First Earmarks, now buttcracks! Where will it all end?

If the judge had left him in jail Julius would have fit right in. After all, that is where the underwear showing fad began. Prisoners aren't allowed belts, so their pants droop. What a great culture to emulate.

Hmmm I seem to recall there is a reason you cannot appear in public without clothes or wearing clothes that are so scanty as to constant a distraction or problem. Do you consider those unreasonable as well?

There are many rules that wouldn't be required if people exercised good judgement. Unfortunately most people do not trouble themselves to use any judgement at all.

It's either Amendment IX or Amendment X, which together state that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not disparage other rights, and that powers not denied to the states or granted to the Federal government reside in the people or in the States. Unless the state constitution in Florida allows the ordinance, it would be reserved to the people to decide what clothes to wear.

So did anybody report what Julius Hart did with his freedom? Go smoke a joint? Hold up a gas station? Just hang with his homies?

Don't let this clothing law distract us from the general state of our courts displayed here.

1. The kid was a parolee, but was nonetheless treated as royalty by the judge and public defender.

2. A Circuit Court judge presumes to rule on constitutionality of the law, when in fact he doesn't know his law well enough to know that his court doesn't have that jurisdiction.

What a maroon! (Bugs Bunny)

I think the judge was right. If the kid hadn't had on pants, his boxer shorts (if the kind with a sewn-up fly) wouldn't have been illegal or obscene.

It's not the same as the girl with the buttcrack showing. That, I can see being a violation.

Making a big deal about this just keeps it in fashion a bit longer. It's better to laugh at them when either they or their pants fall down.

I don't care for the fad either....

BUT

The Constitution (be it State or Federal) should not have to specifically state I have a right. It should state what rights the government has and any thing not listed as a government right is left to the people.

While I personally would tell someone to pull up their pants I agree with the law being stupid. And I sure as hell disagree with the position that if the Constitution doesn't say I can do it then I can't do it. THAT is a bonehead position to take.

Dooz: Think you're wrong about jurisdiction, you can certainly challenge the federal constitutionality of a state law in that state's courts.

While I'm annoyed by the saggy pants, I don't think it's our government's job to control that. I'm also annoyed by guys wearing baseball hats crooked, sideways. etc., but take it as a sign of my inevitable slide into being an old guy. People get more naked at the beach, and this law might put plumbers out of business.

There are many ways for a law to be unconstitutional - the law could be worded poorly and be overreaching or vague, it could impinge on due process, or it could discriminate against a protected group (I don't think thugs qualify for that last one, thankfully). That's just a few of the ways.

Keep the government out of our private lives - they don't need to be the fashion police. Hell, our economy might still be fine if they had stayed out of the mortgage business. Smaller government rah rah rah! give me a road to get to work, and cops and firemen to protect me from guns and fire. I think I can protect myself from baggy pants .

Free market forces will correct this dumbass by denying his baggy-pants a** a decent job for being a slob. Soon, he won't be able to afford new pants and will get fat on the government cheese, so that the baggy pants then "fit". Maybe that was his plan all along, and he was just buying "ahead".