By Jake Sallerson
Chapter 1, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution reads as follows:
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.”
The given article seems primarily to suggest that government and its reflection is to be entirely for the purposes of the people. To me, stating that opportunity for growth and change written into the state constitution is for the purpose of benefitting the people. I make mention of this because the whole of what I've put forth in recent months is centered around reincorporating the individual citizen back into the decision-making process of governing. In essence, attempting to achieve the so-called method of self-governance that America was intended to be.
It's too broad to get into here, but something I want to touch upon is that there will be concerns regarding the scope of the power of the people when the time comes, should I manage to effectively win enough support to put this concept into practice.
However, this article appears to clear up this issue without really creating any sort of hidden confluence of oppositional measures regarding where the power truly is.
I was questioned in a meeting with locals a few months back about how I would go about representing the will of the people if it did not fall within the scope of the Constitution. Naturally, the meaning was the U.S. Constitution, but the essence of the question remains. Should something fall outside the scope of the Constitution were the people to want it (as long as it were not to be in direct contradiction of the U.S Constitution, though I still wonder) but were to oppose the Vermont Constitution, I might claim use of this article as order of constitutional right that the government is to be used for, and to represent the people and not itself.
The issue at hand was whether or not I would be representing a mob of crazed citizens hell-bent on the destruction of everything known and held dear to us currently enacted within our quite civilized structure of modern democratic republican-ness, or if I would adhere to the quite effective and therefore (presumed) "perfect" nature of our set of governmental doctrines held dearest by those who understand them most imperfectly, a troubling question indeed.
My platform originates entirely out of the time immediately after the writing of the so-called "Miracle at Philadelphia," in which local representatives actually represented the will and wish of their town in higher forms of government. The average individual had the opportunity to be almost directly involved with what their citizen representative said in state Legislature. But in our modern day such revolutionary advancements of individual liberty and democracy, this avenue of direct representation is lost to elected officials who do the so-called "governing" for us.
So the question became, if I were to refuse to actually represent my own desires in the State House, should I win, how could I be trusted through representing the will of the people to stay within accordance of constitutional principle, given that "the people" are such an unruly bunch of miscreants who can't think rationally or reasonably beyond the scope of their own faces?
To which I had only the answer of my needing to stay within the confines of my own conscience or to, if necessary, resign my post and duties as a representative.
However, I find Chapter 1, Article 7 is a much more dignified and appropriate response to that question should I face it again in the future.
Regardless of whether or not this example is the exception to the proverbial rule is irrelevant, as its existence has set precedent for constitutional measures to be seen not only as imperfect and therefore excessive in mandate, but also that regardless of constitutional imposition or statute limitations, they can be changed citing Article 7.
It was stated to me that everything is up in the air and on the table not only for re-examination but is warranted and needs required examination, especially given Thomas Jefferson's statement of the need to re-examine government every 19 years.
Which, in case you don't perfectly recall, reads, "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
I guess the point is to reaffirm what I suspect to be a reality, which is that, a) constitutional measures were written by men and can therefore be unwritten by them as well, and, b) that not only can they but they are expected to make government serve the people and not the other way around.
Regardless of this constitutional implementation, it would both seem and appear not only necessary for such awareness of citizen-given right and control, but that it must absolutely be exercised on a regular basis so as to ensure 100 percent transparency and accountability from those making the decisions at the so-called top.
For it is this illusion of constitutional domination that has caused such destruction of the very sacredness that we as a country once held in such high regard regarding our democratic republic of individual freedom and representation. And instead is now the much moderated, very controlled entity of modern politics that has angered so many and left voiceless many more. What say you?
Sallerson lives in Warren.
