A few moments at Town Meeting in Fletcher today irritated me.  Things were said that I thought kinda exemplified the shortsightedness and selfishness we as a nation demonstrate on a regular basis.

First, in the Selectboard's proposed budget we wanted to provide 4% raises for the handful of people who work for the Town fulltime.  For several years those good folks have only gotten cost-of-living increases, despite the good work they do on vital services for our community.  To be sure, some people in this economy don't even get COLAs or aren't even lucky enough to have jobs, but that isn't a compelling argument to not give other people what they deserve.

So anyway, somebody made a motion to reduce that raise to a mere 1.5% for cost-of-living (another motion put it at a less-stingy 2% to “compromise”).  People who supported amending the budget essentially boiled it down to “I'm skilled and valuable, too, but only got a 1% raise.”  It's certainly understandable that folks would find another person getting a larger raise to be unfair, particularly since any monies we pay out comes from their tax dollars.

But let's put that all into perspective for a moment.  We're talking about roughly $7500 amongst a few people in a $950k budget.  That's 0.7% of the budget, and is fractions of a penny in a person's property tax bill.

We're also talking about our long-serving Town Clerk/Treasurer, who has been on the job for almost three decades, is extremely efficient and makes sure the Town runs smoothly.  Her job includes doing all the necessary recording for legal property transfers that people rely on, and meeting payroll for our other valued employees who plow, salt and sand, and otherwise maintain the roads at all hours of the day and night, all year long, so the rest of us can safely get to our jobs and support our families.

Fortunately, after 40 minutes of debate, the 2% proposal was shot down 69-41, and the 1.5% proposal was loudly rejected in a voice vote.  I'm still a bit surprised that so many people were willing to deny a trifle to somebody they rely upon.  

I'll note that there was a time I actually took a 20% pay cut when our company wasn't doing to so great, but I still didn't resent somebody somewhere else getting a raise.  Isn't that the kind of “socialist” thinking that the wealthy decry: “don't try to take away my money just because you don't make more”?  I wonder what it would be like if more people realized we're all worth more, and celebrate those who get what they deserve as a good starting point.  We won't get anywhere without prosperity bubbling up.

The other thing is related in that people were concerned about the school budget and how much money we might have to spend to address a serious space and facilities problem as our student population grows.  A couple people felt that pre-K was unnecessary (one also suggested it's not mandatory from a legal POV, but the State will likely be changing that soon), so why are we spending money on that when we need it for the older kids and it's the parents' and/or grandparents' responsibility anyway.  Oy.

Obviously that hits home since we have one child in pre-K right now–he'll be there for another year before hitting kindergarten–and another who will be enrolled in 2015.  Just from my personal perspective, I'm rather insulted that members of our community see no value in our children getting public education as early as possible.

But beyond that, they are completely missing just how important it is for all of us:

Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman supports the investment of public dollars in early childhood education out of urgent concern about the low skills of the U.S. workforce. He fears a continuing decline in skill level in the coming decades, with a disastrous loss of U.S. productivity and economic competitiveness. He concludes that it makes “sound business sense to invest in young children from disadvantaged environments,” since quality pre-Kindergarten programs “generate substantial savings to society and…promote higher economic growth by improving the skills of the workforce.”

Heckman argues that remediation in schools and for young adults who have failed in school, like GED certification and public job training, are both more costly and less effective than quality early learning programs. Therefore, money invested in early learning for at-risk children is more cost effective than money spent later to compensate for earlier disadvantages.

In its influential 2002 report, Preschool for All: Investing in a Productive and Just Society, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), an independent research and policy organization ofsome 250 business leaders and educators, presented a business case for federal and state governments “to undertake a new national compact to make early education available to all children age 3 and over.” Education should be viewed, says the CED report, as an investment, not an expense, which will increase economic productivity and tax revenues, while diminishing crime. CED also argues that it is both morally and ethically unacceptable to fail to safeguard the health and well- being of all young children.

