by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
Vermont’s Constitution has guided the state for more than two centuries, but how well do we really know what it says—and how closely are we following it today?
While many Vermonters are familiar with the Bill of Rights and high-profile amendments like the recent Article 22, few could name Articles 9, 66, or 68—let alone describe what they say or how they affect the laws we live under. Yet these three articles remain binding law. They have never been repealed, never been amended, and they were written with the intent to guide Vermont’s government across centuries.
In practice, however, modern policies and statutes often run counter to these provisions. And because Vermont courts don’t enforce constitutional limits on their own, these conflicts remain unresolved unless someone brings a legal challenge.
The Provisions: What Do They Say?
Article 9: Expenses of Protection
Article 9 explains why Vermonters pay taxes:
“…every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection…”
This provision is clear about the purpose of taxation. It is to fund government functions that protect individuals’ rights—not to redistribute wealth or provide comforts beyond that scope.
Article 66: Free Denizenship
This article defines who is a Vermonter:
“…Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath… and after one year’s residence shall be deemed a free denizen… entitled to all rights of a natural-born subject of this State.”
According to Article 66, full rights of citizenship—including access to state benefits and legal protections—are only conferred after meeting three conditions:
- One year’s residence
- Taking an oath of allegiance to Vermont
- Being of “good character”
Today, however, residency requirements for most purposes have been replaced by statutory definitions. In many cases, individuals arriving in Vermont can vote, collect state-funded benefits, and even run for local office almost immediately.
Article 68: Encourage Virtue, Prevent Vice
“Laws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and immorality ought to be constantly kept in force…”
This article establishes a duty for Vermont’s government to maintain laws that promote civic virtue and discourage vice. In 1777, “virtue” referred to honesty, industriousness, and lawfulness. “Vice” referred to behaviors like drunkenness, gambling, and prostitution.
Modern policies—such as legalized marijuana, Burlington’s proposals to decriminalize prostitution, and lenient bail reforms—could be seen as conflicting with this constitutional mandate.
The Conflicts: Modern Policies vs. Old Principles
Dozens of statutes and policies now in effect in Vermont appear to conflict with these articles. Among them:
- State-funded welfare programs that provide benefits to individuals with no history of residence in Vermont.
- Sanctuary laws and policies refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement
- Criminal justice reforms that critics argue have created a revolving-door system for repeat offenders.
- Legalized marijuana markets and municipal pushes to decriminalize sex work.
Under Articles 9, 66, and 68, these initiatives raise questions:
- Should taxpayer funds be used to provide comforts or protections to individuals who have not yet become “free denizens” under Article 66?
- Do current laws encourage virtue and discourage vice, as Article 68 demands?
- Has the state overstepped its constitutional bounds by redefining residency outside of the one-year requirement?
Why the Courts Stay Silent
It’s important to understand that Vermont’s courts do not proactively enforce constitutional provisions. They require a lawsuit. Someone with standing must file a case demonstrating harm caused by a conflicting statute or policy.
Until such a case is brought, courts assume that legislative actions are valid—even if they seem to contradict the Constitution.
A Historical Lens on Today’s Challenges
If we could chart Vermont’s fiscal and criminal data from 1777 to 2025, we might see a pattern: as laws and policies have drifted away from Articles 9, 66, and 68, costs of living have increased and crime rates have risen.
This isn’t to say modern lawmakers acted with ill intent, but it raises an important question: have we lost sight of constitutional principles designed to preserve order, self-reliance, and community stability?
Why It Matters
The Vermont Constitution remains the supreme law of the state. It does not change simply because legislators overlook it or because modern preferences shift. It is the responsibility of Vermont citizens to insist on its enforcement and to challenge laws and policies that conflict with it.
Only through such challenges can the courts be triggered to examine these issues and reconcile modern governance with constitutional limits.
The Takeaway
In Vermont—and in every state—the Constitution isn’t just a suggestion. It is the foundation. Every statute, every rule, every policy passed by the legislature must conform to it. The Constitution sets the rules. The legislature writes laws within those rules. The courts apply those laws. That is the chain of authority.
Whether you personally like or dislike a law doesn’t change that hierarchy. A statute can only stand if it fits within the Constitution. If it doesn’t, it must either be overturned in court, or the Constitution must be amended first. That is the proper process for changing how a government operates.
Take Burlington’s recent effort to decriminalize sex work. The motivation is understandable—reducing harm for victims of human trafficking. But under Article 68, which requires laws to “encourage virtue and prevent vice,” such a policy arguably violates Vermont’s Constitution as written. The proper course of action would be to amend the Constitution first, then enact the policy. Anything else puts the cart before the horse.
This is what many citizens—and apparently many legislators—misunderstand. Constitutions aren’t about how you feel about a law. They are about whether that law is even permissible under the governing framework. It doesn’t matter if a statute is wildly popular or despised. If it conflicts with the Constitution, it is invalid. Period.
If this sounds rigid, that’s because it’s meant to be. Constitutions are designed to be difficult to change so they can serve as guardrails against government overreach and short-term political whims. They are the reason Vermont’s government can’t—on a whim—decide to hand every citizen a one-ounce gold coin. There’s no constitutional authority for it, no matter how much people might like the idea.
This is the civic logic many have forgotten: the Constitution is the rulebook, and laws are only the plays you can run within it. If we ignore that order, we no longer have a rule of law. We have a rule of preference—and history shows where that leads.