0
   

Important items democrats worry about

 
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:08 am
WAIST CASE

With her hip-hugging jeans fastened low enough to show off the sparkly strings of her thong, Britney Spears could be a common criminal when she comes home to Louisiana to put on a show.

And Nelly's baggy jeans, if they happen to slip and show his drawers, could get him booted from the rap circuit to a New Orleans jail cell if state lawmakers approve a bill filed Tuesday in the House that would make it a crime to wear pants below the waist.

Even plumbers could get canned under the draft law that state Rep. Derrick Shepherd, D-Marrero, said he filed because he was tired of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the low-slung belt lines of young adults.

House Bill 1626 would punish anyone caught wearing low-riding pants with a fine of as much as $500 or as many as six months in jail, or both.

"I'm sick of seeing it," said Shepherd, a first-term legislator, who added he's gotten similar complaints from ministers in his district. "The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law."

As proposed, the bill would be tacked onto the state's obscenity law, which restricts sexual activity in public places and the sale of sexually explicit items.

Joe Cook, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Louisiana chapter, said the bill is unlikely to pass because it probably does not meet a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court standard for the prohibition of obscene behavior under the First Amendment.


What about plumbers?


Cook offered common examples of appropriate dress that could be described as illegal under the bill, which would ban a person from "wearing his pants below his waist and thereby exposing his skin or intimate clothing."

"What about a woman who is wearing a bathing suit under her garment or she has something like a sarong wrapped around her and it's below her waist," he said. "I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks and the beginning of the crack of their anus."

Shepherd said such technicalities generally would be overlooked by police, who would only cite violators who deliberately wear pants low on their hips. His bill does not define an unlawful outfit.

"It's sort of like nudity," he said. "You know it when you see it."

Cook said, however, that the standard needs to be airtight before it's written into state law, though he added that the legislation would waste time and resources.

"As if police officers didn't have enough to do to be bothered by something like this," he said. "We got a lot of bad guys out on the street . . . and that's what the police need to be about. This is a 'solution in search of a problem' type of law."

The bill will be heard by the Administration of Criminal Justice Committee, though no hearing date has been set. State Reps. Cedric Richmond and Austin Badon, both New Orleans Democrats, have signed on as co-authors, they said.

State Rep. Danny Martiny, R-Metairie, chairman of the committee, said Wednesday that he supports Shepherd's bill in principle but added that it would have to be more narrowly tailored to target miscreants to make state law books.

"If there was a way we could work it to do that, I would not be opposed to that," he said. "I commend him for trying to do something good, but I'm not sure he's going to be able to get there."


Legislating fashion


Shepherd's bill is not local government's first effort to control a fashion trend made popular by pop music idols and movie stars.

A Westwego councilman in 2002 ditched his attempt to bar low-riding jeans from public buildings after the city attorney reported that an ordinance regulating drawers-exposing jeans would interfere with freedom of speech and would not meet federal standards.

In 2000, Orleans Parish Deputy Assessor Donald Smith called for a city ordinance against wearing pants "below the equator," as he described the practice at the time. That measure appears never to have sparked a broad public debate.

And a year earlier, state Rep. Cynthia Willard, D-New Orleans, filed a bill requiring Louisiana's 66 school boards to ban baggy pants that expose underwear or backsides. That bill, which was never heard by the House Education Committee, said the fashion "encourages youth to engage in inappropriate behavior and shows a lack of respect for others in society."

Shepherd, an attorney, said his bill aims to change the fashion sense of teenagers, who have adopted the "disrespectful, obscene and unprofessional" practice of letting their pants hang off their hips at school, at the mall and even on the basketball court.

"There's a way to shoot hoops professionally," he said. "You don't have to shoot hoops with your pants below your waist."

He admitted, however, that the bill does not target minors specifically and therefore does not directly mirror other laws that restrict teenagers' curfew and the kinds of movies they may see.

Shepherd said that like Willard's failed bill, his legislation aims to correct a fashion faux paus that has implications not only on a young person's sense of style but also on his or her sense of self.

"Hopefully, if we pull up their pants," he said, "we can lift their minds while we're at it."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 767 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:14 am
ROFL
0 Replies
 
greenumbrella
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:54 am
What heterosexual male could possible tire of seeing women in G-strings?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:56 am
C'mon, you know southern Democrats are really Republicans... Wink
0 Replies
 
greenumbrella
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:00 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your Southern belt states have the highest divorce rate as well?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:44 pm
Re: Important items democrats worry about
McG: You forgot to put the following in bold-face:

McGentrix wrote:
State Rep. Danny Martiny, R-Metairie, chairman of the committee, said Wednesday that he supports Shepherd's bill in principle but added that it would have to be more narrowly tailored to target miscreants to make state law books.

Clearly, this is the kind of narrow-minded prudery that crosses party lines.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:45 pm
Re: Important items democrats worry about
joefromchicago wrote:
McG: You forgot to put the following in bold-face:

McGentrix wrote:
State Rep. Danny Martiny, R-Metairie, chairman of the committee, said Wednesday that he supports Shepherd's bill in principle but added that it would have to be more narrowly tailored to target miscreants to make state law books.

Clearly, this is the kind of narrow-minded prudery that crosses party lines.


