Title: A Walk Through Vermont with John Locke
Original CoS Document (slug): a-walk-through-vermont-with-john-locke
Login Required to view? No
Created: 2021-12-08 08:26:12
Updated: 2021-12-08 09:46:46
Published: 2021-12-08 03:00:00
Converted: 2025-04-14T21:14:41.719007452
Does the legislative branch of government have the authority to transfer the trust of making laws and place it in other hands?
In my search for understanding, as to why it is improper for an elected representative to delegate their trust, I was introduced to John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, said that John Locke was among “my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced.” In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government.”
What does Mr. Locke have to say about the Legislative authority delegating their trust? These are not direct quotes from his Two Treatise. It’s a fictional conversation to simplify his more articulate and thorough explanations. However, his message is unchanged.
Hello, Mr. Locke.
Do we need laws to be free?
Where there is no Law, there is no Freedom
So, laws are established to restrict Freedom?
Laws are not established to abolish or restrict, but to preserve and nurture Freedom
Can Free people do whatever they want?
Freedom is not a Liberty for anyone to do what they wish, for who could be Free when another person could impose their will on them at any given moment
What is Liberty?
Liberty is Freedom of restraint and violence from others
Then, what is Freedom?
Freedom is the ability to control your time, actions, and property and dispose of them as you choose. It is not subject to the random will of another
How is Freedom secured?
Governments are established to secure Freedom, and they need support to operate
How are governments supported?
Governments are supported with great effort and cost, all who enjoy the governments Protection should pay a portion of their estate for its security
Who decides what portion of their estate is appropriate for this security?
That must be established with Consent, i.e. the Consent of the Majority
How is consent established?
Consent can be given, either by individual citizens or the representatives Chosen by Them
Once consent is given, can it be delegated to anyone else?
Since it is a delegated Power from the People, they who have it cannot pass it on to any others
What happens if the chosen representatives were to delegate that trust, or some other entity took it?
Anyone who claims that power on the People, without their Consent, is violating the fundamental law of Property
What is the fundamental law of property?
If anyone shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the People, by their own authority, and without such consent of the People, they thereby invade the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government
Could you elaborate on that?
What can you consider Property if someone else, may by right, take it away whenever it pleases them? Governing Societies are created to secure life, liberty, and property
How do you create governing societies?
The way to create a Governing Society is when the People Constitute a Legislative authority and appoint those who will represent them
Can any single person or group of people, other than the Constituted Legislative authority, make laws?
Once the People agree to submit to be governed by the Laws and in such forms made by their Appointees, nothing else can make Laws for them
What other Laws are the people required to follow to be a part of the governing society?
The only Laws the People are bound to are the ones enacted by their Elected Representatives they have Chosen and Authorized to make Laws for them
Where does this power of the legislature come from?
The power of the Legislature is derived from the People by a Positive Voluntary Grant and Institution
Can the legislative authority delegate their trust to an agency of experts?
This Positive Grant is only to make Laws, not to make Law makers
So, the legislature cannot transfer this trust to any other?
The legislative can have no power to transfer their trust of making Laws and place it in other hands
What are the limits of this trust, that is granted by consent, to the legislative authority?
First, they are to govern by known, open and established laws, not to be varied in particular cases. There is one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite in congress and the farmer at plow
Secondly, these laws should be designed for no other purpose than the good of the people
Thirdly, they must not raise taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their deputies
Fourthly, the legislature shall not and cannot transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere, but where the people have
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Locke
Vermont Legislator Prefers to Delegate her Trust
Vermont’s Legislature just voted to pass a “law”, that the Republican Governor signed, which authorizes individual cities and towns to pass temporary mask mandates. Vermont’s Senate Majority Leader, Becca Balint (D-Windham) stated. “We need our executive branch, our governor and our Department of Health to step up and protect the people of Vermont when we are facing the most challenging and difficult time of the pandemic in Vermont.”
Senator Balint is a lawmaker who was elected and entrusted to enact laws. She is adamantly trying to delegate that trust to the Governor or some other department. Not only does she prefer to delegate the authority trusted in her, but she sounds upset it hasn’t already been usurped. Does she have the authority to do that? If the answer is yes, why do we need Legislators? Can the legislative branch transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere, but where the people have?
