Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
By Paska Ann
Two proposals moving through the Connecticut legislature—SJ 37 and SJ 38—may appear technical at first glance. They are not.
Both would change the Connecticut Constitution itself.
That alone should give every Connecticut inhabitant pause.
SJ 37 would add environmental rights to the Constitution. While the goal of environmental protection is widely shared, Connecticut already has extensive statutory protections, including the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-14 et seq.), along with substantial existing public spending. According to the State’s January 2025 Clean Air Act report, Connecticut collected approximately $18.7 million in motor vehicle-related Clean Air Act fees and reported more than $422 million in state expenditures associated with implementing Clean Air Act requirements, improving air quality, and reducing transportation-sector greenhouse gas emissions in the most recent reporting year.
So the question is not whether we value the environment. It is whether we need to constitutionalize policy that is already funded, regulated, and enforceable under existing law.
Constitutionalizing environmental policy introduces something new: expanded legal standing untethered from direct injury. This creates a pathway for increased litigation and shifts influence away from elected bodies and local communities toward court-driven outcomes. Towns, taxpayers, and property owners may bear the cost—financially and operationally—without clear limits.
Some may find this appealing, as it creates an additional pathway to challenge or slow housing developments or major infrastructure projects—even with existing legal mechanisms such as CEPA already in place—shifting more decisions from local processes into the courts.
At the same time, the same constitutional mechanism could be used to justify expansive regulatory or financial actions—such as climate cost-recovery programs (for example, H.B. 5156), infrastructure mandates, or utility compliance requirements. It may also support the accelerated rollout of “green” initiatives with significant upfront and ongoing costs, where long-term performance and cost-effectiveness may not yet be fully proven at scale. These costs are unlikely to remain isolated and may ultimately be passed on to residents and businesses through higher energy rates, increased taxes, and a rising cost of living.
At its core, this proposal raises a fundamental question of authority. In a constitutional system, government power must be clearly defined and delegated—not assumed or expanded through broad interpretation. Embedding evolving policy concepts into the Constitution risks creating open-ended authority that can be interpreted and extended over time, shifting decision-making away from elected representatives and local communities and into the hands of courts and administrative bodies.
As to the gender-neutral bill, SJ 38 raises a different but equally important issue. It proposes rewriting the Constitution to make it gender-neutral. While this may be presented as a modernization effort, rewriting foundational language—even for stylistic purposes—can have unintended legal consequences. Words in a constitution are not casual; they are interpreted over time in ways that shape law, rights, and governance. Historically, terms such as “man” have been understood in legal and constitutional contexts to refer to humanity as a whole. Altering established language that has long carried settled meaning may introduce ambiguity where clarity already exists.
SJ 38 also raises a fundamental issue of authority. The Constitution is not a style manual. It is a charter of delegated power and protected rights. If language with established legal meaning can be reopened for revision based on current preferences alone, then the standard for constitutional amendment becomes dangerously low. Before foundational text is changed, the people should demand proof of real necessity—not simply a claim that different wording is more current or more desirable.
Taken together, these proposals signal a broader shift: using the Constitution not just as a framework for rights and government structure, but as a vehicle for embedding policy preferences that would otherwise remain subject to legislative debate and revision.
It is well established that both the federal and state constitutions are foundational documents designed to protect the rights of the people and to limit the powers of government. Changes to these documents are rare for a reason—they carry long-term consequences that can reshape governance and individual liberty.
Any proposed constitutional alteration should be widely known, transparently debated, and carefully considered for its full range of long-term effects.
The Constitution is meant to be stable, limited, and protective of individual rights. Policy, by contrast, is meant to evolve. When the two are blended, flexibility is lost, and the ability of citizens to influence outcomes through normal legislative channels is diminished.
These are not minor updates. They are structural decisions that will affect how Connecticut is governed for years to come.
At a minimum, they deserve full public awareness—not quiet advancement with limited scrutiny.
Before we amend the Constitution, we should be certain that we, the people, understand not only the intent—but the long-term consequences.
Constitutional change should reflect clear necessity and broad public understanding—not momentum driven by limited participation or coordinated advocacy that results in one-sided input.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
