There are so many issues with this law, that when it is challenged, it will not pass "constitutional mustard."
First, I think we all agree one's fashion is personal expression; protected by the First Amendment. This is an expressed fundamental right. Thus, constraining this right must be viewed with strict scrutiny. The state, here the city government, must show that there is a compelling purpose that makes the rule a necessary (the only) means of achieving this purpose. Examples of compelling purposes are national security, public welfare, or safe working conditions. Here the state wants to protect morals of the community. This is a right it has. Therefore the purpose holds up.
The means utterly fails. Does anyone think this is indecent? I think if these men did not wear jeans, and just wore there boxers, they would not be arrested. This seems irrational, as oppossed necessary.
Also, with due to race, this may be an Equal Protection violation of the 14th Amendment. Though the statute is not discrimatory facially, it is discrimatory based on race. This is unconstitutional.
There are so many issues with this law, that when it is challenged, it will not pass "constitutional mustard."
First, I think we all agree one's fashion is personal expression; protected by the First Amendment. This is an expressed fundamental right. Thus, constraining this right must be viewed with strict scrutiny. The state, here the city government, must show that there is a compelling purpose that makes the rule a necessary (the only) means of achieving this purpose. Examples of compelling purposes are national security, public welfare, or safe working conditions. Here the state wants to protect morals of the community. This is a right it has. Therefore the purpose holds up.
The means utterly fails. Does anyone think this is indecent? I think if these men did not wear jeans, and just wore there boxers, they would not be arrested. This seems irrational, as oppossed necessary.
Also, with due to race, this may be an Equal Protection violation of the 14th Amendment. Though the statute is not discrimatory facially, it is discrimatory based on race. This is unconstitutional.
I am so ready for my Con Law II final!
Reply
Leave a comment