|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
One ‘No’ vote says Vermont needs to follow the Bible
Guns in bar ban DOA in House
By Guy Page
Proposal 4, the proposed amendment to the Vermont Constitution adding new categories to Vermont’s civil rights protections including gender identity and nation of origin, passed the Vermont House yesterday, Wednesday May 13 by a role call vote of 128 yes, 14 no. and seven absent, without any pre-vote floor discussion or dissent.
However, many lawmakers commented afterwards – and one, a ‘no’ vote, said Vermont needs to heed the words of love and peace found in the Bible. “I believe in my heart that the only words that are going to change Vermont and to change this world I believe come from the bible, and I believe that is what’s lacking in the world,” Rep. Valorie Taylor (R-Mendon) said.
The proposal 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 full roll call can be seen here. The 14 legislators who voted no, all Republicans, were:
Bosch of Clarendon
Boutin of Barre City
Burditt of West Rutland
Dobrovich of Williamstown
Hango of Berkshire
Harvey of Castleton
Higley of Lowell
Howland of Rutland Town
Parsons of Newbury
Powers of Waterford
Soucy of Barre Town
Tagliavia of Corinth
Taylor of Mendon *
Winter of Ludlow
Of the 14, only Taylor offered a floor explanation:
“I have a lot of words written on this paper and I’m not going to read any of them. I believe in my heart that the only words that are going to change Vermont and to change this world I believe come from the bible, and I believe that is what’s lacking in the world. True love, peace, how I raised my girls comes from the bible. I teach them to not judge, and to love first, and to put yourself second. I believe with every ounce of my being in the bible.”
Two Republicans voting yes said they did so in order to give Vermonters their final say on the proposed amendment on Election Day this November:
Rep. Rob North of Ferrisburgh provided the following vote explanation:
“I voted yes to ensure that my constituents get to express their vote on thisConstitutional Amendment. The purpose statement says that this amendment reasserts the principles already reflected in the Vermont Constitution, Ch. I, Art. 1 and Ch. I. Art. 7. There is no mention of making up for past deficiencies but focuses us on the present and future to ‘address existing inequalities’ (present tense) and ‘to reduce discrimination” as the bill reporter stated. This is our legislative intent.”
Rep. Brenda Steady of Milton explained:
“I voted yes because this vote on the floor of this body gives all Vermonters their right to decide what they want in their Vermont Constitution.”
Guns in bars ban DOA – S.329, Sen. Phil Baruth’s bill to ban guns in bars and liquor-licensed restaurants, was DOA when it was sent over to the House, both Baruth and Judiciary Committee Chair Martin LaLonde confirmed in conversations with VDC this morning in the State House.
Senate Pro Tem Baruth (D-Chittenden) said he wanted at least one chamber to pass the bill, but said he has no expectations it will proceed in the House. Minutes later, Lalonde emphatically agreed.
That’s not going anywhere,” Lalonde scoffed. “That’s hanging on the wall.”
However, H.606 – with its ban on ‘machine guns’ – is definitely in play. Lalonde and Senate Judiciary Chair Nader Hashim are currently in early negotiations over reconciling differences in the bill. In particular, the House version adds a ban on bump stocks and ‘machine guns’, the latter of which are defined in the bill as: “any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
Anti-ICE bills could go to court, sponsor says – Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (D-Chittenden), lead sponsor of S.208 and S.209, which prohibit officers wearing masks and making immigration-related arrests of people coming to or from places like libraries, medical facilities, or court houses, could well lead to a court challenge, told VDC this morning the bills could be subject to a court challenge.
In sum she said the bills protect Vermonters, and if the feds claim federal law and law enforcement pre-empts these state laws, that claim can be challenged in a federal court.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: State House Spotlight
According to Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky’s (D-Chittenden) comments, they are passing a law that they know is said to be illegal under the US Constitution, the document which says ‘any law repugnant of the Constitution is null and void’, so Vermont Legislature is passing laws the know to be void
Montpelier is repugnant!
What is historical? For example, Catholics were greatly discriminated against in the past here in Vermont. Are we protected from new persecution?
“…is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically”. That will give them the authorization they would need to ban the AR-15 and rifles like it.
I expect the liberals will have a Constitutional amendment that only Dems / Progs et al can be elected to the Vermont Government. The VT Constitution isn’t set in stone like the ten commandments so can be modified at will.
Rob and Brenda, though giving the voters the right to decide is admirable, it isn’t if they are deciding in a vacuum. There needs to be much more open and public debate and news media attention before handing the vote to Vermonters. Sadly, the grassroots of Vermont tends to not pay much attention until the last minute. Voting without much public discussion could have serious consequences.
What if people want Marxism? Will that be our constitution? What about communism?
If 51% of the people vote for taking 49% of the rich peoples money can that be in our constitution also?
See how a democracy doesn’t work and a constitutional republic does?
Our current constitution protects the smallest minority, the individual, these changes will pit groups of people against each other, which is the plan, divide and take over.
Our founders were so much more intelligent than the current group of people.
There was one very bright bulb in the whole group. They will surely put a basket over her light. TGBTG
Gender identity? Nation of origin? So, they are making an amendment to the constitution to protect these new groups from what? White people? Do white people get any protection?
Thank you, Guy, for providing the roll call vote and for listing the 14 good guys in the House.
“I voted yes to ensure that my constituents get to express their vote on thisConstitutional Amendment. The purpose statement says that this amendment reasserts the principles already reflected in the Vermont Constitution, Ch. I, Art. 1 and Ch. I. Art. 7. There is no mention of making up for past deficiencies but focuses us on the present and future to ‘address existing inequalities’ (present tense) and ‘to reduce discrimination” as the bill reporter stated. This is our legislative intent.”
If the first point made here is correct, why do we need a constitutional amendment at all? It’s already in the constitution. The second point made here is bad analysis. “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 word “historically” by definition means past — not just present and future. This amendment is is meant to constitutionally legitimize reverse discrimination policies, aka unequal treatment under the law.
And who’s history should we depend on?
No one should benefit from Unfair Advantage. Nor should anyone suffer from another’s unfair advantage. The taking, giving, selling, and buying of unfair advantage is the root of social illness in this country.
Whoa! this will keep Vermont’s surfeit of unemployed lawyers busy for years…
The real point of the Amendment is to get people to leave the state.While the Democrats believe it is better to be a ruler in Hell than a servant in heaven, too many Republican politicians would rather be servants in Hell than leaders in Heaven.
Ouch! The truth hurts!
Opponents of Prop 4 should follow a new Facebook page created for us — “Prop 4 Equality of Rights Amendment”
To Vermont Republicans
I am very proud of my wife Deb and the 13 other Republican House members who voted NO on Proposition 4. That is the definition of courage!
I was dismayed and disappointed so many of my fellow Rs voted for Prop 4, a Prop that will undermine the future of Vermonters.
The comments Deb heard for voting NO were “not a hill worth dying on” and “hope this doesn’t bite you in November”. To those and others with similar thoughts, you are wrong for the following reasons: While it is true Deb and the others may lose votes or even an election, the fact is you cannot cave and embrace social engineering in one hand, and then stand on your soapbox of fiscal responsibility, affordability, less government control, lower taxes, and all the other economic talking points on the other. Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative is oxymoronic. Both Social and Economic issues are joined at the hip and share the same foundation in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The truth is Proposition 4 will create more funnels of wealth redistribution for socialists to gain more power, more bureaucracy, more regulation, and ultimately more division and inequality. It is naive to think otherwise. You can dismiss this argument or laugh at this view but until Vermont Republicans gain a true moral compass on social issues, they will never achieve the power needed (majorities in the legislature) or anything close to what this state needs on a fiscal level to fix Vermont’s broken mess. You really don’t have to look very hard to see someone who has gained a great deal of power both economically and socially and the leverage necessary to get things done, by standing on the right side of social and moral issues, not caving to the left’s woke agendas, while at the same time reducing wasteful spending and creating economic opportunity and growth.
For the sake of Vermont’s future, I implore Vermont Republicans on this wrong path to quit sticking your finger in the wind to appease wokeness and have some moral fortitude to stand for what is right and true. I believe if we stick together and hold to our convictions, no matter the cost, we can gain the momentum that will reform our state for the better!
Kevin Powers
I am an Irish American. My ancestors emigrated to American during and after the potato famine in the 1840’s. The Irish immigrants were considered the lowest of the low at that time. They were racially discriminated against by people of many races, including white people. Their Catholic beliefs were not accepted by many people. That was a century and a half ago. I guess I thought the current constitution prevents all of us from being discriminated against. Representative North said he voted yes because it focuses on the present and future to’ “address existing inequalities’ (present tense) and’ to reduce discrimination.” Why does it matter if its in the future, the present or the past. Discrimination is already addressed and prohibited in the current constitution. What a waste of time.
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.
Put this cranky old cis gendered white man down as “disappointed”.
You sound like a salty cracker, lol.