[quote]dhickey wrote:
Anything not specified as a power of Gov’t is not to be a power of gov’t. Of course, this only coveres the fed. [/quote]
This wasn’t a federal law.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Can I walk around naked as a political statement?[/quote]
I’d prefer you didn’t.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Can I walk around naked as a political statement?
I’d prefer you didn’t.[/quote]
What if he was a hot chick?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So if I go to school sagging my pants in political protest of leather belts I’m scott-free?
Sigh.
Explain how that doesn’t commute please? First amendment rights don’t stop at the school house door. I’m making a political statement. What’s the difference between a black armband and a leather belt (legally speaking, not morally, obviously)?[/quote]
Actually, they do stop at the school house door. It’s called a dress code. Just like in a courthouse, being in a public building paid for by tax dollars, your dress can and will be regulated.
No hats, and, depending on the individual school, no visible skin between the bottom of the shirt and the top of the pants, no shoulder straps less than 1 inch wide, no shirts or shorts shorter than your fingertips when your arms are at yours sides, etc.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Anything not specified as a power of Gov’t is not to be a power of gov’t. Of course, this only coveres the fed.
This wasn’t a federal law.[/quote]
understood. I was replying to a specific question.
[quote]Cat Nip wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So if I go to school sagging my pants in political protest of leather belts I’m scott-free?
Sigh.
Explain how that doesn’t commute please? First amendment rights don’t stop at the school house door. I’m making a political statement. What’s the difference between a black armband and a leather belt (legally speaking, not morally, obviously)?
Actually, they do stop at the school house door. It’s called a dress code. Just like in a courthouse, being in a public building paid for by tax dollars, your dress can and will be regulated.
No hats, and, depending on the individual school, no visible skin between the bottom of the shirt and the top of the pants, no shoulder straps less than 1 inch wide, no shirts or shorts shorter than your fingertips when your arms are at yours sides, etc.[/quote]
Disruptive to the educational process. A different situation.
[quote]lixy wrote:
What if he was a hot chick?[/quote]
I could be persuaded to change my mind.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Can I walk around naked as a political statement?
I’d prefer you didn’t.
What if he was a hot chick?[/quote]
Or a 12 year old boy, right Lixy 
I though a graphic might be appropriate.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
I though a graphic might be appropriate. [/quote]
That has got to be a fake. Please tell me it’s a joke.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
I though a graphic might be appropriate.
That has got to be a fake. Please tell me it’s a joke.[/quote]
No joke. To be clear, there is no ordinance against saggy pants. According to the Flint chief (interim), “Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure”. These are old laws, but the chief’s interpretation is designed to give Flint cops “probable cause” to stop and frisk.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080708/NEWS06/307080009
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Yep. They are all political speech.[/quote]
I am going to have a stroke.
So your are telling me that all public morality laws that have been in effect since the birth of the Republic, along with all court decorum rules that subject violators to contempt of court…
…are facially unconstitutional? And always have been?
Including jaywalking? Including contempt of court penalties for going pantless in a courtroom?
Wait, wait, wait - just when I thought you had reached your limit of nonsense, you’ve done yourself proud with something even more preposterous.
So these constitutional rights are modifiable by local ordinances?
Note to Beowolf: if they are modifiable and can be limited by local laws, then they aren’t constitutional rights. That should have been a big hint.
Just - wow.
And you have made my point - really, Neph’s original point - for me: you think the policy is dumb and it “hurts no one”, which has exactly nothing to do with whether it is constitutional or not.
You are making a political argument - “we shouldn’t have this policy, it’s plain stupid” - not a constitutional argument. They aren’t the same, and that was Neph’s - and my - point entirely.
I give. So the first amendment only protects political speech? So if they wanted to make the word “banana” illegal it would be constitutional?
If not (and speech in general is covered), and in that case, that freedom is being limited, where is the line drawn, who draws it, and why do they get to?
Funny that Paterson NJ wants to have the same law.
Although that’s probably aimed at jailing bangers for whatever they can…
I’m telling you guys, these queer baits who wear their pants like that are begging for an assripping from a DI at Parris. Round 'em up and ship 'em out. Then have them occupy Iran. There aren’t any homos there. That’d be pure torture for them…good punishment.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m only saying one thing:
If you agree that the right to own an AK-47 is clearly protected by the Constitution you BETTER believe sagging pants are as well.
Help me out… tell me where I can find sagging pants in the bill of rights.
First Amendment + Tinker
Tinker was about students in a public school using clothing (black armbands) as political speech.
This isn’t about a public school. This isn’t about clothing worn to make a political statement. Or am I missing something?[/quote]
I disagree, showing your sponge bob square pants boxers are too a political statement. The person is clearly stating “I’m ready, I’m ready. For the 2008 presidential election”
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Can I walk around naked as a political statement?
I’d prefer you didn’t.
What if he was a hot chick?[/quote]
I am my avatar.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Can I walk around naked as a political statement?
I’d prefer you didn’t.
What if he was a hot chick?
Or a 12 year old boy, right Lixy :)[/quote]
Or a goat.
[quote]MtbKid wrote:
I disagree, showing your sponge bob square pants boxers are too a political statement. The person is clearly stating “I’m ready, I’m ready. For the 2008 presidential election”[/quote]
HA!
Completely agree with this. Just because a law is bad, stupid, misguided, useless or even harmful, does NOT mean that law is Unconstitutional. A law is Unconstitutional if and only if it violates the Constitution.