Tucked deep within Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution lies Article 9, a clause that rarely comes up in legislative debates, budget hearings, or public discourse. It is neither flashy nor frequently litigated. But it may be one of the most powerful and underutilized protections Vermonters possess — if anyone remembered to use it.
In a state increasingly defined by growing budgets, regulatory sprawl, and activist policymaking, one might ask: Is Article 9 still alive? Or has it quietly been buried under the weight of modern politics?
🔹 What Article 9 Actually Says
Adopted in 1793, Article 9 begins with a foundational premise:
“That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member’s proportion towards the expense of that protection…”
In short: the State must first protect its people’s rights. In exchange, the people must contribute fairly — through taxes or service — toward that protection.
But the article doesn’t stop there. It then lays out a fiscal standard unmatched in most modern constitutions:
“…previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.”
This means every new tax or appropriation must be clearly proven to serve the public good more than letting people keep their money.
This isn’t a suggestion. It’s a constitutional threshold — and one that appears to be routinely ignored in modern policymaking.
🔹 A Forgotten Standard in Practice
There are no known Vermont court cases in which Article 9 has been directly invoked to overturn legislation or block spending. It exists in the books, but not in the courtroom, nor in the fiscal review process of the Legislature. This raises a troubling question: What good is a constitutional protection if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?
Vermont’s government currently provides no formal review to ensure that tax proposals meet Article 9’s standard. No legislative rule compels lawmakers to justify, with evidence, that a new tax or program is “of more service to community” than if Vermonters kept their own money. And no independent oversight board holds them to it.
As a result, Vermonters are left with a document that says something powerful, but a system that acts like it doesn’t exist.
🔹 Three Examples That Undermine Article 9
▪️ $2 Million in Missing Brownfield Funds
Earlier this year, an audit of Vermont’s brownfield redevelopment spending revealed over $2 million in taxpayer funds that were spent but not clearly accounted for. Despite the money being allocated through state channels, no definitive project outcomes or results have been tied to those funds.
Under Article 9, this is more than bureaucratic sloppiness. It’s a failure of the State’s duty to ensure that public money serves a measurable, superior benefit to the people. Vermonters paid for that program. They got little in return — and no one has been held accountable.
▪️ The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA)
Passed in 2020, the GWSA legally binds the state to meet emissions reduction targets, and allows environmental groups to sue the government if it fails. But achieving these goals — even if perfectly implemented — would have a virtually immeasurable effect on global climate, while burdening taxpayers with significant costs and forcing regulatory interventions into transportation, home heating, and agriculture.
Where is the proof that this approach offers more public benefit than letting Vermonters keep and use that money themselves? Where was the debate about the opportunity cost of pursuing such a narrow result with such a high price tag?
If there was a fiscal test under Article 9, GWSA would not pass it.
▪️ Act 250 and Property Rights
Originally passed in 1970 to protect Vermont’s natural landscape, Act 250 now routinely restricts property owners from developing their land — often based on objections from individuals or groups with no direct connection to the property in question. These delays and denials happen without compensation, and without regard for the constitutional right to “enjoyment of property.”
This appears to violate not only Article 2’s private property protections, but Article 9’s balance of duty: that people contribute to the public good in proportion, and are entitled to the protection of their liberty and property in return.
🔹 So, Is Article 9 Dead?
Maybe not dead — but certainly dormant. It hasn’t been enforced, hasn’t been tested, and hasn’t been respected. Most lawmakers would likely struggle to recite it. Most Vermonters have never heard of it. Yet it promises more than just procedural fairness — it promises a constitutional ethic: that taxation must be proven necessary, not merely politically justified.
As things stand today, no state agency is tasked with monitoring compliance. No lawsuit has challenged laws under its terms. And no legislative committee formally invokes it in bill review.
That leaves one question: If a constitutional obligation is ignored by both lawmakers and courts, does it still exist in practice?
Unless Vermonters begin demanding answers — and accountability — the answer may already be clear.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontConstitution #Article9 #TaxpayerAccountability
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply