Conservatives: Do you agree with the ACLU on this one?

Question

The ACLU opposes a town ordinance that imposes fines for wearing pants in a way that exposes 3 or more inches of the person's underwear.

The ACLU makes the claim that the ordinance targets primarily young men of color. Conservatives oppose government intrusion into the lives of citizens. Isn't this a matter of government overreaching? Shouldn't this be left to parents?

Article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-pull-up-your-pantsjul19,0,6961059.story

Answer 1

i consider it a public decency issue. it is not a rep or dem. and what do you leave to parents who choose not to do anything. most of these kids likely have no role model in a mother or a father, why else would they allow themselves to dress that way. they have no respect for themselves or the people around them. and after all, they are called UNDERWEAR. i say fine them for public indecency, just as you would anyone else half dressed or obscenely dressed.

Answer 2

It's really not a question of conservatives vs. liberals, it's a question of common decency and morale. I don't think local governments should regulate the personal lives more than they already do and if some people like to expose their underwear, let them do it. This fad will fade like so many others.

Answer 3

This should be left to their parents   If their parents doesn't  Then the law

Answer 4

I agree the ordinance is an intrusion.  What I have a problem with and what a lot of people have a problem with the ACLU is they make these huge jumps and assign motive when it doesn't exist.

"primarily targets young men of color" is another of their bogus claims.  This group will never have credibility until they stop making absurd claims to further their agenda.

Answer 5

I agree that the ordinance is stupid, though I don't agree that it is "targetting people of color"

Answer 6

ANY person who wears their pants falling to the floor, should be put in jail for 30 days and fined at "least" a $1,000!

IF this is an issue of race as the communist ACLU conveniently want to make this out to be, what do you say to the elderly black people who I have personally heard state that boy should have his butt beat by his daddy for walking around like that?  And you can quote that!  I have heard the elderly say that about them more than once!

Liberals and the ACLU love to play the race card whenever it suit them.  Regardless if it has any bearing on the issue or not.

It sure would be funny if about 20-30 elderly black people got on the witness stand and testified against this nonsense.  Knowing the attitude of the ACLU, they probably wouldn't have a problem showing p**n movies to their 5 and 6 year old children anyway.

Answer 7

Yes, this isn't footloose

Answer 8

so the ordinance would be OK if it were NOT targeting "young men of color?"

Answer 9

I believe that ALL gang members and punks should be made to wear their trousers at least half-way down their buttocks if not down to the tops of their thighs.  It makes it easier for the police to catch them in a chase!  

Have you ever tried to run when the crotch of your pants is half-way to your knees?  Or while trying to hold your pants up with one hand?

Answer 10

There was a case a while back that was similar to this and it was struck down.  Of course it is a violation of civil liberties!  This is targeting a specific group of people.  Honestly, what if there was a law passed stating you couldn't wear your favorite brand of clothes because other people couldn't afford it!  And the by the way...I think you're a little confused there, liberals are the ones who do not like big government.

Answer 11

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That gives the Sates, and the People the power to decide, and no, it is not directed at "people of color"... just go to any Mall, or look anywhere youth gather...

If the people in that area don't like it, they have every Right to have a local ordinance passed.

Answer 12

I sort of agree with the ACLU. Who are they to tell people how to wear their clothes. As long as they're wearing something I'm happy.

Answer 13

Why, that would be like my city proposing an ordinance to ban public drinking to primarily target the homeless.

Before reading the article ("Let's see if they start pulling over plumbers for their pants."), my mind also went to plumbers. As often is the case with various contractors, what if the exposed 3 or more inches is of skin, not underwear?

The macrocosm: Regardless of any unspoken, intended target, the ACLU's claim is symbolic.

The microcosm: Regardless of parental values, abdicated responsibility at the level of teenage dress is also symbolic.

EDIT: I know your question was addressed to conservatives; however, my influence is unabashedly liberal/progressive.

Answer 14

No.  I disagree with the ACLU on this issue, and most issues they pursue.

The local community has the right to determine standards, and the argument that it "targets primarily young men of color" is BS.  The "look" is offensive no matter who wears it, and I've seen as many "young men of no minority ethnicity" with the look as the so-called "targeted group".

EDIT:  Sorry, forgot about the "parents" part of your question.

Today's parent's don't give a c**p about their kids.  If it doesn't wake them up, if they don't have to clean it up, and if it doesn't cost them money then they don't give a c**p.

Answer 15

S'funny, there are others than just "young men of color" who wear thier pants that way.

I think it is too much; they should display modesty in all things (DON'T SHOW TOO MUCH!!!).

But, yes, I agree with the ACLU on this, as long as they limit it to "a matter of government overreaching".  It should be left to the parents and the individual.

However, in case you are a "younger person", when I was growing up, boys were not allowed to wear shorts (or go shirtless) in the "downtown area", but girls were allowed to wear shorts/swimsuits/whatever and even go barefooted!

Me, I think the Government should limit itself to its constitutional limits.

Answer 16

Clearly government has no business legislating the allowable amount of boxers on display.  But here's the flipside:  When the gang bangers who dress like that engage in questionable (I'll be kind) activity, take a bullet in the spine and end up a quadraplegic, government has no role in paying for their care.  Fair enough?  Personal freedom, personal responsibility.

Answer 17

Of all the things the ACLU has supported over the years:

Pedophiles

restriction of Free Speech

doing zip about gun laws

To tell someone to pull up their pants in a town that holds record for gun violence doesn't even rate in my book for any kind of attention.

Answer 18

I definitely agree with the ACLU on this one, and I'm glad that their taking it up.

The law is racist. I'm no fan of hip-hop culture or buttcrack, but the government has no right to try and tell people what or what NOT to wear!

Answer 19

I disagree with the ACLU since the law is CLEARLY NOT targeting PEOPLE of COLOR. It is targeting IDIOTS of every color, race or creed. We already ban public nudity, how is this law any different?

Should it be left to the parents?  Well I hate to point out the obvious here but once these mental midgets left the house dressed like that it's no longer up to the parents