More censorship on the Atkinson Blog

General Forum for school (except TRSD) and town issues in Atkinson, Derry, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Newton, Plaistow, and Sandown. Please continue to post TRSD items in "Timberlane General".

More censorship on the Atkinson Blog

Postby curt » Wed May 19, 2010 8:29 pm

Following are comments that I posted that showed up briefly on the Atkinson blog this evening then disappeared

From this discussion:

Here is a recent article on Home Rule in NH that you might find helpful.


Dillon's Rule determines the scope of powers of municipalities in NH

Quoting from a Wikipedia article (scroll down):

Dillon's Rule

The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon’s Rule in an 1868 case: "Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad,(24 Iowa 455; 1868). As opposed to Dillon's Rule, the Cooley Doctrine expressed the theory of an inherent right to local self determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Judge Thomas M. Cooley in 1871 stated: “[L]ocal government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away.” People v. Hurlbut, (24 Mich 44, 95; 1871).

In Municipal Corporations (1872), Dillon explained that in contrast to the powers of states, which are unlimited but for express restrictions under the state or federal constitution, municipalities only have the powers that are expressly granted to them.[2] This formulation of the scope of municipal power came to be known as the "Dillon Rule," which states that municipal governments only have the powers that are expressly granted to them by the state legislature, those that are necessarily implied from that grant of power, and those that are essential and indispensable to the municipality's existence and functioning. Any ambiguities in the legislative grant of power should be resolved against the municipality so that its powers are narrowly construed. However, when the state has not specifically directed the method by which the municipality may implement its granted power, the municipality has the discretion to choose the method so long as its choice is reasonable.

Hundreds of U.S. court decisions to the present day have employed the Dillon Rule to determine the scope of municipal powers and rights. Critics of the Rule have argued that it imposes unreasonable constraints on the ability of communities to govern themselves and so undermines democracy, and even that local self-government is a matter of natural right that does not need to be conferred by higher political structures. It has also been suggested that Dillon's approach derived from the contemporary view that cities were inherently corrupt political organs. This was perhaps an often well-deserved judgment during his time, especially considering the extensive business ties and even investments of numerous cities and their leaders in the late 19th century. Deviations from the Dillon Rule remain in the minority, however, despite the significant decrease in the public perception of municipal corruption.

The Supreme Court of the United States cited Municipal Corporations and fully adopted Dillon's emphasis on state power over municipalities in Merrill v. Monticello, 138 U.S. 673 (1891), reaff'd. Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate two cities against the wishes of the majority of the residents in one. The Court's ruling that states could alter or abolish at will the charters of municipal corporations without infringing upon contract rights heavily relied upon Dillon's separation of public, municipal corporations from private ones.

Pittsburgh Regionalist David Y. Miller argues that Dillon hit upon a central paradox defining American cities: having great political authority while having little legal legitimacy. He quotes Dillon as calling municipalities "mere tenants at will of their respective state legislatures" which could be "eliminated by the legislature with a stroke of the pen." And yet, Dillon also said that eliminating local government would be "so great a folly, and so great a wrong."


This is strange, postings show up then disappear.

Anon@May 19, 2010 7:42 PM, I did not object to any of the posts where people slightly altered my name, obviously these were not from me.

I only objected to the posting that used my name in such a way that at first glance it looked as though the post was authored by me.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: More censorship on the Atkinson Blog

Postby curt » Wed May 19, 2010 11:22 pm

Now these 3 comments are back in the discussion.
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: More censorship on the Atkinson Blog

Postby timd » Fri May 21, 2010 10:09 pm

I think the blog moderator got overly zealous about removing "pseudo-curt" posts and inadvertently removed some of your real content.
Lately I have a hard time working up the ambition to post anything on atkinson reporter. Too many anonymous cowards determined to
fester in their own ignorance.
timd
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Atkinson, NH


Return to Nearby Towns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron