Landmark Baptist

In March 2008, 72% of Riviera Beach, Florida voters passed a referendum banning "saggy pants" -- making it a misdemeanor to wear pants below the waist that show skin or underwear. A judge in Florida has recently ruled the law is unconstitutional.

From what I can find out online, she cited it as violating the 14th Amendment. I originally thought I heard that it was a 1st amendment issue on freedom of expression.

Anyway, whether all the details are exact, I am wondering what you think. I decided to post it here in the Politics forum because I am asking more about the legal angle rather than moral, ethical or fashionable.

Thoughts?

The 14th Amendment Section 1 states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I do not see this violating anyone's 14th amendment rights, as how is it unconstitutional for a community to pass a law banning someone from wearing saggy pants. As far as violating a persons first amendment rights, a person can wear saggy pants in their own home as much as they want, but when they leave said home and enter into public, they begin to encroach on other people's rights, such as my right to take my family out in public without seeing punks run around in their underwear. We have laws against public drunkenness, smoking in public places, etc. I see this judge trying to overstep the bounds of a community trying to govern themselves. It is sad when a publicly elected judge, thinks that they can override the wishes of a majority in a democracy. Sadly, we are becoming more and more judged ruled and less and less ruled by the people.

Oh well, my 2 cents,
Dwight

The 14th Ammendment is what I call the gateway ammendment. Prior to the passing of this ammendment, the rights laid out in the bill of rights only applied to federal legislation. So, while Congress couldn't abridge the freedom of speech, the Press, the freedom to assemble and make no law regarding the establishment of religion, but state governments could. It wasn't until the 14th ammendment was ratified and then interpreted through Supreme Court Decisions that the Bill of Rights applied to state governments.

So, when the 14th Ammendment is cited in this case, that is why. I don't see baggy pants ordinances as a 1st Ammendment issue. Free Speech has to do with political speech. This protection was in the Constitution to protect citizens from being persecuted for criticizing or opposing the government. I do see the possibility that baggy pants ordinances could violate the "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" part of the 14th Ammendment. It's a stretch, but it could fit. (Look for this ruling to be appealed. Similar ordinances have been brought before several cities, Jackson, Miss., for example).

City and state governments should have the ability to pass legislation and ordinances against indecent exposure, but the idea of a government of any kind passing a "dress code" bothers me... particularly because the Communist goverenment in China mandated a dress code that in essence forced everyone to dress the same.

I don't see baggy pants as a first amendment issue either, but I certainly thought I heard that discussed. But all I have read says the judge ruled according to the 14th amendment. I don't really think it is a 14th amendment issue either, but I think it probably follows the precedent of prior rulings supposedly based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment has gotten a lot of use, I think.

I have some mixed emotions on the baggy pants issue. I find them idiotic and personally offensive. But when we look at the issue of public nudity, many things commonly worn around here exposes much more of the body than baggy pants. They even have the positive benefit that has happened a few times -- someone involved in criminal activity not able to flee the police because his baggy pants impeded his running!!

I thought, but haven't looked in to the legality, that there was some issue of "community standards" that applies to certain things a community finds vulgar and offensive. On the other hand, our community's failure to oppose folks wearing in public things so skimpy that they wouldn't qualify as underwear in some cultures probably removes any moral authority we might have to complain about someone's pants being a little low. Just something to think about.