Indeed, it has been suggested that:

• Effective pre-k programs reduce costly grade retention and special education services

• Better-prepared pre-k graduates make kindergarten teachers more effective, which reduces costs

• Early childhood programs stimulate the local economy

Studies have shown that every dollar we invest in early education ultimately gets us a return if anywhere between 4 and 17 dollars.  That makes the nickel and diming some people find so seductive really look like chump change.

We had a lot of good questions and comments today, and it was great to see so many people attend Town Meeting and run for school board this year.  I'm just a little disappointed that we heard so much about tinkering in the margins whilst alienating people, to very little positive effect for our community.

I hope that we can eventually impress upon everybody the need to make the necessary investments in our children, as well as the people who serve us all so well.  I think the two boards are trustworthy stewards of our community resources and do very well to avoid any profligate tendencies.  But it's also a pretty intuitive business maxim that you have to spend money to make money.  We ought to do more of that locally, not to mention at the state and national level.

ntodd

The 3 regular readers of my blog know I post a lot about the Constitution and legal statutes, American and world history, the evolution of scientific understanding and other geeky stuff that bores a lot of people.  I eat that shit up, and have ever since I can remember.  

My late mother called me “the family historian” because I was the one who always paid attention to the Old Timers' stories, so I knew where we'd come from and became sort of the repository for family lore.  I collected coins (past tense because I still have my collection, much of which came from my paternal grandfather, but I no longer actively engage in numismatic-related program activities).  I made NToddsPa take me to historic sites in Philly and Boston, even though he hates urban driving.  

I obviously haven't grown out of it.  In between anti-war actions in DC, I visited the Holocaust Museum, the National Archives, the Smithsonian, etc.  I dragged my pregnant partner up Little Round Top and love researching local boys who served in the Civil War.  I pore over the Annals of Congress for my “daddy time”.

Usually when I write about this stuff, people don't comment and I'm sure skip over the excruciating detail I sometimes get into.  On more than one occasion somebody has told me how their eyes roll back into their head, or they glaze over, or something.  That's cool.  I write because I like it, and am thrilled in the rare instances when somebody wants to discuss something.

There's more to it than that, though.  Philosophically, I think knowing history is important for understanding our present and anticipating our future.  And at the very least, you need to appreciate it as you try to interpret anachronistic law that remains with us as we deal with modern policy issues.

What usually gets a bug up my ass is when people try to appropriate history to claim a monopoly on it.  Fundamentally I don't really give a shit what James Madison thought, but I can't abide his being used as a cudgel by people.  So I fight fire with fire because it usually shows how specious their claims are and how shallow their understanding is.

And I just like it.

So it should come as no surprise to people who know me that I might spend a lot of time reading source documents and arguing to the last about something trivial like Vermont's pre-statehood status as a republic.  It's not just about trying to prove I'm right–obviously that's a part of it since I have an oversized ego and hate to be wrong–but I'm like a moth to the flame if I see a burning controversy or even a lukewarm difference in perspective.  And I always learn something new.

F'rinstance, I didn't realize just how prominent one of Fletcher's original grantees was (though I shoulda done the math because, you know, who gets free land from the Governor?).  Jonas Fay pretty much wrote Vermont's declaration of independence, was a member of the Green Mountain Boys, and was on the State Supreme Court.  Now I want to look more into his life.

And I found a cool map.  I also like maps.

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming.  Eyes glazing over in 3, 2, 1…

ntodd

Ah, this must be what Rowley was referring to as “making me accountable”:

[T]wo time Vermont legislative candidate in Franklin County, Todd Pritsky Pritsky was a member of what was thought to be a super secret listserv where some Vermont seceshers, including a neo-Nazi, could engage in racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, seditious and abusively misogynistic “chat,” while other invited members, like Pritsky, remained largely silent.

For the record, N. Todd Pritsky ran ONCE for the House. I am now a member of the Fletcher Selectboard.

And, of course, I publicly called out SVR racism on Rob Williams' own website a few weeks before the 2010 election.  Interesting that Rowley also failed to note that I largely remained silent on the list in general (which he would do if he were intellectually honest since he can search the archive) because I was kinda busy trying to campaign in Fletcher, Fairfield and St Albans Town as an independent with a 6-month old child and didn't think it worth my time arguing with Denny M et al on a private list where it would have no impact.

