FLORIDA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OVERTURN TWO YOUTH CURFEWS

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/10218987.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp ^ | 11/19/2004 | Marc Caputo

[TChris]

Why should anyone have to present a 'legitimate reason' to the state in order to be outside after dark?

They don't, unless they're minors. Minors simply don't have the same rights as adults. It's a long-standing fact in our system of laws.

[JeffAtlanta]

Because minors and adults have different rights.

Do you believe that the local communities could pass curfews that only effect black minors? This seems to follow your reasoning as the 14th ammendment really wouldn't protect them against racial discrimination by the state. This would be logical as you've indicated that the freedom of assembly provisions of the 1st ammendment do not apply to minors.

[TChris]

Trespass laws would work just fine.

Yes, they do, if the owner happens to be at his store at 3:00 AM to demand that they leave. If not, other ordinances are necessary to keep things peaceful.

[TChris]

Do you believe that the local communities could pass curfews that only effect black minors?

No, I don't. Our society has rejected the idea of differentiating rights based on race; they have embraced the idea of differentiating some rights based on age.

(Oh, and the word is, "affect") ;-)

[JeffAtlanta]

Yes, they do, if the owner happens to be at his store at 3:00 AM to demand that they leave. If not, other ordinances are necessary to keep things peaceful.

Wouldn't a posting saying "No trespassing after 10:00PM" do just as well? The owners could post at notify the police. I don't know - I'm just asking.

Regardless, if they are not being peaceful then their surely are other laws that can be used. If they are being peaceful then there's not problem anyway.

[JeffAtlanta]

No, I don't. Our society has rejected the idea of differentiating rights based on race; they have embraced the idea of differentiating some rights based on age.

But you feel that a curfew that only affects blacks would be constitutional since the constitution only applies to non-minors?

[TChris]

Wouldn't a posting saying "No trespassing after 10:00PM" do just as well?

I'm not positive about that one. Generally, though, a sign isn't as strong as a specific order when things go to court.

If the kids were being peaceful, which is rarely when large groups of them are together really late at night, then we wouldn't give them too much heat. We'd just keep an eye on them and make sure it stayed quiet. Of course, different officers had different levels of tolerance for this.

[JeffAtlanta]

I'm not positive about that one. Generally, though, a sign isn't as strong as a specific order when things go to court.

Thank you for your calm, reasoned responses. We disagree but I must commend you on being respectful.

[TChris]

But you feel that a curfew that only affects blacks would be constitutional since the constitution only applies to non-minors?

You're fighting a straw man here. I didn't say that the constitution only applies to non-minors. What I did say is that we have always curtailed the rights of minors, in many areas.

I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you can show me that the framers of the Constitution intended for people of all ages to enjoy identical rights.

[Rytwyng]

When I was a teenager, I had no parental curfew at all. I could stay out til 3 AM if I wanted, as long I as I let them know where I was and what I was doing. Admittedly, I only exercised this privilege 2 or 3 times, through my entire high school years. However, the freedom was there when I wanted it, which wasn't often.

BUT.... I was a good kid and my parents knew it. They knew that I would never touch drugs, fornicate, commit street crimes, let my grades slip, turn homosexual or Democrat, or drive drunk -- even if I stayed out til sunrise.

Not all kids are like that.

[been_lurking]

Not being in a position of authority gives you exactly zero credentials to question authority. Not being an "authority" also implies that you don't have any "responsibility".

Since you can't really understand "authority" until you are held "responsible", you really must admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Modernman]

Not being in a position of authority gives you exactly zero credentials to question authority.

That's kind of a dangerous statement. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that the average American has no right to challenge their leaders.

[He Rides A White Horse]

In case you're unaware, this is a forum dedicated to conservatism.

Your brand of libertarianism is in no way conservatism.

[He Rides A White Horse]

In case you're unaware, this is a forum dedicated to conservatism.

You are a DU troll. That should be obvious to anyone.

[He Rides A White Horse]

They as well. It's obvious who represents what on this thread.

[been_lurking]

The "average" citizen is in a position of authority. They are parents, or bosses etc... and have some understanding of the link between authority and responsibility. But I will grant you that we have many adult "citizens" with no more understanding of these concepts than a four year old child.

As for those citizens that have no practical experience with the concepts of "responsibility" and "authority" -- no, they should not have any right to "question" authority, any more than a four year old child's right to question his/her parents.