TresSugar

FL Judge: Droopy Drawers Are a Constitutional Right

TresSugar — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:00:00 -0700

In 2008, 72 percent of voters in Riviera Beach, FL, passed a ban on pants that ride below the waist exposing skin or underwear. But wait: turns out loose waistbands are a civil liberty. A judge ruled this week that the ordinance violated the 14th amendment of the constitution, because there was no legitimate government interest in the law regulating style.

The city argued that the ban on saggy pants wasn't based on sartorial concerns, but safety concerns, since residents could hide weapons in their loose-fitting clothes. The judge didn't buy that.

Police in various states around the country have cracked down on baggy pants. In Flint, MI, the new chief announced last year that he would begin arresting people with droopy drawers for indecency and make offenders face a $500 fine and up to three months in jail.

In addition to the judge in Florida, the laws have raised the concerns of the ACLU and the NAACP, which worry about the racial implications. They think the baggy ban has the potential to disproportionately target the black community.

Source

Two Out of Three Americans Living in Constitution-Free Zone

CitizenSugar — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:00:50 -0700

Welcome to the border - where anyone can be stopped and searched. It used to be just the point of entry along Canada and Mexico, but Homeland Security has taken an increasingly loose - or wide - interpretation of it. Now? It's a 100-mile radius that wraps around the border of the United States.

Oh yes. It’s called the Constitution-Free Zone by the ACLU. The concern is that it erodes the rights of the Fourth Amendment - the one that protects against unreasonable searches and seizes - for two-thirds of Americans. That's 197.4 million people, and pretty much all of New England.

Authority that the Constitution would have prohibited can now be exercised by the US Customs and Border Protection. It’s been setting up inland checkpoints where it typically questions citizenship; however, people have reported extended questioning and increased pressure to permit searches.

Many are calling for congress to investigate and pass new laws to protect Americans before things go too far. Do you fear it will? Or are you glad to see a protective barrier ringing the country regardless?

The Decider Says He Doesn't Have to Follow Certain Laws

LibertySugar — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:00:39 -0700

After signing two bills into law this week, President Bush said that he could bypass numerous parts of the laws. In a signing statement Bush said a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from the White House unlawfully constrained the president's constitutional powers.

So which parts will Bush ignore?

A section forbidding money from being used "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
A section requiring negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operation.
Two sections strengthening legal protections against political interference with internal watchdog officials at executive agencies.

The past 42 presidents have issued 600 signing statements combined while Bush himself has put out 1,100. Legal scholars assert that Bush's disobedience contradicts the rule of law, and the separations of power between Congress and the president. Do you think the next president will follow Bush's signing statements, or go even further by following his example of issuing many more signing statements?

Source

Do Tell: What Would you Change?

DearSugar — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:30:00 -0700

The Constitution was instated in its original form in 1787 and its contents continually spark conversation and debate about the American ways. When political or moral conversation gets heated, we always add in our two cents, and most times much more. But what if you could actually change the laws on the issues you don't agree with? What if you could single handedly abolish, add, or reconstruct any aspect of the American Constitution? Ladies, do tell, what would you alter?

Source

Would You Vote for a Third Party Candidate?

LibertySugar — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:02:00 -0700

In 1854, the Republican Party emerged as a third party. Only six years later, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency for the new party.

Parties beyond the Democrats and Republicans exist today. The Constitution Party, which former Reagan official Alan Keyes recently joined, is the third largest political party in terms of voter registration. There are 367,000 registered Constitution Party voters. Ex-"spoiler" Ralph Nader is running for President again as the Green Party's nominee.

Third party candidates rarely win national elections. But, they can have an impact. Third parties can draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties, increase voter turnout, or allow people to voice dissent with a protest vote. But, do you think they can move past this secondary role, and actually start winning elections? If you want to keep up on third party news you may not catch in the mainstream media, check out Third Party Watch.

Are you ready to seriously support a truly competitive third party?

Source

Are You Loud in Bed?

TresSugar — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:00:00 -0800

Englishwoman Caroline Cartwright likes to be loud when she makes love - so loud that her "unnatural" screams that sounded like "murder" and which were heard by the neighborhood children and postman got her convicted for a statutory noise violation.

Cartwright tried to appeal the conviction on grounds that it violated her right to privacy, but a magistrate upheld the conviction. The court reasoned:

"It certainly was intrusive and constituted a statutory nuisance. It was clearly of a very disturbing nature and it was also compounded by the duration - this was not a one-off, it went on for hours at a time. It is further compounded by the frequency of the episode, virtually every night."

Well, now we know that Caroline was having hours-long sex almost every night. Not bad! While I'm sure none of you would get a noise violation for your sexual screams, do you consider yourself loud in bed?

Say What? National Organization For Women on Letterman

TresSugar — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:00:00 -0700

"As 'the boss,' he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace - and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees -including employees who happen to be women - in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation."

- Terry O'Neill for the National Organization for Women reminding people that David Letterman's admitted affairs with female staffers over the years, although described as consensual, occurred in the workplace and constitute what many people would consider an abuse of power by an employer toward his employees. Because men who are bosses decide who to hire, fire, advance, and give raises to, "consent" is made between two people who are not equals. Letterman has since apologized to viewers, to his entire staff over the years, and to his wife, Regina Lasko, but O'Neill wants people to remember this happens every day in workplaces all over the country. If you'd like to hear what she thinks CBS should do to fix this "toxic" situation, read more.

Dominican Republic Bans Abortion, No Exceptions

TresSugar — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0700

As support for legal access to abortion in the US drops (with only 47 percent of Americans thinking it should be legal), the Dominican Republican has decided to go one better: they want to constitutionally ban the procedure altogether.

With support for the Catholic Church and the country's Catholic population, lawmakers recently ratified an amendment that makes it illegal for women to terminate pregnancy in all cases. Abortion is now constitutionally forbidden even if the mother or fetus's life is at risk. And there is no exception for incest or rape.

It is very taboo to discuss abortion in the Dominican Republic, but some bloggers are speaking out against the new amendment. One such blogger writes:

A string of hypocrisy, and those that think they voted for life, when a woman needs to abort because her life is in danger and they do not, THE WOMAN AND THE FETUS DIES. What ignorance! Death will now be 2 for 1 in the Dominican Republic.

Could you imagine something like this happening in the US?

Say What? Bill Clinton Has a Change of Heart

TresSugar — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:00:00 -0700

"I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nation-wide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates. But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position. I am no longer opposed to that. I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it."

- Former President Bill Clinton says he now supports marriage equality. Maybe gay-marriage supporter Brad Pitt chatted with Bill about the subject when they met at the Clinton Global Initiative this week.

A Refresher Course on What Constitutes "Theft"

GiggleSugar — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:00:00 -0800

It involves "eating" before you "pay." Imagine that!

Source