The funny part of all this is between my sparring with Odum here on GMD, Rowley's own writing over the years, and my personal experience being on the periphery of Free Vermont from March to November of 2010 (when I was blackballed for calling out conspiracy theories), I soured on folks associated with a movement I obviously was never a part of in the first place.  But now Rowley would rather attack me personally because I dare to back up a popular idea that Vermont was an independent republic for 14 years with citations from the historical record and elsewhere.

It's disappointing coming from somebody who has done yeoman's work in exposing the racist underbelly of SVR, and not something that bolsters Rowley's credibility. 

ntodd

PS–I triple dog dare Rawley to try suggesting I ever advocated secession.  Perhaps he could start with this post and then work backwards.

For fun, I emailed the State Archivist, Tanya Marshall:

My question is deceptively simple: was there ever a Republic of Vermont?

Her answer:

My reply is deceptively simple as well: yes, there was a Republic of Vermont.

My philosophy is to use definitions and logic, and therefore I offer the following (simplified) response:

“Republic” by definition is a “form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power” (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition).

The preamble to the 1777 Vermont Constitution (available on our website: http://vermont-archives.org/govhistory/constitut/constitutions.htm) clearly states as follows:

“Therefore, it is absolutely necessary, for the welfare and safety of the inhabitants of this State, that it should be, henceforth, a free and independent State; and that a just, permanent and proper form of government, should exist in it, derived from, and founded on, the authority of the people only, agreeable to the direction of the honorable American Congress.

We the representatives of the freemen of Vermont, in General Convention met, for the express purpose of forming such a government, confessing the goodness of the Great Governor of the Universe (who alone, knows to what degree of earthly happiness, mankind may attain, by perfecting the arts of government), in permitting the people of this State, by common consent, and without violence, deliberately to form for themselves.”

“Supreme” by definition means “superior to all others.”

Between 1777 and 1791, supreme power rested with those elected by the citizens of Vermont to represent them; Vermont had its own Governor, Council and laws. When Vermont was admitted into the union in 1791 it did so as “state already formed.” (Letter from Nathaniel Chipman to Governor Chittenden, Vt. Ms. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 37). Yet, with statehood, supreme or superior power subsequently shifted from Vermont to the United States. While each state is autonomous, the superior power of the United States — and adherence to its constitution and laws, but with representation — is addressed as each state joins the union.

Our reference room staff would be more than happy to assist with records concerning the status of Vermont prior to statehood and upon statehood. They can be reached atarchives@sec.state.vt.us or 802-828-2308.

This scandalous secesh conspiracy runs deep, probably started by former Archivist, Greg Sanford, who not only refused to dispel the myth of a Republic of Vermont when given ample opportunity, he also failed to correct the Secretary of State back in 1986, and on at least two (2) occasions explicitly referred to this fiction (here and here) as though it were fact!  I'm sure because of Sanford's nefarious secesh plot,Governor Snelling bought into the Potemkin Republic scam and even historians who should know better called Vermont “the only true American republic.”

What's more, the Archive and Records Administration has clearly been systematically altering records so it would appear, for example, that Alexander Hamilton asserted that Vermont was a republic just like New York.  Worse yet, the Lt Governor in 1790 never could have thought this tiny state was a free republic, so a lot of editing has obviously been done!

I call on all right-thinking people to denounce this official agency and demand that Governor Shumlin remove the secesh agitators who have infiltrated our fair, non-republican government.

ntodd

It's come to my attention that some folks don't subscribe to the idea that Vermont was ever an independent republic.  While I certainly can appreciate that position, I take issue with it for a number of reasons, about which I will drone on in a bit.

But first, I need to address something that may or may not be the sum total of the argument against what seems to be a prevailing delusion: You can see the text of Vermont's first constitution here at the Secretary of State's website. (Spoiler Alert: The word “republic”appears nowhere in it.)