U.S. Judge Terry Doughty doesn’t think so. In his recent ruling about President Biden's vaccine mandate he states. “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency…During a pandemic such as this one, it is even more important to safeguard the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution to avoid erosion of our liberties.”
What is Senator Balint’s motive for delegating the trust given by her constituents? Once the trust has been delegated, who do the People hold accountable for the resultant policies? Is senator Balint responsible or the newly delegated authority? Can the Governor create law and then execute the law he just made? Is the Executive required to punish violations of mandates that were enacted by individual towns? This method of “law making” breeds confusion and a lack of accountability. Can the Legislature, if it conveniences them or promotes their agenda, make law makers to avoid the accountability of making laws?
Vermont’s Constitution Chapter 2 section 5 reads: The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary departments, shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the others. The United States Constitution says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The Legislative branch makes laws, the Judicial branch gives opinions on those laws and the Executive branch, well they execute the laws. Does senator Balint want the Governor to make a “law” and then execute the enforcement of it? It appears, by her statement, that is exactly what she wants. Does the Vermont Senate Majority Leader understand the fundamental principles behind the Separation of Powers?
Why would the law maker want the executive branch or city councils to make a perversion of “Law”, disguised as a mandate? Why not use the legislative process granted to her in the Vermont Constitution? Consider this, does the Constitution give, any form of government, jurisdiction over a citizen’s liberty to breath air without constraints? If the government is restricted from enacting laws that would diminish the freedom of speech, i.e., the 1st Amendment, how can they have the jurisdiction to diminish the free flow of air in and out of your lungs? Do you only have the freedom of speech so long as you are wearing something covering your nose and, the most common method of communicating, your mouth?
Article 15 of the Vermont Constitution reads: The power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, ought never to be exercised but by the Legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases, as this constitution, or the Legislature shall provide for.
Can the Vermont Legislature “provide”, the free citizens of their State, with additional law makers to govern them?
If any member of the Vermont Congress, certainly the Senate Majority Leader, is too incompetent to make good laws and feels the need to delegate that trust to the Governor, an agency, town counsel or the local high school student counsel, they should resign their office and give it up to someone who is up to the task.
Stay tuned for the solution to this problem!
When discussing the Vermont or the Federal Constitution, neither of them create Rights, they Secure the Rights we Inherently have
The Constitution shields all who live under it equally, always, and under all circumstances. It doesn’t change during times of peace or times of war. Nor can any provision be suspended for any of the great pressing needs of government.
When the colonies sent their delegates to render the Constitution of government adequate to the exigencies of the Union, it was a perilous time. The Constitution was created when enemies were on the doorstep, colonies were having trade wars with each other, treaties were being established by individual States with foreign nations, our merchant ships were being attacked and the captain and crews were being killed or ransomed. The word exigent means pressing business or an occasion that calls for immediate help.
Was there ever a more dangerous time in the history of this country, then when the Constitution was established? It was established for stability, to form a more perfect union. To ignore the fundamental principles laid out in the Constitution, at any time and for any reason, is a grave mistake. That is why we require an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and not to defend and uphold the government.
Vermont Senate Majority leader, Becca Balint wants to delegate her law-making trust to the Governor and the department of health. She stated: “We need our executive branch, our governor and our department of health to step up and protect the people of Vermont when we are facing the most challenging and difficult time of the pandemic in Vermont.” Can the Governor “step up” and make law while also being the one who executes said law? That would make him a Dictator, wouldn’t it? What happened to the separation of powers?
In August of 2020 the Governor issued this statement:
I, Philip B. Scott, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of Vermont by the Constitution of the State of Vermont, Chapter II, Section 20 and under 20 V.S.A. §§ 8, 9 and 11, hereby order the amendment of the Amended and Restated Executive Order as follows:
Masks or Cloth Facial Coverings Required in Public Wherever Close Contact is Unavoidable. As of Saturday, August 1, 2020, Vermonters shall wear masks or cloth facial coverings over their nose and mouth any time they are in public spaces, indoors or outdoors, where they come in contact with others from outside their households, especially in congregate settings, and where it is not possible to maintain a physical distance of at least six feet.
