations original, and legal, governing document that has never been made void. 

Now, if all that wasn’t proof enough, Vermonters took it a step further. 

Since Vermont’s current Constitution was established 16 years after the Declaration and 4 years after the US Constitution, on July 9, 1793. Our Founders in Vermont were able to write our Articles of Incorporation directly into our Bylaws as Chapter 1 of the VT Constitution.

Vermont constitution Chapter 1, Article 1. That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; (…)

Does that sound familiar? Vermonters borrowed from Jefferson! Just like the Declaration, Vermont emphasized that the purpose of Government was to secure our Natural rights as unique individuals. However, there are a few interesting differences.

Although in Vermont’s Constitution Chapter 1 Article 3 it passionately protects your right to worship God according to the dictates of your conscience, there is no mention that Natural rights come from a Creator. It may be assumed in some of the language, but it’s not professed like it is in the Declaration. 

For instance, Jefferson wrote that “all Men are Created equal.” Vermont changed “Men” to “persons” and “Created equal” to “born equally free.” Jefferson wrote, “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights. Vermont wrote that we all “have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights.” Jefferson listed 3 of those rights, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Vermonters used those same three but added property as another example. 

Like our Federal government, Vermont’s government was established to secure individual life, individual liberty, and one’s unique pursuit of Happiness. However, since slavery was already outlawed in Vermont’s 1777 Constitution, there was no debate as to the definition of “property.” So, the drafters of Vermont’s Constitution didn’t hesitate to list acquiring, possessing, and protecting private property as a natural right.

Whatever your spiritual or political beliefs lie, whether you are yoked to Jesus or profess atheism, or lean politically right or left, you can recognize a natural right simply through reason and observation. That truth is what united a nation.

You can feel a natural right being taken from you. Life is the most obvious. If someone is trying to take your life, you feel it, it is innate. Animals have the same innate reaction to protect their life. Liberty is similar. If someone is restraining you or acting violent towards you, you feel it. The same is true if someone or something is preventing you from your unique pursuit of Happiness.  

Well, property is no different. When someone or some entity is attempting to control your property, whether it’s your land, physical possessions, the property of your mind or your hands, you feel it. The fact is, if your government controls the use and value of your land, then all other form of property is subject to the same accord.

Well, thankfully for us Vermonters, both our State and Federal governments were designed to secure our natural rights; and our Elected representatives in Vermont swear an Oath or Affirmation that they “will not, directly or indirectly, do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof.” 

Here’s the point, Act 181 put Vermonters at an unintended crossroad. We can choose to understand what a natural right is and secure them, as they were secured for us, by defending the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Vermont’s Constitution OR acquiesce now and hamstring ourselves, and much worse our posterity, into something new like ACT 181.

The author is a farmer living in Guildhall.