Yeah, it's true 'republic' appears nowhere in any version of the VT constitution.  As I noted elsewhere, it also doesn't appear in the US Constitution (though Article IV, Section 4 does guarantee a republican form of state government).  I'm fairly certain that lacking this word doesn't mean we don't live in a republic, which might otherwise come as a surprise to Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.  So, to solve the Case of the Missing Republic, we need to dig a little deeper than a superficial parsing of a single document.

I think the only facts not in dispute are that Vermont did declare itself independent in January of 1777, had a constitution several months later, and was not admitted into the Union until 1791.  I'll add that it also appears non-controversial that Vermonters in general wanted to be–and tried to be–part of the United States, but various obstacles regarding the Vermont Question prevented it for 14 years.

Now the question remains: was Vermont a republic?

It appears to be a long-held view, at the very least.  Rowland Evans Robinson referred to The Republic of the Green Mountains in his book on Vermont independence back in 1892.  The Vermont Historical Society published an article on Vermont's coinage by a numismatist in 1870:

The Latin legend on the obverse is, in English, “the Republic of the Green Mountains ;” that of the reverse is, “the fourteenth star.” The legends are variously abbreviated…
…
The symbols and inscriptions of the first coinage were peculiar to Vermont. They had already accomplished their purpose. The announcement that Vermont was to be the fourteenth state in union with the old thirteen, and that it was already an independent republic, was proclaimed far and wide on thousands of these little coins. No repetition could render these declarations more emphatic. 

More recently, our State Archivist referred to Vermont's status thus:

The mountain rule existed in various forms from the days of the Republic when it was originally observed to assure political balance between western Vermont and the then more populous east.

And in at least three rulings, the Vermont Supreme Court has stated its own belief that we were a republic before we were one of the States of the American Union: State v Badger (1982); Baker v State(1998), which was a fairly significant case; Brigham v State (1997), which tossed out our educational funding system.  I'd like to dwell on the latter for a moment:

[Ira Allen explained]:

The greatest legislators from Lycurgus down to John Lock[e], have laid down a moral and scientific system of education as the very foundation and cement of a State; the Vermonte[rs] are sensible of this, and for this purpose they have planted several public schools, and have established a university, and endowed it with funds … to draw forth and foster talents. The effects of these institutions are already experienced, and I trust that in a few years the rising generation will evince that these useful institutions were not laid in vain; … our maxim is rather to make good men than great scholars: let us hope for the union, for that makes the man, and the useful citizen.

In thus characterizing education as the “cement of [the] State,” Allen was expressing “a central tenet of republicanism: no democracy can survive without a virtuous citizenry … 'and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education.' “…

Because human nature was not viewed by the framers as naturally inclined to virtue, Allen and his contemporaries “saw education as the state's tool to insure self-preservation.”

As Moses Mather concisely observed in 1775: ” 'The strength and spring of every free government … is the virtue of the people; virtue grows on knowledge, and knowledge on education.' ” …

Thus understood, the Education Clause assumes paramount significance in the constitutional frame of government established by the framers: it expressed and incorporated “that part of republican theory which holds education essential to self government and which recognizes government as the source of the perpetuation of the attributes of citizenship.” 

The epoch of the American Revolution and framing of State and ultimately Federal governments was steeped in the language of republicanism.  Allen naturally cited republicans Lycurgus and Locke in a manner common amongst our various founders, with no apparent need to identify them explicitly with the label of 'republican' because it was obviously understood.  Similarly, nobody would feel compelled to use the word 'republic' in a constitution that established a republican government because it was unnecessary and redundant.

Which is why so many writers and historians assume Vermont's status as an independent republic.  It declared independence and operated separately from Britain, New York and the various incarnations of the United States for 14 years.  It had a republican form of government.  I'm honestly surprised that anybody would argue that this is, oh, say…delusional.

