Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jmood88
    Sean Payton: Retribution
    • Jul 2003
    • 34639

    #31
    Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

    Originally posted by Jackdog
    No doubt. I never said I agreed with the law at all. We as a country have bigger fish to fry. Hell if there was a law for stupidity we would all have a record.
    Oh I don't think that you agree with the law, I'm just saying that it's stupid to make a law about how someone wears pants.
    Originally posted by Blzer
    Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

    If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

    Comment

    • Heelfan71
      Hall Of Fame
      • Jul 2002
      • 19940

      #32
      Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

      wonder what size pants they buy? 32 x 12
      My Fan Page http://theusualgamer.net/MyFanPage_Heelfan71.aspx
      Heelfans Blog http://www.operationsports.com/Heelfan71/blog/

      Comment

      • CaptialG
        Banned
        • Jul 2008
        • 244

        #33
        Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

        Originally posted by p_rushing
        You may think what I said is stupid, but this is the intent of the law. The law makers want to keep certain people/the perception of certain people off the streets. Whether these people are committing crimes or not, they present a certain stereotype that the communities don't want around. They either change their appearance or they go somewhere else.
        I think you're just ignorant personally. You can't stop people from gathering just because they wear their clothes a certain way. Even if they wore their clothes like everyone else,the same group would be gathing. So that isn't gonna stop anything.

        Comment

        • p_rushing
          Hall Of Fame
          • Feb 2004
          • 14514

          #34
          Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

          Originally posted by CaptialG
          I think you're just ignorant personally. You can't stop people from gathering just because they wear their clothes a certain way. Even if they wore their clothes like everyone else,the same group would be gathing. So that isn't gonna stop anything.
          Not saying I agree with it, but it will stop the "look" that they are trying to get rid of if people are really getting fined and have to pay it. I also don't think it fixes any problems or stops people from gathering. If it actually gets people to go somewhere else, all it does is move people somewhere else, doesn't fix anything.

          What it does is move people out of the areas where the politicians who created/voted for the law to somewhere else. That is what they want to happen, they can take that back to the people who voted for them. It is all trying to create a perspective that look everything is fine, by just moving/making people go somewhere else.

          I think in London there was a story a year or 2 ago they installed speakers to play a high pitched noise where only people under 25 could hear it. It would keep them away from areas where businesses didn't want them hanging out, creating a bad perspective and keep customers away.

          Comment

          • dkgojackets
            Banned
            • Mar 2005
            • 13816

            #35
            Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

            Ive think youve just explained to yourself in this thread why the law is unconstutional

            Comment

            • withauthority
              Banned
              • Feb 2007
              • 241

              #36
              Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

              guys who wear proper fitting pants are infinite times more attractive IMO

              Comment

              • p_rushing
                Hall Of Fame
                • Feb 2004
                • 14514

                #37
                Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

                Originally posted by dkgojackets
                Ive think youve just explained to yourself in this thread why the law is unconstutional
                I still don't think it is unconstitutional because the law doesn't "directly" target any one group, it does indirectly, but that would have to be argued. It is enforcing indecency laws, so I don't think it would matter for the 1st Amendment, you don't have the right to walk around naked. The fines probably will be what does it in though.

                Comment

                • MassNole
                  Banned
                  • Mar 2006
                  • 18848

                  #38
                  Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge

                  Originally posted by p_rushing
                  I still don't think it is unconstitutional because the law doesn't "directly" target any one group, it does indirectly, but that would have to be argued. It is enforcing indecency laws, so I don't think it would matter for the 1st Amendment, you don't have the right to walk around naked. The fines probably will be what does it in though.
                  It is unconstitutional because it directly infringes on one's right to free speech. The Supreme Court has held that the clothes one wears constitutes speech, as such a prohibition with criminal penalties on the clothes one wears (outside of a school setting) infringes on your 1st Amendment rights. Secondly, the fine is excessive, as such it violates the 8th Amendment as well.

                  Comment

                  Working...