Fellow government scholars, as we discussed in class, there are states/cities in our country that has made it illegal to wear certain types of clothing/or wear clothing a certain way. Click here to read the assigned article discussing the issue.
After reading the article, please answer the following questions below, by typing your responses in the comment box.
1) What would be another good title for the article?
2) What is the essential message in the article?
3) Why did the author begin the article by discussing Ludacris and Britney Spears?
4) In your opinion, what caused law makers to create a law to address fashion?
5) What will be the effects of this "saggy pants" and "low riding" jeans law?
6) In this text, what does "legislate" mean?
7) What does the term "mandating" mean, as used in the article?
8) What is implied by the statement “It infringes on young people’s freedom of expression and their privacy rights."
9) Do you believe this law is a violation of rights guaranteed by the constitution? Why or why not?
10) Compare/contrast this law to another law. If you are not aware of another law, you will be required to do some research.
11) Give me your personal opinion on this issue.
12) How does this article relate to Federalism?
Due Date: 12/7/07, 11:30 pm
If turned in the week of 12/14/07, automatic 1 letter grade off.
If turned in the week of 12/21/07, automatic 2 letter grades off.
13 comments:
My 5 pound baby is going to be cuter than the other ones lol.I hope we are getting extra credit for this project.
1.Hanging low
2.To make people stop sagging their pants.
3.To give examples of how male and female sag their pants.
4.Because some people look disguisting when they sag their pants,and it is becoming unpropriate.
5.Everybody will end up broke.because i dont think nobody going to stop sagging them.
6.Concentrate
7.protesting.
8.The way young people dress it shows their individualality.
9.yes i do because i think we should dress how we want.
10.
11.I think thats a racial law.
12.it relates to it alot
1. Another good title for the article would be Banning saggy pants and low riding jeans.
2. The essential message in the article is to stop young men and women from wearing saggy pants and low riding jeans.
3. The author begin the article by discussing Ludacris and Britney Spears because Ludacris wears his pants low and Britney wear her belly baring bottom deeking pants.
4. I think the people who don't wear their clothes properly in public let the law makers create a law to address fashion.
5. The effects of saggy pants and low riding jeans would be that because people are not going to stop doing it.
6. Legislate means making laws or bringing new laws.
7. Mandating means an order or command, the will of voters as expressed.
8.It simple means that its the young people's freedom and expression and their privacy rights to do any thing they want.
9. Yes, I believe the law is a violation of rights guranteed by the constitution because people can do what ever they feel like doing.
10.
11. This article is very interesting and my opinion is that people wear what ever they want and not to be judge by the way they dress or by their looks.
12. The article relate to federalism by the constitution and the amendments.
1 having your pants down low.
2 the message is to make boys stop wearing pants down thier butts.
3 the reson why it talks about ludacris iis because his pants is always low and britney spears shows everything.
4 i think that people should havetheir own rights to do what they feel and wear clothes how they want.
5 the effect will be is they will make people pay a fine of 500 dolllars.
6 it means to make new laws
7 to comand people to do something.
8 the thing means that young people rights dont mean nothing
9 so should be able to wear what you want
10
11i think it is not a raical law
12 it hasto do with a lot of things n people lives
1. A GOOD TITLE FOR THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE "THE RIGHTS OF THE PANTS"
2.THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF THIS ARTICLE IS THAT PEOPLE SUCH AS MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD WEAR THERE JEANS PROPERLY WITH NO UNDERGARMENTS OR TO MUCH SKIN SHOWING.
3. THEY STARTED THIS ARTICLE OFF WITH LUDACRIS AND BRITTNEY SPEARS BECAUSE THEY NO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE LOOK UP TO THEM MEANING THE WAY THEY DRESS ACT AND ECT. SO THERE SAYING THAT IF WE SEE SOME OF OUR FAVORITE CELEBERTIES DRESSINGT LIKE THAT WERE GOING TO WANT TO DRESS LIKE THAT, WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE. YES SOME CELEBRITIES ARE TRENDSETTERS BUT WE AS PEOPLE SET OUR OWN TRENDS AS WELL.
4. I THINK THEY WANTED TO MAKE THIS "BAGGY PANTS" AND "LOW-RIDING" JEANS A LAW BECAUSE THEY REALLY THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS HOW THESE MEN AND WOMEN ARE DRESSING.
5. THE EFFECTS OF THIS LAW IS THAT ALOT OF PEOPLE WILL TRY TO OUT-LAW IT BECAUSE THEY FEEL ITS THERE WAY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO IF THEY START TELLING US HOW TO DRESS, WHATS NEXT THERE GOING TO TRY TO TELL US HOW TO THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS.
6. IN THE ARTICLE THE WORD LEGISLATE IS BEING USED AS IN TO CONCENTRATE; PAY ATTENTION.
7.IN THE ARTICLE THE WORD MANDATING IS BEING USED AS IN TO PROTEST; JUSTIFY.
8. THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THIS IS LIKE ONE OF THE WAYS YOUNG PEOPLE EXPRESS THERE SELF'S. AND IF THEY MAKE A LAW TO STOP THAT, THEN IT INVADES THE PRIVACY OF OUR FREEDOM.
9. YES! I DO BELEIVE THIS IS VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SOME PEOPLE SPEAK THERE FREEDOM UPON HOW THEY DRESS.
10. THIS LAW CAN BE COMPARED AND CONTRASTED TO THE LAW ABOUT BEING 21 TO DRINK BUT WHEN YOU HIT 18 YOUR CONSIDERED BEING AN ADULT IT DOSENT MAKE SENSE. IF WE BECOME AN ADULT AT 18 THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRINK, DO WHAT WE WANT. JUST LIKE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WEAR WHATEVER WE WANT.
11. I FEEL THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WEAR WHAT THEY WANT AND IF THE STATE'S STOP THAT, IT INTERFERS WITH OUR FREEDOM AND IT JUST WOULDNT BE FAIR!!!
12. THIS ARTICLE RELATES TO FEDERALISM BECAUSE MOPST OF THE LAW IS BASED ON FEDERALISM.
1. Another title for this article can be "Getto Style".
2. I think that the essntial message is to stop young people to wear cloth thta cab get them in trouble like saggy pants or girls showing the belly.
3. i think that it started with them because they wanted to show an example on what they were going to be talking on the article.
4.in my opinion the reason why they created a law is to maintaing order in the sense that sometimes dressing getto someone can confuse you and think like your in a gang.
5. I think theres going to be a lot of commotion between people like stylist famous people and us normal people... lol
6. legislate means making law or making new ones.
7.mandating means someone telling you what to do like a a command .
8. I think that it means that young people have the right to dress how they want.
9. I think that they are violating the rights guarantee by the constitution becausei believe that people wear what the want not what other people tell them to.
10. this law can be contrast with the one of freedom of speech and compare with youngs one driving license.
11. I believe that people should wear whatever they feel comfortable on because alot people express themselves by the way they dress.
12. I relate to it by the constitution and the amendments which divides power.
1.wearing baggy/low jeans? get ready to pay up.
2.the message of the article is that louisianna is trying to pass a bill banning the use of low/baggy jeans but people also say that it is against the first amendment.
3.I think that the article uses britney and ludacris becuase they are famous entertainers that the article is using as an example that they will get fined also if they disobey just like everyone else.
4.I belive that they want to make these people more sofisticated and less "getto" because they cant belive the ridiculous ways people are dressing now and days and also because most of the people who use the jeans way below the waist are gangsters or boys who want to be gangsters that always get in trouble and permiscuos girls.
5.Most likely the effects will be poeple making protsts and marches because it violates the first amendment and no one is going to let them do that even if it is a means of correcting society.
6.in the text they use legislate as that they cannot justify morals because everyone has their own beliefs.
7.as used in the article it means wanting it to be a law for a long time.
8.That it interfers with the rights given to us by first amendement of the constitusion
9.I belive that they are violating our rights guaranteed to us by the constitution because it is our buisness what we choose to wear some people are preppy and dress with their shirts way too tight and I dont hear anyone making laws against tight shirts and rockers with their chains and colored hair no one is prohibiting those styles so why should they prohibit there styles only ??
10.A law similar to the "baggy pants bill" is freedom of speech, a man named gregory John and he burned a flag as a form of protest and they could not do anything about it because the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea just because society finds it offensive or disagreeable.
11.I believe that they are wrong to prohbit a style of dressing becasue they do not prohibit the way the other styles dress for example preppy styles which wear extremly tight shirts and pants or rockers that wear color in thier hair and have tons of piercings and chains on thier pants.if they want to prohibit baggy dressers then they should also prohibit tight clothes and clothes with chains.
12.by the government and some of the public wanting to prohibit the style of clothes and having some people check on it by the population who dont agree with the prohibitng of certain ways to dress.
1.Hanging low
2. I think that the essntial message is to stop young people to wear cloth thta cab get them in trouble like saggy pants or girls showing the belly.
3. The author begin the article by discussing Ludacris and Britney Spears because Ludacris wears his pants low and Britney wear her belly baring bottom deeking pants.
4. I think the people who don't wear their clothes properly in public let the law makers create a law to address fashion
5 the effect will be is they will make people pay a fine of 500 dolllars.
6 it means to make new laws
7. Mandating means an order or command, the will of voters as expressed.
8.The way young people dress it shows their individualality.
9.I belive that they are violating our rights guaranteed to us by the constitution because it is our buisness what we choose to wear some people are preppy and dress with their shirts way too tight and I dont hear anyone making laws against tight shirts and rockers with their chains and colored hair no one is prohibiting those styles so why should they prohibit there styles only ??
10.this law can be contrast with the one of freedom of speech and compare with youngs one driving license.
11.this law can be contrast with the one of freedom of speech and compare with youngs one driving license.
12. I relate to it by the constitution and the amendments which divides power.
1.I think that another good title for this article would be.. Hanging low. Should you be able to wear your pants the way you want them.
