The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1910-01-07
Ills Rsoelleney.

Governor Of Vermont
The commission appointed BY you. nI
der the authority OF joint Resoln,io
,No. ,is) approved November nth. iss
TO prepare and present 10 the next sessio
Of the general assembly proposals
amendment 20 the constitution Of vef
mont. with suggestions In support OF IN
same. have the honor To present III
following;
Proposal Ito Remove tho Time Lock
That Section Of Article CO OF th'
Amendments 10 the Constitution b
amended TO read as follows:
Article Ce5). Section l. At any session
OF the general assembly Of this stats
the Senate may. by vote OF majority
OF It's members. make proposals oi
amendment 10 the constitution OF the
state
Continuing through Section tho
same as now)
The change In our constitution most
needed at the present time Is TO remove
the restriction which prevents any pro-
posals OF amendments oftener than once
In ten years. This provision Is In the
18th Article Of Amendment. adopted In
1870. and Is popularity known as the time
lock clause
Il ought not to be necessary TO change
frequently the fundamental law OF
state. Much Of the respect accorded a
constitution is due to Its permanency.
The accepted ways TO save constitutions
from rapid changes at the mere within OF
n majority are to require that proposals
OF change shall be adopted by consid-
cradle majority OF the voters or be passed
upon more than once or be approved In
more than one way.
The constitution OF the United States
was In the nature Of compromise con-
tract and there were special reasons FOR
guarding II against sudden and unneces-
sary changes; but there Is no restriction
in II, except Limitation long since ex-
pired, upon the time when proposals oil
amendment may be made. Nor do we
know of any other state that has at
tempted to tie its own hands as the state
of Vermont has done by the time lock
clause.
The great changes occurring In the
life of this state. in common with the
whole country, raise novel questions
which must be met as they arise. We are
utterly opposed to the spirit, In regent
years manifest In some OF newer
states, OF loao.Ss-uS-ss ,censstfution with
matters which belong to the statute
books only. The method and number OF
times of consideration requisite for con-
stitutional changes should continue 10
be exacting; but being so safe-guarded
the people should be free to make such
changes as the occasion requires. We
are much more likely to hold conserva-
tive, safe and sane changes II the posi-
bility of making them always exists than
IL every tenth year the legislature is
compelled to propose all the changes
which can possibly be required during
the following decennial.
The present requirement that pro-
posal cannot go to the house of repre-
sentatives except by two-thirds vote
of the members of the senate Is re-
strictive in the same way upon the right
of initiative. 1t is inconsistent also with
the fact that only a majority OF the
senate In the next legislature Is required
to concur in the proposal. There is no
good reason why the proposal or con-
stitutional changes should be more difi-
cult than their adoption. Proposal one,
therefore, also changes the vote OF the
senate necessary to propose amendments
as is required in the house of represen-
tatiyes the first session and In both
houses upon concurrence the next session,
and of the vote Of the people upon final
adoption.
Proposal 2.-To Require a Two Thirds
Vote in Both House and Senate to
Pass Bill Over Governors Veto.
That Article QD of the Amendments
to the Constitution be amended to read
as follows:
ARTICLE Q1). Every bill which shall
have passed the senate and house of
SHALL before 1t becomes
\ law, be presented to the governor; If
ne approve, he shall sign it; if not, he
shall return It, with his objections In
writing to the house in which 1t shall
have originated; which shall proceed to
reconsider it. If, upon such reconsider
alton, two-thirds of the members present
of the house shall pass the bill, it shall,
together with the objections, be sent to
the other house, by which 1t shall, like
wise be reconsidered, and, If approved
by two-thirds of the members present of
that house, it shall become law y"
(Remainder of Article same as now)
Our constitution contemplates that the
governor shall have voice In legislation [
by means Of a veto power. The veto I
power given him by the 18th article Of |
the amendments is not substantial and :,
practically of little effect. The same ma I
Jority which originally passed the bill /
IAN pass it over his objection. The re- /
suit Is that vetoes by governors have {
sometimes received but scant consider G
ltion and governors have often refra1ned d
rom risking a veto which had so little
effect.
1t is a curious fact that while the veto /
power has declined until 1t has be- C
.ome practically non-existent in England, {
whence we take so largely our institutions, t
n this country it has been preserved and n
Is use by the executive increasingly sus- t
aimed by public sentiment. The reason O
$ not far to find. In England the crown L
s hereditary and hence not representa- L
i've of the people in the sense that the n
,arliament is; but In this country the Il
PRESIDENT as an elective officer is just as n
representative of the people as congress
md the governors of states as their re- r
pective legislatures. Indeed, while our h
" only local constituents the governor is n
lected by the whole people.
The constitution of the United States Il
nd of thirty-two of the states require a a
wo-thirds vote to pass a bill over
eto, some two-thirds of all the members 2
nd some only two-thirds of those pres
mt. If the governor is to have a consti
utional part in lawmaking, and we be-
eve such is the desire of the people and
hat it is a wise provision, then more =
han a majority should be required to 10
ass bill over his objection.