ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Legal Strict Constructionists: Was this judge out of line? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192133)

banyon 09-20-2008 11:34 PM

Strict Constructionists: Was this judge out of line?
 
Sagging Pants Ban Overturned

http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/news/s...rticle=4255711



A judge in Riviera Beach, Florida has ruled a law banning sagging pants is unconstitutional.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A 17 year old boy spent the night in jail last week after an officer said he spotted the teenager riding his bicycle with 4 to 5 inches of boxer shorts exposed.

Circuit Judge Paul Moyle ruled that the law was unconstitutional based on limited facts. However, the charge hasn't been dropped yet and a new arraignment is set for Oct. 5.

The law was voted on back in March. A first offense for sagging pants carries a $150 fine or community service, and habitual offenders face the possibility of jail time.

The boy's public defender, Carol Bickerstaff, said she wants the city to drop the law regardless of whether anyone dislikes low-riding pants. She also told the judge, "Your honor, we now have the fashion police

irishjayhawk 09-20-2008 11:36 PM

I think in this sense "unconstitutional" is the legal way of saying stupid, subjective, and truthfully unenforceable. Also, he could have deemed it unconstitutional for cruel and unusual punishment ($150 or community service for saggy pants?).

banyon 09-20-2008 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk (Post 5038899)
I think in this sense "unconstitutional" is the legal way of saying stupid, subjective, and truthfully unenforceable. Also, he could have deemed it unconstitutional for cruel and unusual punishment ($150 or community service for saggy pants?).

There's no law against stupid laws.

Direckshun 09-20-2008 11:37 PM

Well I have to operate here with a basic set of assumptions:

1. Guys were wearing sagging pants, and there's nothing more to the story.

2. The law said "you no longer are allowed to sag your pants."

If this is the story as is, the law is straight-up unconstitutional. Sagging pants are a personal choice that any freedom-respecting justice should honor, to say nothing of a Republican Florida Congress.

irishjayhawk 09-20-2008 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 5038900)
There's no law against stupid laws.

I know. I'm saying it's the legal way of saying it. Honestly, there's more merit to the second half of my statement.

Direckshun 09-20-2008 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 5038900)
There's no law against stupid laws.

There actually is.

banyon 09-20-2008 11:38 PM

No offense, but I don't think you guys qualify as strict constructionists.

banyon 09-20-2008 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 5038908)
There actually is.

pray tell...

Direckshun 09-20-2008 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 5038912)
No offense, but I don't think you guys qualify as strict constructionists.

No, I do not. Because strict constructionists do not believe the right to privacy exists.

I do. As does an overwhelming majority of the legal community, and the Supreme Court.

Direckshun 09-20-2008 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 5038914)
pray tell...

In this instance, it's called the right to privacy.

banyon 09-20-2008 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 5038916)
In this instance, it's called the right to privacy.

Oh, I meant laws because they are specifically stupid.

I know why I think it's unconstitutional, but I'm not a strict constructionist either.

irishjayhawk 09-20-2008 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 5038912)
No offense, but I don't think you guys qualify as strict constructionists.

Some issues, yes. Some, no.

banyon 09-20-2008 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk (Post 5038924)
Some issues, yes. Some, no.

What issues yes?

irishjayhawk 09-20-2008 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 5038927)
What issues yes?

I can't think of any off hand. But I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says on the topic of the constitution and getting back to it (to a degree).

Direckshun 09-20-2008 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk (Post 5038934)
I can't think of any off hand. But I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says on the topic of the constitution and getting back to it (to a degree).

Ron Paul basically wants to strip the Constitution of all implied powers.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.