General Assembly’s underwear law deserves to be ‘depantsed’

House Editorial

We’ve hit rock bottom. Or, at least, our delegates have. In the midst of the 2005 legislative free-for-all, Virginia lawmakers have sunk further than the low-rise pants one legislator intends to ban.

Underwear Ban Bill Advances

A Norfolk Democrat proposed a bill Friday that would fine people $50 for intentionally wearing their pants so low that their underwear shows.

And it passed. With more than 90 other bills to get through, the House Courts of Justice Committee paused to debate the merits of what would essentially become a statewide dress code. Now, the bill continues onto the full House for consideration.

"This bill is simply about respect for others. It has to do with character building," said Del. Algie Howell, who was quoted in several published sources. The same delegate also has proposed bills that concern drivers who lean too far back in their seat or play stereos obnoxiously loud.

As the American Civil Liberties Union asserts, the bill is impractical and puritanical, a waste of time for both the lawmakers behind the bill and the policemen charged with enforcing it. Anyone who "exposes his below-waist undergarments in an offensive manner" would be fined.

Who is to judge what is offensive? Certainly not the state. Even the committee’s staff attorney advised that the bill was unconstitutional.

The individuals who choose to flaunt their unmentionables must not characterize their style as offensive.

Without a compelling reason to regulate a person’s dress, delegates are meddling in, rather than preserving, the personal liberties of their constituents.

The state’s power should never become so unwieldy as to not know the difference. But, as with another House bill, it seems some delegates don’t grasp that distinction.

Promoting School Prayer

A House of Delegates committee approved an amendment to allow prayer in public schools.

Delegates voted 14-6 to amend the Virginia Constitution, allowing the expression of "religious beliefs, heritage and traditions" on public property. The "religious freedom amendment" is an attempt to combat discrimination against Christians, said Del. Charles W. Carrico, R-Grayson, who introduced the bill.
Another lawmaker from Roanoke was quoted as saying the bill doesn’t promote religion, but rather "it protects the right to pray in a public discourse."

He’s wrong on both accounts. The bill unnecessarily promotes religion, taking a dangerous step toward the public establishment of worship by explicitly stating permissible terms of expressing faith.

Furthermore, the delegate incorrectly assumes that an explicit right to pray in a public discourse exists. It doesn’t and shouldn’t because the Constitution already bars any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

And, unfortunately, it is on this aspect alone that some delegates oppose the bill. Del. David Albo, a committee member from Fairfax, said he worried the proposal would allow Muslims to preach "jihad against Christians."

Albo’s intentions are atrocious. His statement shows a certain recognition of the bill’s repercussions and a blatant intolerance for all the religions the bill would promote, not just the Christianity Carrico intended.

Voters are fortunate that the bill must be approved in the full House and full Senate, both this year and next, before it is presented in a referendum. It is here that voters may choose to allow the committee’s current religious bias to pervade or to instead preserve the elasticity and effectiveness of our Constitution.

Weapon’s Policy Bill Fails

With a track record for meddling into such personal issues as the appropriate attire or religious rights of Virginians, the General Assembly seems to have a knack for enacting far-too-zealous impositions on constituents. Yet, a drastic 180-degree flop — an acceptance for inaction — couldn’t have come at a worse time.

Bills that would allow universities to ban weapons failed to get out of both House and Senate committees this week. In the Senate committee, no delegate offered a second to push the bill onto the Senate floor. In the House committee, the bill was never read — a consequence of an excessive agenda.
The General Assembly was the only body that could rightfully determine where firearms can and cannot be carried. JMU was correct to attempt to combat a lawsuit by Keezletown resident Dave Briggman out of court.

Briggman is suing the university for the right to carry a gun on campus. He correctly alleges that because JMU is a public university, it has no grounds on which to suspend an individual’s rights. The General Assembly had a chance to change this.

The weapons bill deserved a vote. Whether or not lawmakers actually agreed with the intent of the legislation, the bill should have reached the floor of both the House and Senate.

A discussion of student safety was ducked, replaced by an inconsequential underwear debate and misguided bill promoting religious prejudice. Delegates have truly hit rock bottom.