Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Get rid of kids wearing pants down to their knees
the washington times ^ | feb 8,2005 | By Christina Bellantoni

Posted on 02/09/2005 12:29:56 AM PST by Cato1

'Droopy drawers' bill seeks end to overexposure of underwear By Christina Bellantoni -- Virginia lawmakers to the state's youth: Pull up your pants or pay the price. Delegate Algie T. Howell Jr. doesn't want to see underwear hanging out of the back of your pants, and most lawmakers yesterday agreed with him. The House voted 60-34 for his bill, which would impose a $50 fine on anyone whose boxers, briefs or thongs peek above their pants or skirts. "It's not an attack on baggy pants," said Mr. Howell, Norfolk Democrat. "To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country." It's not clear if the fine would apply to plumbers, carpenters or other laborers who have problems with low-riding pants. The bill states the fine would apply to those who display their below-the-waist underwear in a "lewd or indecent manner." Several lawmakers and civil rights groups said the legislation -- sometimes referred to as the "droopy drawers" bill -- is excessive and would encourage racial profiling, arguing that exposed underwear is simply a fashion statement by mostly black youths. Delegate Lionell Spruill Sr., Chesapeake Democrat, said the bill violates the Constitution. "This is a foolish bill because it will hurt so many," said Mr. Spruill, who is black. "This will be a bill that will target blacks." At one point, Mr. Spruill suggested that lawmakers who vote for the bill "should be ashamed" and said Mr. Howell has let his constituents down. Delegate John S. Reid, Henrico Republican, said Mr. Spruill had "crossed the line" of traditional debate decorum. "I got your attention, Mr. Reid. I'm glad I did," Mr. Spruill told Mr. Reid after apologizing.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activism; announcements; breaking; constitution; culture; frontpage; government; misc; news
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: Keith in Iowa

Say no to crack! :)


LOL well put!

Hubby, brother-in-law, and the kid could all end up in trouble if this catches on!


21 posted on 02/09/2005 5:31:30 AM PST by jocon307 (Vote George Washington for the #1 spot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cato1
Why legislate? Just ridicule them to death. Anytime I see one of those morons walking down the street with his pants sagging down to his ankles and the top of his underwear showing, I just point at him and start laughing.

Trust me, that upsets them alot more than a stupid law would.
22 posted on 02/09/2005 5:37:02 AM PST by reagan_fanatic ("Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence" - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

This is a state law, so you are on the wrong channel. The same clothes that are worn at the beach would be outlawed at the mall??? Or are you saying that I can go to the mall in a bathing suit as long as I'm not wearing a pair of droopy pants on top of them?


23 posted on 02/09/2005 5:41:11 AM PST by Joe Driscoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

You actually support big brother sticking his nose into your closet now? Obscenity aside, how you dress is your business. Your underwear's waistband might be tacky to display, but it's not obscene. Government has no business here, none at all.


24 posted on 02/09/2005 5:45:13 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline

Kudos to you!

In my neck of the woods, wearing pants below one's behind is called "busting a sag". I've employed a couple of folks who practiced this fashion statement; however, in a manufacturing environment, it could prove dangerous. I tell them pull up your pants or go home. They pull them up.

Frankly, I don't care to see anyone's underware, ever.


25 posted on 02/09/2005 5:47:51 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

You know what, I agree with you. I don't want to see underwear either. However, that doesn't mean I can support a law that fines those who's waistbands are visible.


26 posted on 02/09/2005 5:49:55 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

Do you do that when they are traveling in packs of ten and a red or blue bandana is hanging out of their back pocket???? Just wondering ;)


27 posted on 02/09/2005 5:55:12 AM PST by Hand em their arse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cato1
"A bill that will target blacks"??? Oh, puleeze! In some parts of the country, more "other minorities" and "not minorities" are sporting droopy drawers than blacks. And here's Bill Cosby trying to get "the community" to clean-up its act and stop being so offensive, and the usual "racial mongerers" are being entirely TOO SILENT on the subject of his being aggressively "sued". Much too silent.

Let me just add to the mix here, Mr. Spruill -- is obesity a problem or not? You know how hard it is to run, even walk, in droopy drawers? And do you really want to see obese females sporting thongs and see through garb? What's next? Loin Cloths as a fashion statement?

Oops.. I just let the cat out of the bag...

28 posted on 02/09/2005 5:56:53 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cato1

When I see baggy pants, it makes me want to find the nearest staple gun to keep them in place.


29 posted on 02/09/2005 5:59:42 AM PST by Constitution Day (Fire Herb Sendek!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cato1

This law will be ...and should be...unconstitutional before the ink drys.


30 posted on 02/09/2005 6:01:21 AM PST by DCPatriot (I don't do politically correct very well either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

And I agree with you declining to support such a law. Also, thanks for showing me how to spell underwear correctly. ;-)


31 posted on 02/09/2005 6:09:25 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
I agree it is dangerous not just on the shop floor but for practical reasons; one with drooping pants couldn't run away from a dangerous situation without falling down and possibly getting injured. It is really vanity above practicality.
32 posted on 02/09/2005 6:10:19 AM PST by clearsight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

How does a law like this violate the COnstitution? Which provision?

I'm amazed at how many Freepers believe we have the right to wear anything (or not) anywhere we want!


33 posted on 02/09/2005 6:20:58 AM PST by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Speirsy

I propose a law that old people can't wear their pants up under their armpits...


34 posted on 02/09/2005 6:21:56 AM PST by anotherdubya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Please cite for us the article in the US Constitution or the VA State Constitution which grants the government power to control dress.


35 posted on 02/09/2005 6:58:16 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hand em their arse
Do you do that when they are traveling in packs of ten and a red or blue bandana is hanging out of their back pocket???? Just wondering ;)

Sure...what are they going to do - run after me?

(Now, if they're packing heat...) :(
36 posted on 02/09/2005 7:15:38 AM PST by reagan_fanatic ("Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence" - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

"Sure...what are they going to do - run after me?"

LOL! Very good point!


37 posted on 02/09/2005 11:32:59 AM PST by Hand em their arse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

The US COnstitution exists to limit the right of the federal government. Those powers not assigned to the federal government reside in the state.

Decency laws have existed for our entire history. The framers of the Constitution would be shocked to know people are interpreting it as giving individuals the 'right' to be naked or in any other state of undress.

Do people have the right to walk nude in public? Maybe - if the states permit it (most obviously do not). Are teachers given the right to wear bikinis to work? If not, then why do students have the right to show up with various parts of their anatomy sticking out?

Obviously, they do not. It is a matter for state or local law - as it has been our entire history.


38 posted on 02/09/2005 1:21:47 PM PST by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Do you honestly contend that the government has the power to fine people if a portion of their underwear is showing?


39 posted on 02/09/2005 1:23:23 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Let me rephrase that. The legitimate power.


40 posted on 02/09/2005 1:23:48 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson