GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Baggy Pants ban deemed 'unconstitutional' (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=99638)

DaemonSeid 09-17-2008 08:36 AM

Baggy Pants ban deemed 'unconstitutional'
 
MIAMI (AFP) - A Florida judge has deemed unconstitutional a law banning baggy pants that show off the wearer's underwear, local media reported Tuesday.

A 17-year-old spent a night in jail last week after police arrested him for wearing low pants in Riviera Beach, southeast Florida.

The law banning so-called "saggy pants" was approved by city voters in March after supporters of the bill collected nearly 5,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

The teen would have received a 150 dollars fine or community service, but he spent the night in jail due to a history of marijuana use, the Palm Beach Post newspaper said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080916...aw6N3yIT1H2ocA

Kevin 09-17-2008 10:10 AM

The article doesn't say why this law is unconstitutional. Does anyone know why the judge said the law was unconstitutional?

SWTXBelle 09-17-2008 04:15 PM

Because you have a constitutional right to bad taste.

KSigkid 09-17-2008 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1719168)
The article doesn't say why this law is unconstitutional. Does anyone know why the judge said the law was unconstitutional?

The only story I've found on it was the AP report, and it didn't mention anything about the judge's basis.

MysticCat 09-17-2008 04:49 PM

I'm finding lots of local and wire reports on it, but none say why the judge ruled as he did. Many, though, do say that he found it to be unconstitutional "on the limited facts of this case," so I take that to mean he held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied in this case, not that it is unconstitutional on its face.

Kevin 09-17-2008 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 1719331)
Because you have a constitutional right to bad taste.

That depends :)

KSigkid 09-17-2008 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1719357)
I'm finding lots of local and wire reports on it, but none say why the judge ruled as he did. Many, though, do say that he found it to be unconstitutional "on the limited facts of this case," so I take that to mean he held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied in this case, not that it is unconstitutional on its face.

Ok, that makes more sense.

PANTHERTEKE 09-17-2008 11:01 PM

About damn time.

OneTimeSBX 09-17-2008 11:06 PM

they did this in Va a few years ago. it was very quickly shot down. i wonder how he thought it would work for them?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.