My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1987/06/01
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
Agenda Packets - 1987/06/01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2025 11:49:52 AM
Creation date
4/28/2025 11:49:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
6/1/1987
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
city or state does not expect to be directly i <br />No city or state expects <br />case, and few become directly <br />become involved in unexpected <br />unexpectedly makes its way to <br />we bene <br />to he involved in a Supreme Court <br />involved. But your government may <br />litigation, or litigation that <br />the Supreme Court. <br />Moreover, your government is affected by Supreme Court deci- <br />sions, even thouqh no statute, ordinance, administrative deci- <br />sion, or tax from your jurisdiction is ever challenged in court. <br />The Supreme Court: makes law for the nation; each city, county <br />and state must obey its rulinqs. if the Supreme Court had <br />decided that an ordinance restricting the location of "adult" <br />motion picture theaters to commercial areas violated the First <br />Amendment, that decision would have imperiled similar ordinances <br />all over the country. The Legal Center helped to persuade the <br />Court to sustain such an ordinance in Renton v. Playtime <br />Theatres. Had the Court ruled that Congress grantea Federal <br />Commun cations Commission authority to order California, <br />Louisiana, Ohio, and Florida's regulatory agencies to use the <br />federal depreciation rate schedules in settinq state telephone <br />rates, regulation of utilities by all states would have been <br />severely curtailed. The Leqal Center helped to protect the <br />challenged regulations in Louisiana Public Service Commission v. <br />FCC. <br />As these cases illustrate., state and local governments in <br />general benefit by havinq the State and Local Legal Center moni- <br />toring the Court, ready to help make the best case for federalism <br />by defendinq the authority and responsibility vested by our <br />Constitution in the liands of elected state, county, and city <br />officials. <br />4. flow did the Legal Center begin? <br />The concept of a center for Supreme Court advocacy for state <br />and local governments was developed over time and by many par- <br />ticipants. Governors, legislators, and local government offi- <br />cials worked Lhrough their own membership organizations for its <br />establishment. In 1983, as a result of their efforts, the Leqal <br />Center was established with a grant from the Pew Memorial Trust, <br />one of the major national foundations. The seven trustee organi- <br />zations have each made direct annual contributions to the Leqal <br />Center, which also receives substantial support from the Academy. <br />How does the Leaal Center <br />State and local officials agree about. the principles of <br />federalism and the importance of maintaining a stronq voice for <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.