But is it safe to assume that contemporaries referred to Vermont as a republic?  Well, I'm not sure that really matters, but here's what one of the original settlers of my little town of Fletcher wrote in 1784:

The Vermont Gazette of Oct. 18 [1784] contained the following, which was communicated by the retiring Secretary, Joseph Fay: To the Printers of the Vermont Gazette. GENTLEMEN,

By inserting the following extract of an official letter received last evening, you will not only gratify the public by giving early knowledge of the choice of their rulers for the year ensuing, but sting the ears of our enemies with the unwelcome news of the uniformity of the people by continuing in office those Gentlemen, who have been the guardians and faithful servants of the public, during a bloody war with Great Britain, and contest with several of the neighbouring States, for eight years past. Such a steady firmness does honour to the people, and by a continuance, with the due observance of good and wholesome laws, cannot fail to render this little republic happy, important and the dread of her enemies. 

[Jonas Fay to Joseph Fay.]  

He went on to report who won the elections.  Then there's the Council of Censors, who were responsible for safeguarding and amending our constitution, and reported in 1786:

The ungranted and confiscated lands seem to have been a boon conferred by providence, for the support of our republic in its infancy, while its subjects were unable to pay taxes…

So I think it's glaringly obvious that at least some of the governing elites at the time viewed Vermont as a republic, even though it uses words like 'state' and 'commonwealth' (none of which are mutually exclusive) in the constitution. I certainly wouldn't want to commit the fallacies of appealing to authority or popularity, but given a plain, textual reading it feels way more natural and credible to believe in a Vermont Republic from 1777-1791 than to, um…not.

At the very least, calling so many jurists, historians and early Vermonters drinkers of koolaid strikes me as unwarranted.  Just sayin'…

ntodd 

People on Facebook saw that I asked for good vibes for my friend Lloyd, who had been involved in a horrible car accident Wednesday morning.  Well, I got word a few hours ago that he succumbed to his injuries.

We'd actually thought he'd died the afternoon of the wreck.  Social media is a powerful tool for communication, including information that isn't entirely accurate.  So after some tears we were relieved to find that, for the moment anyway, he was still with us and everybody was doing all they could to help him.

Yesterday I had this exchange with my son:

Sam crashing trains, suddenly asks, “where Yoyd go?” Lloyd's in the hospital. “Why?” Car crash. “Other guys helping him?” Yes. “Oh, good.”

We'd consciously not said much around him, but apparently did enough because since then, Sam's been concerned about Yoyd, and today he was pretending that cars were hitting him and hurting his head.  He has always loved crashing cars and trains and whatever, but this is a new development, having himself involved.  Guess kids pick up a lot more than we give them credit for.

Yoyd was Sam's special buddy.  We would go up to Enosburg every few weeks to have lunch with him at the Kit Kat Diner.  Been doing that since 2010, shortly after the election.  That's when I first met Lloyd, running as an Independent in my quixotic quest for a VT House seat.

Even though I was an outsider–not much of a political threat, but still–Lloyd was one of the first Democrats to welcome me when I crashed their events.  He treated me like a colleague, and is one of the biggest reasons I decided I could join the party and not compromise my principles.

To the right, you'll see him in his true element.  Wearing his Franklin County Democrats t-shirt, he worked the new HQ last fall, chatting with our (now) State Auditor, and incumbent and re-elected Secretary of State, amongst other party and government officials.  Lloyd was our committee's Secretary and State Committeeman (yes, that is the title), and had held many other positions, including county Chair.  A wealth of institutional knowledge in that noggin.

And an unexhaustible amount of love and caring in that soul.  A man dedicated to his community, serving as a Selectman (again, yes, that's the title) and Moderator for his town of Enosburgh, working at the food shelf, and always going out of his way for his fellow veterans.

In fact, he was on his way down to Montepelier when his car collided with another vehicle in Sheldon.  The Vermont League of Cities and Towns was holding its Local Government Day, wherein municipal and county officials get updates on pending state legislation and whatnot.  He'd asked a couple weeks before if I'd want to go with him–when going to state committee meetings, we would meet in St Albans and I would drive from there–but I teach on Wednesdays so had to beg off.  We hadn't seen each other since January, so that was a disappointment, but of course there would be other opportunities.

Our last email exchange (he preferred talking on the phone, but knew I don't so much) was about our family's plans to go up to Enosburgh in the next two weeks.  Ericka manages some property up there and had suggested we all get together for lunch when she had a meeting.  His final response was, “keep me posted, bro.”

