NJ Town Approves Boardwalk Ban on Saggy Pants....Unconstitutional? (party, government, state)

[All American NYC]

Wildwood has passed a law banning overly saggy pants, providing for fines of between $25 and $200 for violators. The law was passed Wednesday. It prohibits pants that droop 3 inches below the waist, exposing skin or underwear. Mayor Ernest Troiano (troy-AHN'-oh) says many longtime visitors to the popular shore town have complained about having to look at people's rear ends "hanging out" while walking the boardwalk...Civil libertarians say the law is unconstitutional and likely will be overturned if it's challenged in court.

Your thoughts? unconstitutional ?

[HappyTexan]

But it's only a "moderate" infringement on your rights.

[theunbrainwashed]

No

[no1brownsfan]

As obnoxious as it looks, do we really need more nanny state laws?

[Hot_Handz]

I believe it is unconstitutional....unless it is considered indecent exposure?

Being a lifelong NJ resident...I am totally surprised this law was passed.

[All American NYC]

If they can tell you how to dress, I am only guessing what will be next?

[Hot_Handz]

Wasn't a similar law passed in San Diego?

[LoveToRow]

It's not unconstitutional. If they can tell you not to smoke on the beach, why can't they tell you not to have your disgusting flabby asz hanging out on the beach.

I'm glad this is getting passed. It will primarily affect African Americans, because they are the ones who dress like this the most. They also vote primarily for nanny state Democrats, so it's about time they started paying for their votes with their freedom.

Anytime left wing voters get punished and suffer for their stupid voting decisions, I'm happy. Schadenfreude.

[legalsea]

It is as I have said before: many of the most restrictive and inane laws are passed by local governments.

I will note that this 'saggy pants' ordinance (applicable only to the Boardwalk) seems in line with the other ordinances for Wildwood's Boardwalk:


ClerkBase - Building Trust through Transparency


For instance, one may not use one's car to change into bathing attire.

[Frank DeForrest]

Some people need a bureaucrat to dress them in the morning
For an example of how mission creep is allowed to evolve, see post below:

Originally Posted by Trace21230

It's not unconstitutional. If they can tell you not to smoke on the beach, why can't they tell you not to have your disgusting flabby asz hanging out on the beach.

I'm glad this is getting passed. It will primarily affect African Americans, because they are the ones who dress like this the most. They also vote primarily for nanny state Democrats, so it's about time they started paying for their votes with their freedom.

Anytime left wing voters get punished and suffer for their stupid voting decisions, I'm happy. Schadenfreude.

Your party does X so we will do Y