and now...back to 'baggy pants'
the citizens and city of alexandria, louisiana made fox news (see link) the other day.fox reported how: "Alexandria's City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the baring. Its ordinance allows some sag, but 3 inches or more can bring a fine of $25 to $200 and a requirement for community service."
when news finally broke on 23 august 2007 about how cities like delcambre, louisiana had passed and cities like atlanta and alexandria, louisiana were considering passing the same or similar ordinances -- the executive director, ms. debbie seagraves, of the american civil liberties union immediately went on record to remind everyone that "this is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," seagraves said.a normal minded person would take this to mean that the american civil liberties union is going to eventually sue any or all of the municipalities that put 'baggy pants' laws on the books. so why would you unnecessarily put your city in harms way of a very likely federal civil action against it. not to mention the damage to your cities reputation after the american civil liberties makes a fool of it? of coz thoughts of the massive attorney and legal fees the city i.e. taxpayers will have to foot is never talked about. we see that in the city of pineville, louisiana's seventeen thousand and counting dollar legal fees to bring a suit thats not even provided for in the law.three councilmen in shreveport, louisiana had the good sense to vote no, yet alexandria's seven councilmen including most curiously haberdasher harry silver unanimously voted the ordinance in. this shouldnt be surprising when just this past january they voted in the so called 'abandoned car' ordinance which like 'baggy pants' is promised, went down to court challenge and defeat. so when the attorney general's office comes to instruct the city council on louisiana open meetings law they need to throw in courses on common sense and the constitution. by the way we wonder what councilman silver's attitude towards this ordinance would be if the city was trying to outlaw a popular type of clothing that he sells?we're told that a search was done of all the state and federal and appeals courts in the land and so far there are no 'baggy pants' cases been heard. this would seem to make it most ripe for an aclu challenge.the citizens ought to demand a law that says that when a governmental body willfully and knowingly passes laws that the courts eventually strike down as unconstitutional they should have to pay the attorney fees court costs out of their own pocket (like was needed here for instance and would have helped here too) or better yet resign.32) To consider final adoption of an ordinance adding Section 15-128 to the Alexandria City Code relative to appropriate dress for persons in certain public places; to prohibit public exposure in certain attire; to provide for fines and civil penalties. (LEGAL 8/28) Charles Frederick Smith
fortunately, mayor roy went on record and said that the 'baggy pants' ordinance is "overly broad in scope" and "vague"two minute video clip of mayor roy's warning on unconstitutionality of alexandria's 'baggy pants' ordinance. item no. 32. clip courtesy of central la politics blogmayor roy's going on record for the city attorney and himself like this means that he cannot sign this ordinance. it's clear that mayor roy must uphold his oath of office and veto this ordinance.mayor roy and the rest of the citizens for that matter shouldnt worry about the city council. they are toast and here's why:
on 28 august 2007 in the run up to the council's 5 - 2 veto override vote the city coucil was addressed by a reverend david blunt.. theres some confusion right now as to the actual name of the reverend as rod noles said his name is "brown" but when council president everett hobbs introduced him it sounded to us like he said "reverend david blunt." so if you happen to know the good reverend or you can clarify what his name is, please let us know.the good reverend told of how he one day he was in his repose and the lord opened his eyes as to what was going on with the mayor and the city council. the reverend said how the lord sent him a "strong premonition" about a new leader who was reading the law and the word and "under him there was a board, a council they were pulling him down and fighting against him" because they "weren't willing to follow leadership." the lord sent a warning by his servant who is also a brother to the five stiff-necked and lawless ones on the city council and they scoffed at the lord's warning. regardless of the outcome of the roy v alexandria city council lawsuit the fate of the five stiff-necked ones is assured. god will not be mocked.we see immediately after the good reverend's words the supposed ring-leader of the five, councilman myron lawson was struck with confusion when he said "i have asked for an attorney general's opinion on this matter" and closed by saying that "i just wanted the public to know, that going another step, i've asked for an attorney general's opinion, me personally; not the city counsel." he must have been confused because this gave them the perfect excuse to hold off on the veto override as they could have easily said they wanted to wait for the attorney general opinion. instead councilman lawson used that as an excuse to go ahead with the veto override -- this is confusing since with litigation being commenced in the matter - stops an attorney general opinion. we applaud the mayor and city attorney for going on record questioning the constitutionality of this silly law. they need to do that in all things. we would be totally flabbergasted [gobsmacked even] if we learn that the mayor does sign this ordinance into law. besides why would the mayor who's aforethought is apparent want to likely and needlessly harm alexandria's reputation as well as put thousands of dollars of tax money at risk for the likes of councilman charles frederick smith's (one of the five stiff-necked ones) dumb ass?
====
EXTERNAL LINK
