Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Chicago suburb bans "saggy pants"

Old 07-20-08, 10:24 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Ruler
Thread Starter
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,402
Chicago suburb bans "saggy pants"

I think that people that wear this look really stupid. Last I checked, however, looking stupid isn't again the law. They are still clothed. I question the legality of this ban.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080720/D921IS1G0.html

LYNWOOD, Ill. (AP) - Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.

Eugene Williams is the mayor of Lynwood. He says young men walk around town half-dressed, keeping major retailers and economic development away. He calls the new law a hot topic.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance targets young men of color.

Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer.
Well they ARE trying to make it look nicer by banning the stupid saggy pants thing! Also.. targeting men of color? Please. I see white kids in my area "sporting" the style every now and then. I guess I missed where in this ban they are exempted?
General Zod is offline  
Old 07-20-08, 11:04 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,853
This isn't the only municipality that tried this.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....gy#post8799179
Red Dog is offline  
Old 07-20-08, 04:34 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Ruler
Thread Starter
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,402
Oops thanks RD.
General Zod is offline  
Old 07-20-08, 11:26 PM
  #4  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 173
How does a bunch of teenagers looking like idiots keep "major retailers and economic development away"? I call it free entertainment.
Locomocha is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 09:05 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Millville, New Jersey
Posts: 2,937
I hear the ACLU knocking on the door.
JOE29 is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 09:44 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
How exactly does the courts strike something down like this? Can they just read the newspaper and see that this law was passed and say "uh ... no." or does somebody have to bring forth a lawsuit?
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 09:54 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,853
A plaintiff challenging the statute would need standing - there has to be a 'case or controversy.' In laymen's terms, someone who has been cited for violating the statute (the plaintiff has been 'injured') can challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 10:29 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
wewantflair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mastic, NY
Posts: 1,816
If the local teens were smart, they'd collectively wear nothing but banana hammocks around town.
wewantflair is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 10:45 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Originally Posted by wewantflair
If the local teens were smart, they'd collectively wear nothing but banana hammocks around town.
There is nothing....NOTHING smart about banana hammocks.

--

The saggy pants style started in prison, moved out to urban areas, and was proliferated through the culture from there. I don't know about you, but anything that works against gang influenced culture is A-OKAY in my book.
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 11:01 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If local teens were smart, they wouldn't be wearing baggy pants.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 11:02 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
AGuyNamedMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (formerly known as Inglenook Hampendick) Fairbanks, Alaska!
Posts: 15,227
Originally Posted by JOE29
I hear the ACLU knocking on the door.
Then it's time to detonate that anti-personnel mine I put under the welcome mat!
AGuyNamedMike is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 11:14 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Originally Posted by Red Dog
A plaintiff challenging the statute would need standing - there has to be a 'case or controversy.' In laymen's terms, someone who has been cited for violating the statute (the plaintiff has been 'injured') can challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
So, someone has to be charged with a crime, then they have to incur court fees?
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 11:26 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,853
Originally Posted by RoyalTea
So, someone has to be charged with a crime, then they have to incur court fees?

I don't know about court fees, but there must be an 'injury' or a potential 'injury,' which would mean a fine or incarceration. Therefore, if the government were to drop all the charges in a case, then that would mean there can be no injury, and thus renders the case (and challenge to the law) moot and dead.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 11:37 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
what I mean is ...

the government can pass a law like this, which seems very obvious to me that it's unconstitutional. and this law stands until someone gets charged with breaking it. nobody can "fight" this law until they've been charged with it.

so, somebody needs to be willing to get charged with this crime, and they need to be willing to take it to court, which would cost them $$$ (court and attorney fees). or does some larger organization with deeper pockets help the first "martyr" out?
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 12:03 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Millville, New Jersey
Posts: 2,937
Then it's time to detonate that anti-personnel mine I put under the welcome mat!

I agree. I think the ACLU is one of the leading causes of what is wrong with this country.
JOE29 is offline  
Old 07-21-08, 12:22 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,853
Originally Posted by RoyalTea
what I mean is ...

the government can pass a law like this, which seems very obvious to me that it's unconstitutional. and this law stands until someone gets charged with breaking it. nobody can "fight" this law until they've been charged with it.

so, somebody needs to be willing to get charged with this crime, and they need to be willing to take it to court, which would cost them $$$ (court and attorney fees). or does some larger organization with deeper pockets help the first "martyr" out?

That's essentially correct. You'd see the ACLU, for example, work on behalf of a defendant on free speech (expression) issues.
Red Dog is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.