17 January 2009

Saggy-pants issue -- bigger than the Constitution?


Jackson, Mississippi Mayor Frank Melton says that even though the city council voted against an ordinance making it unlawful for people to wear saggy pants he still intends to issue an executive order enforcing the dress code. The city council voted 4-2 against the ordinance, saying it was unconstitutional.

"I certainly respect the Constitution," Melton said, "but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."

The ordinance against "saggy-pants" was probably not unconstitutional; that's just a city council opinion. But the Mayor's attitude re the Constitution is unfortunately quite common among elected officials - "if we disagree with the Constitution, we'll just ignore it."

(Found at Boing Boing; image credit here)

6 comments:

  1. we are talking about a 'fashion' issue??
    I am suprised anyone could even think this to be fashionable, how bout just loose the pants and go out in your boxer shorts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As long as the guys have underwear on, I don't see the point of banning low slung trousers. They're only making themselves look stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Offensive is a large male student with sagging pants leaning over with his backside towards you. Really disgusting. He didn't do it to offend, he was just leaning over to talk to someone, but I gagged.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hey pony,
    thats my point exactly

    ReplyDelete
  5. First of all, it's not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Provided the city does not create legislation (an ordinance) that violates one of the many guaranteed rights clearly spelled out in the US Constitution, they can ban or regulate anything. Last time I checked, there was no Amendment guaranteeing someone the right to look like a fashion disaster.

    On a separate note, as a former law enforcement officer, I encourage the local gang bangers and drug sellers to adopt such dress. It's easy to catch a guy running when he's trying to hold up his pants!

    ReplyDelete
  6. YOu guys are SO missing the point of his post. Its not about the fashion or whether its constitutional. It's about the judge saying that the town's rules are more important than the constitution.

    Thats the WTF in the story. not the stupid pants.

    ReplyDelete