2.The essential message in this article is to get teenagers to stop waering saggy clothes that either show the butt or the girls belly.
3.I believe that the author started the article with Ludacris and Britney Spears was to show that even celebrity's will ahve to obey this law. No one is going to beable to wear their pants like that anymore.
4.I believe that they created this law because people are showing way to much skin, and also to show that everyone can look nice without showing their bodyparts.
5.The effects of this law will be that you will have to pay a 500 dollar fine if you are pants are below the waist.
6.Legislative means making new laws.. and in this text they are making a new law that pants connot be below the waist and bellys cannot be shown.
7.The term mandating means an order or command.
8.It implies that the way young people dress shows their indivdiualty, and if they make a law about this then its like saying that we dont have a say in what we can wear.
9.Y es i do believe that this law is a violation our rights that the constitution gives us because they you have the freedom the express your, and alot of people express themselves by the way they dress. And if u make a law saying they can't wear certain things their taking our rights away from us.
10.Another law that can be compared and contrasted with this "saggy pants" and "low riding" jeans is the freedom of speech. These to laws are the same because people express the way they feel by the way they dress.Law makers should not beable to make a law saying what people can wear.
11.I believe that they are wrong for trying to make a law that prohibits people to wear what they like..
12.This article related to Federalism because by the constitution and the amendments which divides powers.
1. Another title would be. Is showing your butt worth it?!?
2. The message of this article to stop young people from wearing their pants low.
3. Because those are two artists who have influenced people to wear their pants like that.
4. Since it has become something very common and a lot of people do and it doesnt look that descent, i think thats why.
5. People will stop wearing their pants like that.
6. In this article legislate means to control something. in here he says that is hard to control morality.
7. Mandating means to camnd something or someone to do something.
8. It is implied that they are stopping young people from expressing their right.
9. It is partly because they are commanding people to wear what they want.
10. The law of related to the law that does not allow people to go outside naked or pee anywhere they want. I think that they should have just added this part to that law.
11. I agree with this law because it takes a lot from people personalities going around like this even if they think look cool.
12. The relationship between these two is that federalism is what i think made this law come true, that a group of people saw the effects of wearing your pants low and did something about it.
1.Another title for this article would be"Baggy Pants Bill".
2.The essential message in this article is about wearing low rider jeans and how they are passing a law about wearing them.
3.The author begin the article by discussing Ludacris and Brittney Spears because they are role models to some people and most people like to look like their roler model.So the author probably feels that they are not setting a good example to their fans.
4.In my opinion of waht caused low makers to create a law to address fashion becaue the fashion is geting out of control and people feel thta they can show whatever now.
5.The effect of this "saggypants" and low riding jeans law is that people would probabky still wear what they wanna wear.
6."Legislate in this article means getting peole to obey the law.
7. Mandating in this article means that they are already practing that law or passed it already.
8.It means that maybe the way that person dress is who they are and by them being that person it shows a little to much of themselves.
9.A little bit because people are going to buy what they want to because it is their money and telling them not to buy it is kind of not having freedonm at all.
10."Killing some one" -you can have life in jail for doing this
"Baggy Pants Bill"-you would probabaly get a ticket or something for wearing the pants
What they have alike is rthat they are crimes.
11.I think this law should not be passed because it is aninvasion to people freedom of being themselves.
12.This article relates to Federalism by them passing a law that would effect people.
draft
11/26/07 by Mizz.Florissa Everett
(My work was in my personal blog and needed to be copied and pasted. Mr. Jones you already reviewed work)
1. Another good title for this article would be Hanging Low.
2. The essential message in the article is for people to stop wearing thier jeans or pants below their waist line.
3. The author began the articleby first talking about Ludacris and Britney Spears to show an example of cerliberties that wear thier pants below thier waist line.
4. The message that they say hanging your pants below your waist is what caused law makers to create a law to address fashion.
5. The effects of this "saggy pants" and "low riding" jeans law would be alot of people will be fined, there would be alot of problems with fashion designers, and the people of the state just wouldnt like the idea.
6. In this text "legislate" means to cocentrate.
7. The term "mandating" as in this article means to order, or to tell waht to to.
8.They are implying that the hanging of the pants is the way young people express themselves and if they take that away they will be invading their rights or privacy.
9. Yes i belive this law is violating because people have the right to do and dress what ever way they want to dress.
10.
11. I think this is an unimportant issue because we the people have the right to wear what ever they want to wear.
12. Federalism relates because they both are the consitution and the amendments which divides power.
1.Pull them panths up or im finein you!
2.That people have to keep their pants up or they gone get punished
3.I think the another did not because the stars and people look at them for styles and they gona where what the stars wear!
4.hating!
5.jail fine because people dress the way they want and like
6.make new laws
7.justify
8.it sets young people mind that they can wear what theywant to wear,and how they want to wear it!
9.yes i do because people buy their cloths so they should be able to wear what they want.
10.if u dont go to school u can go to jail, if u dont wont to go u shouldnt have to!
11.you buy it you wear it the way you want and please to!
12.because it has a distribution of power to pass a law
Post a Comment