I don't exactly remember how it started.  I think I'd written something like, “rock on, bro,” in a message and it just sorta became our thing.  Every voicemail from Lloyd started, “hey brother, it's yer old bro…”

Gonna miss that terribly.

ntodd

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, ran into resistance as he strategically used nonviolent tactics to effect change.  He addressed this famously in his Letter From Birmingham Jail:

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.

My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depth…The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

I bring this up because I admit to still being puzzled by folks who excoriate Senator Baruth not just for the content of his withdrawn assault weapons ban, but for his even daring to introduce legislation in the first place without talking about it.

While it surprised me, and I was not convinced it's necessary in Vermont, I still maintain that one way to create space for discussing potential solutions to societal issues is to confront things head on.  Create tension, to use MLK's terminology.

I mean, what is negotiating if not putting down markers?  You have a house on the market that I really like, but the 200k asking price is too steep.  Do I not make a bid?  Certainly that's an option, but if I want the house, I offer 150k maybe.  You've finally got an interested buyer, so probably you don't ignore me and counter with 175k, and maybe we've got a deal, maybe we dicker over whether the washer and dryer come with, maybe I walk away because I just can't afford that much and was hoping you'd go for less, etc.

Similarly, Phil put out an initial offer that was too much for some people to accept.  Perfectly fine for people to disagree passionately with him–that's the crucible for much of what gets made in our republic.  So folks rally and put everybody on notice that an ouright ban on new purchases of certain semi-auto weapons is a nonstarter.  The Good Senator could've chosen to push on in the hopes that at the very least some increased regulation would be included in a watered down bill, or he could do as he did and say this bill isn't worth it.

Why is that bad?  It doesn't stop other legislators from putting out more palatable measures for consideration, like maybe requiring background checks at all gun shows in VT, or whatever.  It certainly didn't stop conversation about the extend of our 2nd Amendment/Article 16 rights to keep and bear arms.

The vast majority of introduced bills make it nowhere.  Always been that way, and is just a natural part of the process.  That doesn't mean you can cavalierly dismiss things like VA's proposed changes to how the state allocates Electoral Votes, or the NM bill that will jail rape victims for “evidence tampering” if they get an abortion.  But it's not something wrong in and of itself, even if you disagree with the purpose and wording of the proposals.

As George Washington said when requesting that the First Congress pass a bill to organize the militia: the science of legislation teaches to scrutinize every national institution.  In science, failure is good because it means a) you're doing that scrutinizing, and b) you've learned something from the process itself, even if it's that your hypothesis was completely off base.

Here we had components for an experiment: an existing legal template that did appear objectively to do some good at the national level; series of crimes wherein particular weapons were used that might need to be dealt with; a Federal government that suffers from political paralysis; a citizen legislator ready to take a risk at the state level; engaged people willing to push back.  I cannot see that as anything other than a Senator and the People of Vermont doing their jobs in a republic.  

Tension is good.  I'd hate to think we expect our representatives in Montpelier to play it safe instead of sometimes getting out ahead of the rest of us.  

ntodd

(In the interest of balance, I think this diary deserves a front page presence. – promoted by Sue Prent)

I admit that I was quite surprised when our friend Senator Philip Baruth introduced his so-called assault weapons ban in the State Senate.  It wasn't something I'd expected from any Vermont pol, and I am very glad he did it.  Not that I necessarily support that idea here in our state with its history, gun culture, rural population, etc.  Nor did I give it much of a chance of passage, at least in its original form.

That said, I think he did exactly what he ought to have done: saw a societal problem and as a legislator tried to begin the process of addressing it in Vermont.  There are never guaranteed outcomes in the sausage factory.  Yet it's clear that Phil's risky move did two important things: it started a very passionate debate, and it proved that the legislative process works.

First, by introducing a controversial bill such as S32, people from all over the political spectrum began arguing about its constitutionality, its general merits, and Vermont's role in the national problem.  The larger debate in the US and the daily toll of firearm violence can seem fairly remote to us, and I don't think this discussion would've had a lot of immediacy without Phil's taking a big step ahead of our political community.

