Sagging as a Constitutional Violation? 

A Louisiana town wants to prohibit people from sagging their pants, or wearing pants below the waist and exposing their underwear. Their argument is that the fashion trend is unconstitutional.
The ban would cause violators to pay a fee with a series of fines: $50 for the first offense and up to $100 plus 16 hours of public service for each subsequent offence. In other places like Jersey Shore, the Police say they “will be walking the boardwalk and using our discretion, but saggy pants could get you a $200 fine or 40 hours of community service.” Is it just me or…Police Discretion…Hmmm

  

The Ordinance reads, "Appearing in public view while exposing one's skin or undergarments below the waist is contrary to safety, health, peace and good order..."  While I agree with this image being disturbing, how does this involve safety, health, or peace? Also aren’t Jersey Shore and Terrebonne both Beach Towns?

       

...And what are beach towns known for??? 

Okay, now I see how boxers are just too revealing for modern society!

"It's certainly not the first time elders complained about the social morals and dress habits of young people," Ida Moore told WWL-TV. "But to make laws on governing social differences is a slippery slope to the level of government that we do not allow."

On one side people are saying “Indecent Exposure is a constitutional Violation!” Agreed, but let’s understand this argument. What is Indecent Exposure according to the constitution? “In the United States of America, public indecency refers to conduct undertaken in a non-private or (in some jurisdictions) publicly viewable location, which are deemed indecent in nature, such as indecent exposure and sexual intercourse or masturbation in public view.” 

Question is do you group sagging with sex and masturbating in public… Let’s examine the very definition of indecent exposure: “Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body”. So if showing skin is what the constitution considers indecent exposure, tell me who violates this beach town’s new rule:

Some are outraged and calling it a Black and White issue. The legislation involved, however, is saying “this is not a black issue, or a white issue.” For once legislation is correct, it is a gender issue; examine:         

                                                           

Granted, I would love to see the individuals in both pictures adhere to a better standard of attire…is either group really committing a crime? For that matter, if Indecent Exposure is “flesh below the waist” then what group is really committing said crime?

Even artists have been speaking out on the controversial issue. Hip Hop MC “go-“ has a new single saying “It’s a constitutional blessin, freedom of expression. If you show your rear you’re queer. Though I sag, you can’t see my underwear” His new Single is entitled “Sag” and breaks down how to get your “Executive status sag on” as the Brooklyn borne Artist so eloquently put it. After intently listening to the single, I think we can actually agree; sagging okay, but no one wants to see your underwear.

Press here to download the hit single "Sag". All proceeds go to the Go-Kids Foundation!

To hear the song first press here. (This version is unedited and not intended for radio use). Both version available above.

Even the president of the United States has something to say on the issue!

"Here's my attitude: I think passing a law about people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time," Obama replied. “We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, getting health care, and dealing with the war in Iraq. Any public official who is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on the real problems out there. Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants.”

~Snaps for truth Mr. President, snaps for truth~

To hear the song first press here (this is the unedited version, not for radio use).