And your post is an example of what is wrong with A2K. The article was funny so I posted it to lighten up the forum.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:55 pm
Re: Important items democrats worry about
McGentrix wrote:
And your post is an example of what is wrong with A2K. The article was funny so I posted it to lighten up the forum.

And your post is an example of what is wrong with conservatives: no senses of humor.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 01:15 pm
McG, these are called sumptuary laws and they have been around since the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 01:36 pm
Oh, You were trying to be funny? I guess I missed that. My apologies.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 01:37 pm
Sumptuary laws! WOW!!!

Quote:
Enforcing Statutes of Apparel

[Greenwich, 15 June 1574, 16 Elizabeth I]

None shall wear in his apparel:

Any silk of the color of purple, cloth of gold tissued, nor fur of sables, but only the King, Queen, King's mother, children, brethren, and sisters, uncles and aunts; and except dukes, marquises, and earls, who may wear the same in doublets, jerkins, linings of cloaks, gowns, and hose; and those of the Garter, purple in mantles only.

Cloth of gold, silver, tinseled satin, silk, or cloth mixed or embroidered with any gold or silver: except all degrees above viscounts, and viscounts, barons, and other persons of like degree, in doublets, jerkins, linings of cloaks, gowns, and hose.

Woolen cloth made out of the realm, but in caps only; velvet, crimson, or scarlet; furs, black genets, lucernes; embroidery or tailor's work having gold or silver or pearl therein: except dukes, marquises, earls, and their children, viscounts, barons, and knights being companions of the Garter, or any person being of the Privy Council.

Velvet in gowns, coats, or other uttermost garments; fur of leopards; embroidery with any silk: except men of the degrees above mentioned, barons' sons, knights and gentlemen in ordinary office attendant upon her majesty's person, and such as have been employed in embassages to foreign princes.

Caps, hats, hatbands, capbands, garters, or boothose trimmed with gold or silver or pearl; silk netherstocks; enameled chains, buttons, aglets: except men of the degrees above mentioned, the gentlemen attending upon the Queen's person in her highness's Privy chamber or in the office of cupbearer, carver, sewer [server], esquire for the body, gentlemen ushers, or esquires of the stable.

Satin, damask, silk, camlet, or taffeta in gown, coat, hose, or uppermost garments; fur whereof the kind groweth not in the Queen's dominions, except foins, grey genets, and budge: except the degrees and persons above mentioned, and men that may dispend £100 by the year, and so valued in the subsidy book.

Hat, bonnet, girdle, scabbards of swords, daggers, etc.; shoes and pantofles of velvet: except the degrees and persons above names and the son and heir apparent of a knight.

Silk other than satin, damask, taffeta, camlet, in doublets; and sarcanet, camlet, or taffeta in facing of gowns and cloaks, and in coats, jackets, jerkins, coifs, purses being not of the color scarlet, crimson, or blue; fur of foins, grey genets, or other as the like groweth not in the Queen's dominions: except men of the degrees and persons above mentioned, son of a knight, or son and heir apparent of a man of 300 marks land by the year, so valued in the subsidy books, and men that may dispend £40 by the year, so valued ut supra.

None shall wear spurs, swords, rapiers, daggers, skeans, woodknives, or hangers, buckles or girdles, gilt, silvered or damasked: except knights and barons' sons, and others of higher degree or place, and gentlemen in ordinary office attendant upon the Queen's majesty's person; which gentlemen so attendant may wear all the premises saving gilt, silvered, or damasked spurs.

None shall wear in their trappings or harness of their horse any studs, buckles, or other garniture gilt, silvered, or damasked; nor stirrups gilt, silvered, or damasked; nor any velvet in saddles or horse trappers: except the persons next before mentioned and others of higher degree, and gentlemen in ordinary, ut supra.

Note that the Lord Chancellor, Treasurer, President of the council, Privy Seal, may wear any velvet, satin, or other silks except purple, and furs black except black genets.

These may wear as they have heretofore used, viz. any of the King's council, justices of either bench, Barons of the Exchequer, Master of the Rolls, sergeants at law, Masters of the Chancery, of the Queen's council, apprentices of law, physicians of the King, queen, and Prince, mayors and other head officers of any towns corporate, Barons of the Five Ports, except velvet, damask, [or] satin of the color crimson, violet, purple, blue.

Note that her majesty's meaning is not, by this order, to forbid in any person the wearing of silk buttons, the facing of coats, cloaks, hats and caps, for comeliness only, with taffeta, velvet, or other silk, as is commonly used.

Note also that the meaning of this order is not to prohibit a servant from wearing any cognizance of his master, or henchmen, heralds, pursuivants at arms; runners at jousts, tourneys, or such martial feats, and such as wear apparel given them by the Queen, and such as shall have license from the Queen for the same.

Notes

Genets: Fur of the civet cat.

Lucernes: Lynx fur.

Foins: Fur of the beech marten, a weasel-like animal.

Budge: Shearling lambskin from North Africa and, later, Spain. Also bodge.

Pantofles: Slip-on overshoes.

Premises: Preceding items.

Welt: Trim or braid.


Link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Important items democrats worry about
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.51 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 04:20:16