Second, he has in fact withdrawn his bill, as the Raptorman reported earlier.  Senator Baruth heard from his constituents, he heard from people from all over the state, he heard from his caucus, and after all that wisely decided that it was better to take the ban off the table rather than push something that was out of sync with current political reality.  The process worked exactly as it should, and one would hope that demonstrates to folks that we're a long way from any imagined tyranny.

Here's an excerpt from his statement to the other Senators for them to send to their constituents (posted with his permission):

It seemed to me that with the Federal government paralyzed, it had been left to the states to address both the mental health and gun-related components of these tragedies.

But it is painfully clear to me now that little support exists in the Vermont Statehouse for this sort of bill.  It’s equally clear that focusing the debate on the banning of a certain class of weapons may already be overshadowing measures with greater consensus, like tightening background checks, stopping the exchange of guns for drugs, and closing gun show loopholes.  Finally, as incoming Majority Leader, I owe it to my caucus to remove an issue that seems increasingly likely to complicate our shared agenda this biennium.

To the many responsible gun-owners with whom I’ve communicated over the last several weeks:  I’ve heard you.  Please hear me when I say that government is not your enemy – we are all alike threatened by the kind of violence we saw in Newtown, violence that is clearly spreading.  And all of us are responsible for stopping it.  It’s my hope that with this ban set aside, you’ll join more willingly in that effort.

I applaud Phil for his courage in proposing the bill, as well as for his courage in withdrawing it.  I'm glad we have such a thoughtful and responsive leader in Montpelier, and I hope we all can continue having a fruitful debate with him and the rest of our citizen legislators about how we can protect liberty for all.

ntodd

PS–As I noted in comments on kestrel's post, I was looking forward to hearings on the issue.  I wasn't convinced the ban was a good approach for VT–despite its clear (to me) constitutionality per both SCOTUS and SCOV precedent–but I wanted to see what people said about its potential efficacy, if anybody had good data on our role as a net arms exporting state, etc.

(Well argued, with history and nuance. – promoted by NanuqFC)

That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

 – Article 1st, VT Constitution

Diving into the gun thing now, recall that I'm a firm supporter of an individual right to bear arms.  But let's do keep in mind the context and nuance involved.

As I've said before, I hate glib treatments of what is a fairly complicated issue, fraught with tension between personal liberty and the needs of society.  So the “join the militia, carry a musket” reduction of the 2nd Amendment annoys me just as much as “arm every teacher.”  If we're to have a meaningful discussion and actually find the wherewithal to accomplish something policywise, we need to go a little deeper than bumperstickers and Facebook memes.

The “join the militia” crowd is certainly correct that the 2nd refers to a well-regulated milita, and that it is tied to the people's right to keep and bear arms.  There's an important reason for that: the Framers recognized a need for our young nation to defend itself, but they also had a great fear of standing armies.  

That's something generally missed by the Gohmerts of the world who misquote Washington.  Not allowing Congress to appropriate Army monies for more than 2 years was a moderate check on standing armies.  Giving Congress (and the President) a great deal of authority to regulate and call upon militias, and including the prefatory militia clause in the 2nd, was no accident.  And while we generally ignore the 3rd today, quartering of soldiers by a standing army really happened in colonial experience, so prohibiting it constitutionally was important to a great many people.

Point is that the Framers did not single-mindedly wish to arm the civilian population to fight off the tyranny of the government they were designing, but in large part to defend that government from threats, including…rebellion.  To ignore this aspect is to be disingenuous at best.

Regardless, to those who argue that the 2nd only protects some collective right and are against an individual right: give up, you've lost.  And really, to a certain extent, it doesn't matter.  All rights have limits because they can conflict with others, so the discussion should be about what the reasonable bounds are.

We have guidance, oddly enough, from a SCOTUS decision that I often cite as establishing an incorporated right to bear arms.  Again, Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (2008) said:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.^{26 [Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]}

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So the right exists, but its extent is still open for debate.  Perhaps we can't (nor would really want to) enact an outright ban of all weapons, but it certainly seems that we have a great deal of latitude to regulate gun safety so that citizens can exercise their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Prohibiting the manufacture, import and possession of particularly deadly weapons isn't too far out of the realm.  What about registration, requirements to carry liability insurance and have adequate, safe gun storage, taxing the shit out of ammo to pay for improved school security and mental health treatment, etc, under powers granted by the Commerce, Taxation and Elastic Clauses?  