This Executive order continues for several more paragraphs, but it is obvious the Governor believes he has the authority to make laws for the citizens and private businesses of Vermont, so long as there is a “declared emergency”. Does the Governor become a King (or Queen don’t lose the message) whenever there is a “declared” State of Emergency?
Governor Scott says the Vermont Constitution authorizes him to do this. Well, it doesn’t. You can read every section he sites in his order, and not once does it say the Governor can make law, period. A law, by any other name is still a law. Call it a mandate, an order, or anything else. If you are making a rule and then enforcing it with penalty, that rule now has the weight of law. One singular entity cannot establish laws and then execute laws on the free citizens of Vermont, regardless of a declared emergency. Anyone who does, is usurping their delegated power and is acting as a tyrant.
Here’s a look into the sections of the Vermont Constitution, that Governor Scott cited as his authority to make laws. Vermont Chapter II Section 20 explains what the Governor’s role is. He has the power to commission and appoint officers unless the legislature or the Constitution limits him. He has the power to correspond with other States and let congress know of any issues so the legislators can address them. It talks about his power to grant pardons and remit fines. Here’s the important part, he is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He has the power to call together the General Assembly, so they can enact laws, however, nowhere does it give him law making power.
What happens when there is a declared state of emergency? Does the Governor take on the role of the legislature and the Executive whenever he declares a state of emergency? Does 20 V.S.A 8, 9 OR 11 give the Governor of Vermont the authority to make law? The answer is no.
The first section of 20 V.S.A 8 states: The purpose of this compact is to provide for the possibility of mutual assistance among the jurisdictions entering into this compact in managing any emergency or disaster when the affected jurisdiction or jurisdictions ask for assistance, whether arising from natural disaster, technological hazard, manmade disaster, or civil emergency aspects of resource shortages. This is a compact for States to work together for resources. Nothing here that grants the Governor law making authority.
20 V.S.A 9 explains when a Governor may proclaim a state of emergency within the State. Once the emergency has been declared, the Governor shall have, and may exercise, additional powers. It gives him 11 additional responsibilities. The first one is this. To enforce all laws and rules relating to emergency management and to assume direct operational control of all emergency management personnel and helpers in the affected area or areas. The key to that sentence is, enforce all laws and rules, not to make new laws or rules. By the way, the following two additional powers have to do with traffic control. A far stretch from legislative authority.
20 V.S.A 11 states: “In the event of an all-hazards event, the Governor may exercise any or all of the following additional powers.” At first glance, this section doesn’t seem to play any role in his executive mask order. For instance, the first granted power is, “to authorize any department or agency of the State to lease or lend, on such terms and conditions and for such period as he or she deems necessary to promote the public welfare and protect the interests of the State, any real or personal property of the State government, or authorize the temporary transfer or employment of personnel of the State government to or by the U.S. Armed Forces.” Again, nothing here about the Governor being able to enact laws on free citizens or government employees.
The last section of 20 V.S.A 11 Section 6 reads, “to perform and exercise other functions, powers, and duties as necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population.” Does this give the Governor the power entrusted in the legislature? Do the words, “promote and secure” translate into, take control of the legislative process, make a law, then enforce the law? Did he just establish a Dictatorship?
Regardless of your opinion on mask use, no human being, or group of human beings, has the delegated authority to require free citizens to wear anything that could restrict the air flowing in and out of your lungs. Stay tuned for an article on masks.
All you really need to know is this. Vermont’s Constitution Chapter 2 section 5 reads: The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary departments, shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the others.
An executive order is addressed to government agencies asking them to perform a duty. The moment the President or Governor decides to bypass congress and enact a “law”, they have usurped their delegated trust and are acting as a tyrant. It really is just that simple.
Stay tuned for the solution to this problem
The Solution
What is the most important rule when establishing any organization?
Who gets to make the rules?
