Publish your concerns at /r/butthurt/

In this context, "OP" refers to /u/jgren91 and is in reference to this comment.

It’s a fair comparison. The Founding Fathers put their lives on the line so people could have democratic freedoms. Some of those people today are too lazy to even vote.

Given that the current candidates are a Q-Anon and a Free Stater, a candidate whose qualifications are minimal could easily be elected.

As for the lack of pay, Amherst should consider changing that. State representatives get two (2) Benjamins per term. Maybe Amherst could spare a few nickels (or even dimes!) for its Planning Board members?

OP is probably referring to the two declared candidates in this race (neither of whom is named Wilkins).

You are incorrectly assuming that I could be a candidate, which isn’t possible due to the requirement that all candidates must currently be Amherst residents.

Thankless or not, somebody should step up and declare their candidacy. People in Ukraine are literally dying for their country right now, just as Americans did in 1776 ("Give me liberty, or give me death!"). Simply doing a "thankless" job for your town is way easier.

The Democratic Party fully supports the Constitutional right to travel.

And nobody else is willing to become a candidate?

Also, per this sub's posted rules: "No suggestions or claims that people aren't wanted in New Hampshire."

^ This violates this sub's posted rules: "No suggestions or claims that people aren't wanted in New Hampshire."

Any attempt to do that would be blatantly unconstitutional.

> The U.S. Supreme Court [most recently] dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
>
> (1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),
>
> (2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and
>
> (3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").

> IJ’s fight against similar violations of the First Amendment rights of small business owners throughout the country includes a 2020 victory that allowed a North Dakota saloon to keep up its mural, a 2017 win for a Florida video game store that wanted to display an inflatable Mario in front of its store, and a 2013 ruling which permitted a California gym to advertise on a sandwich board out front.

> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Then you obviously have no understanding of the relevant legal principles.

> Leavitt’s Country Bakery owner Sean Young teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file the lawsuit, which argues that Conway’s sign code violates his and other town residents’ First Amendment rights.

There is an important difference between these two. Leavitt's speech (e.g., the store's logo) falls within the First Amendment category known as 'commercial speech':

> The “different degree of protection” accorded commercial speech has a number of consequences as regards other First Amendment doctrine. For instance, somewhat broader times, places, and manner regulations are to be tolerated, and the rule against prior restraints may be inapplicable. Further, disseminators of commercial speech are not protected by the overbreadth doctrine.

However, in this case Leavitt simply provided a space (in First Amendment terms, a 'forum') within which the local high school students could create their own speech.

Murals are within the First Amendment category known as 'artistic expression'. And since the high school students did not charge any fee for the art they produced, this artistic expression was by definition not created for commercial purposes, but was instead created as “pure speech” which as a matter of First Amendment law is fully entitled to comprehensive protection.

Conway Zoning Board of Adjustment:

Term Expires

2023 John Colbath, Chair
2024 Andrew Chalmers, Vice Chair
2023 Luigi Bartolomeo
2025 Richard Pierce
2025 Jonathan Hebert

2023 Jac Cuddy, Alternate
2025 Steven Steiner, Alternate

A bakery owner filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Conway, New Hampshire, on Tuesday after officials demanded he paint over a mural that local high school students created last summer. Leavitt’s Country Bakery owner Sean Young teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file the lawsuit, which argues that Conway’s sign code violates his and other town residents’ First Amendment rights.

Leavitt’s is so loved that a group of Kennett High School students offered to paint a mural for the business. The students decided that the mural should depict a colorful mountainscape of baked goods with the sun rising behind them, in honor of the nearby White Mountains. The mural, which was unveiled in June 2022, became an instant hit with Leavitt’s customers.

The assistant building inspector informed Sean that he could apply for a variance to keep the mural up. When Sean did so in September 2022, he had the backing of Conway residents: More than 1,000 people commented on Leavitt’s Facebook page in support of the mural and scores of letters to the editor have been published in the Conway Daily Sun arguing that the mural should stay. Yet the Conway Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) voted unanimously against granting the bakery a variance. Then, in November, the ZBA doubled down, again denying the variance.

“I couldn’t believe the town was going after me for giving high school students a way to express their artistic passions and contribute something fun and delightful to the community,” Sean said. “This mural isn’t hurting anyone. If anything, it has brought the community together.”

Trying to right this wrong and avoid litigation, IJ sent a letter to Conway officials in December 2022 urging town officials to back off Leavitt’s. As IJ’s letter explained, the town’s sign code was both confusing and unconstitutional. Although IJ offered to help the town craft a new sign code, it refused the offer, instead sending Sean yet another letter ordering him to either get a sign permit or take down the mural forever.

“Leavitt’s mural is beautiful and showcases what can be accomplished when a community comes together,” IJ Litigation Fellow Betsy Sanz said. “Conway’s crackdown on this artwork serves no legitimate government interest.”

IJ’s fight against similar violations of the First Amendment rights of small business owners throughout the country includes a 2020 victory that allowed a North Dakota saloon to keep up its mural, a 2017 win for a Florida video game store that wanted to display an inflatable Mario in front of its store, and a 2013 ruling which permitted a California gym to advertise on a sandwich board out front.

It's literally "a mural that local high school students created last summer."

That's called majoritarianism, and it's exactly what the Bill of Rights was meant to prevent:

> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

This is the speech of high school students.

Avert your eyes then. Freedom does include people saying things you may not like.

The EIA indicates that 6.2 GW of natural gas generating capacity is going to be shut down this year