That all remains to be tested, but does any of this place an undue burden on your exercise of your 2nd Amendment right?  I don't think so.

And if you really are concerned about government tyranny, consider this from Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

I'm more concerned about drones than tanks and bombers, but the point remains: you and your neighbors ain't gonna stop tyranny with your Bushmaster Blackout.

Here is an assuredly non-comprehensive list of rebellions and other violent incidents in the United States, not counting events before we had any officially organized government.  FTR, I'm making no value judgement on their merits, nor on factors that contributed to outcomes, just noting there have been quite a few examples of people attempting to fight what they viewed as tyranny with weapons:

• Shay's Rebellion (1786-87) – suppressed; under the Articles, led to the Constitution.
• Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94) – suppressed; but hey, tax evasion went on!
• Fries's Rebellion (1799-1800) – suppressed; yet another tax revolt.
• German Coast Uprising (1811) – suppressed; slave revolt, few firearms.
• Nat Turner's Rebellion (1831) – suppressed; slave revolt, some firearms.
• Dorr's Rebellion (1841-1842) – suppressed; resulted in electoral reform in RI.
• Taos Revolt (1847) – suppressed; resistance to US occupation of Mexican territory.
• Harper's Ferry (1859) – suppressed; abolitionist insurgency.
• Civil War (1861-1865) – suppressed; Federal power strengthened, slavery abolished.
• Green Corn Rebellion (1917) – suppressed; draft resistance.
• Battle of Athens (1946) – VICTORY; local government disbanded.
• Puerto Rican Nationalist Revolts (1950) – suppressed; still a US territory.
• Wounded Knee (1973) – suppressed; ugly all around.
• Ruby Ridge (1992) – suppressed; illegal weapons.
• Waco Siege (1993) – suppressed; illegal weapons.

Have fun stormin' da castle!  Not a great probability of success with violent resistance.  However, non-violent resistance has historically been rather successful at beating the house odds:

Our findings [using data on major resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006] show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.

There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backªre against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining…We assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents…

Weapons have changed since our nation's founding.  So have non-violent tactics and strategies.  If you're really worried about tyranny, I'd submit you have a better chance defeating it by putting your guns down, and working to end drone strikes overseas, getting rid of our standing army, etc.

We live in a complex society, and gun violence is a complex epidemic.  There is no simple solution, and even sophisticated, multi-faceted approaches offer no guarantees, only mitigation of the problem.  Sure, criminals and crazies and commies will still get guns, but the work factor is increased if we have rational gun safety management systems in place, as I think the data bears out.

One of our biggest obstacles to figuring this out is we don't do non-violence very well.  At home we blame rape victims for what happened to them, taser people with little restraint, and execute innocents.  And while we rightfully mourn the children and adults in CT, we also use remotely-controlled weapons to end the lives of children and adults abroad.  Perhaps it's time to establish a Department of Peace that would at least work to alter our default posture and:

• Provide much-needed assistance to efforts by city, county, and state governments in coordinating existing programs; as well as develop new programs based on best practices nationally
• Teach violence prevention and mediation to America's school children
• Effectively treat and dismantle gang psychology
• Rehabilitate the prison population
• Build peace-making efforts among conflicting cultures both here and abroad
• Support our military with complementary approaches to peace-building.
• Create and administer a U.S. Peace Academy, acting as a sister organization to the U.S. Military Academy.

Give it the same budget as we have for drones, say, and maybe we'll start getting a handle on our violent society and State.

(A worthy cause, although most of these wingnuts carry around a copy of the Constitution. (As a talisman.) – promoted by jvwalt)

In response to all the petitions to Obama to let states secede, I've started my own. Please sign it and spread the word!  It's probably the most important thing you can do until 2014…

ntodd

PS–A little more musing on secession here.