Local governments have apparently decided to add another task to the list of important civic functions they perform: E! Fashion Police. (Photo: AFP/Tim Sloan)

Chances are, if you have turned the TV to E! at anytime during the past ten years you were treated to Joan Rivers and her entourage judging celebrities fashion as they attend events like the Emmys and Academy Awards. It's truly riveting stuff if you actually watch it. Although, I think 99% of America immediately turns the channel once they realize they are watching a freaking show about what celebrities are wearing on a given night.

For those of you who say, "who cares what Joan Rivers thinks about how people are dressed", I give you the city of Riviera Beach, Florida. You see, the citizens of Riviera Beach apparently believe there is a such a problem with baggy pants that they actually passed a law prohibiting this style of dress. They believe that the local police should be citing people for how they dress, along with preventing robberies, assaults, traffic violations, and anything else that actually matters. Sadly, Riviera Beach is not alone as baggy pants bans are in existence, or are proposed, in Georgia, New Jersey, Louisiana and Texas. Type "Baggy Pants Ban" into Google and you get a laundry list of municipalities in discussions over this issue.

Now, I'm not in disagreement that the baggy pants phenomenon is quite odd. I've never understood how having your pants hanging from your thigh is either a) comfortable, or b) conducive to walking in a normal manner. There's also a safety issue involved. Say you're in a movie theater and it catches on fire. The obviously prudent thing to do is to run for the exit, trampling over any and all obstacles in your way. But with baggy pants, I'm thinking your movements would be slowed severely. I suppose once could hitch up their pants in order to run...but in a fire, that could be lost time. Do you really want to take that chance? I think not.

Regardless of the lack of a utilitarian reason for wearing one's pant below the waist, I'm having a hard time coming to grips with these bans passing a constitutional litmus test.

The Constitution of the United States (and the constitutions of the individual states), allows governments to pass laws to promote the safety and well-being of its citizens. The state can tell you how fast you can drive on streets and highways because the regulation of speed limits promotes the safety of others on the road. The state can ban smoking in public places by showing a nexus between elimination of second hand smoke to that of the public health. The state can't tell you what type of car you can drive but they can tell you the condition in which you must keep that car.

Some issues are clear-cut while others require a much larger degree of constitutional analysis. The baggy pants bans appear, at least to me, to be a simple issue. The "safety" issue I referred to above was in jest, I find it hard to believe that the justification for these bans has anything to do with someone having trouble running from a crowded building in a fire. The primary justification, based on news reports from around the country, is that the straight-laced, old foggies can't stand it.

The state can tell people that they have to wear clothes in public, ie - you can't show off the family jewels. But can they tell you what types of clothes they can wear or in what manner? My guess is that these bans are going to have a hard time getting by 95% of the judges in this country. I'd like to say that it's 100%, but I'm contantly amazed at the stupidity of a small (sometimes 'large') percentage of the United States.

Sure, baggy pants look stupid and appear to serve no purpose whatsoever. But it's a fad and it will eventually die out just like bell bottoms, platform shoes, piano ties, and every other fashion quirk. I'm sure mini skirts were quite atrocious to many people when they were first introduced but did the government need to pass a law to ban them? Thank goodness, no.