Article 1 Section 1 of the United States Constitution reads…
All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives
Twenty-five words that tell the citizens of America, the only laws supported by this Constitution shall go through congress. Congress is beholden to the People and Article 1 Section 1 ensures that only elected representative’s draft law. If the People don’t like the Laws they make, they can elect new representatives. That is how self-governance is maintained and how Liberty is preserved.
The citizens of America have become accustomed to a system where all three branches of government are making laws. Worse yet, our congress, the one branch that is authorized to draft law, delegates much of that trust to unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies. Currently in America, the President, Judges, and unelected bureaucrats in dozens of agencies are making some perversion of “law” that, We the People, have almost no say in.
Presidents and Governors cannot make law- George Washington’s first executive order was to the heads of departments “to impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States” they oversaw. An executive order is addressed to government agencies asking them to perform a duty. The moment the President or Governor decides to bypass congress and enact a “law”, they have usurped their delegated trust and are acting as a tyrant.
Judges cannot make law- They do not have the Constitutional authority to overturn Laws passed by congress. They are not a co-equal branch. They are entitled to lifetime appointments, so long as they don’t misbehave i.e. “shall hold their office during good behavior.” It is still the Opinion of the court. The supreme court has become a super-legislature that is a complete usurpation of its Constitutionally delegated power.
Legislators cannot delegate lawmaking- Unelected officials, that run agencies, have zero Law-making authority. Americans are accustomed to this method of government, but it is contrary to the fundamental principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and supported by the Constitution. There is a statement in the Declaration that reads, “all experience hath shewn, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Delegating legislative authority is an evil we have suffered with for long enough. It is time for the People to abolish this form of governing.
How do we fix these obvious structural problems?
Calling a Convention of States is the solution to these problems. It’s the Solution as Big as the Problem. It is simple to understand why we would want to call a Convention. We want to bring power back to the States and the People, where it belongs. Unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be allowed to make sweeping decisions that impact millions of Americans. But right now, they do. So, it all boils down to one question: Who do you think should decide what’s best for you and your family? You or the feds? We’d vote for the American people every single time.
What is a Convention of States?
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives the States the power to call a Convention to propose amendments. It takes 34 States to call the convention and 38 States to ratify any amendments that are proposed. The ratification process is no different if congress proposed the amendment. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”
The Convention of States Project is working with State legislatures across the country to call a Convention. Our goal is to propose amendments lawfully by using the process spelled out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. 15 States have already passed the proposal in both chambers of congress. Another 9 have passed on one chamber. As you can see, we are gaining momentum.
Here’s how this process works. The 22nd amendment to the Constitution limits the President to two terms in office. Congress proposed the amendment. The proposal was sent to the individual State Legislatures where it was debated, accepted and then ratified as an amendment.
Since it is obvious that congress will not propose an amendment that would limit its own power, the States must send delegates to propose that limit. The only difference, instead of congress proposing the amendment, the States appointed delegates would. If, at the convention, 34 states agree to a specific proposal, it will be sent back to the state legislatures. There, it will be debated, just as if congress had proposed it. Whether congress proposes the amendment or the State appointed delegates, the ratification process is exactly the same. 38 States, in both chambers, must agree to the amendment before it becomes a part of our Constitution.
If your representative or senator does not support calling for a Convention, that means they don’t support the States sending delegates to discuss term limits for federal officials. They also don’t believe the federal government should have any restrictions on how much money they can spend and borrow. Here’s the worst thing. If your representative doesn’t support calling for a Convention of States, they think the federal government and unelected bureaucrats should dictate how you live your life, run your business, what your children are taught, etc. So, the question is, who decides what is best for you and your family, you, or the feds?
The Constitution is not outdated or irrelevant, far from it. It is full of fundamental and timeless principles that do not change. Please sign the Convention of States petition. When you sign it, a letter will be delivered to your representative. It lets them know you support calling for a Convention of States to restore Freedom and Liberty. If they don’t support it, there are millions of us that are willing to battle with you, shoulder to shoulder, to convince them otherwise. Let’s make Vermont the next State that joins to call for a Convention of States.