13 replies »

  1. Why stop there….Why not just give yourself a 30% pay raise like the NY reps just did?

    The Governor can’t stop you! Sarcasm off….

  2. This is beyond despicable. How can these two walk into a supermarket and look their neighbors in the eye? Clarkson owns a home appraised for $505K and Hardy’s is appraised for $272K. In a state where home ownership is only a dream to young, couples, these two have the unmitigated audacity to demand the less enriched pay their way. WE’RE ENTITLED!

  3. Write to each of them, including each of the other sponsors expressing your disapproval. Heck, even those living on the pittance Social Security provides have to pay for Medicare! They’re supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. Sen. Ruth Hardy, Sen. Alison Clarkson
    Additional Sponsors
    Sen. Martine Gulick
    Sen. Nader Hashim
    Sen. Robert Norris
    Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale
    Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky
    Sen. Anne Watson
    Sen. Rebecca White

  4. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Most recent recent rumor is that Maxine Waters wants to relocate to the state as she sees the sheep are ready to be shorn.( she also senses it may not be much of a cultural shift being on the West Coast of New England).

    More to come I am sure….

  5. well gosh maybe they need a limo to bring them all back and forth with some sort of Vt style SS to keep them all safe too……….I am stunned! at the arrogance of the legislators, but not surprised…..its that what’s in it for me attitude; trickle down from fed level….

  6. Despicable arrogance under the dome. $500 additional a year to heat our homes, they want FREE health care for ILLEGAL immigrants, FREE healthcare for themselves, not even BOTHERING to do a cost analysis on the “UNAFFORDABLE” heat (and live) Act, tax tax tax the little guy. Guess its time to leave Vermont.

  7. It appears our Senators and Representatives have figured out a way to get blood from turnips afterall.

  8. People work their entire lives and can’t even afford to pay for Medicare Part B insurance coverage because the cost would be too large a chunk of their paltry SS check. They have to choose between heating their home and eating versus the chance they will need medical care in a doctor’s office or emergency room. And our privileged legislators want us to pay for free health insurance for them?

  9. Wow, unbelievable, they’ve got a lot of nerve, but then again, what else should we expect: a) from a super-majority, b) liberal/leftist hive minds, c) freeloading politicians with a sense of entitlement over their “subjects (aka constituents), d) all the above and then some!

  10. Are you being deprived of equal treatment under the law?

    If you feel a state law is unconstitutional, you may file a petition
    to the Supreme Court of the United States to try to overturn it.
    (Vermont’s laws reducing your 2A 2nd Amendment rights,
    Abortion, Taxes, Right to heat your home, Right to drive the car
    you want to drive, Right to not send your kid to a school that
    physically restrains them & makes them urinate on themselves,
    Right for Grandparents to have prescription painkillers without
    the State surveilling them under the Vermont Prescription Drug
    Monitoring Law, etc).


    How do you challenge the constitutionality of a state law?
    New Rule 5.1 requires a party that files a pleading, written motion, or
    other paper drawing in question the constitutionality of a federal or state
    statute to file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the
    United States Attorney General or state attorney general.

    Can the Supreme Court remove a state law?
    The Court will decide if a law or action violates the Constitution.
    This is known as judicial review. With review, the Court can invalidate
    both federal and state laws that conflict with interpretation of the Constitution.

    Can the Supreme Court overturn unconstitutional laws?
    In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s
    responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
    consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath
    could not be fulfilled any other way.

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE II. COMMENCING AN ACTION; SERVICE OF PROCESS,
    PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS › Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute
    Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute
    (a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into
    question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:

    (1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:

    (A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies,
    or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or

    (B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one
    of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and

    (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or
    on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by
    certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

    (b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general
    that a statute has been questioned.

    (c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene
    within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time
    to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding
    the statute unconstitutional.

    (d) No Forfeiture. A party’s failure to file and serve the notice, or the court’s failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional
    claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.

    Click to access 2023RulesoftheCourt.pdf

    Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action

    This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s
    original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of
    the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. § 1251 and U. S.
    Const., Amdt. 11.

    Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
    and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
    original Jurisdiction.
    The constitutional grant of original jurisdiction over such cases means
    that they may be filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than reaching
    the Court on appeal from another court.

Leave a Reply