- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Under 18 curfew... constitutional or not?
Posted on 8/17/14 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 8/17/14 at 3:53 pm
Law states people under 18 can't be out past 11 pm. Constitutional or not?
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:00 pm to PrimeTime Money
I'd say so, but I'm no constitutional scholar.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:02 pm to PrimeTime Money
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/14/16 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:03 pm to PrimeTime Money
Seems legal on a local scale. Just a guess.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:03 pm to PrimeTime Money
My daughter just turned 18. Any chance they could bump it up to 19?
As for the constitutionality, how many times has it been challenged?
As for the constitutionality, how many times has it been challenged?
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:06 pm to OneFifty
No idea. Just seems wrong for the state to imprison people in their houses just because it's late.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:10 pm to PrimeTime Money
Minors don't have many rights, anyway.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:22 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
I'd say so, but I'm no constitutional scholar.
Being a constitutional scholar doesn't mean much (see our current POTUS) so your opinion is still welcome.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:24 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
No idea. Just seems wrong for the state to imprison people in their houses just because it's late.
My daughter must view me as the 'state'.
Seriously, never considered that view before. It does seem an overreach, though at that age, personally, I feared papa much more than Caesar.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 4:36 pm to PrimeTime Money
The government knows what's best for your child, besides this is a racist law designed to target young black males.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 6:22 pm to SpidermanTUba
Under 18 can't vote. So, politicians can do what they want without retribution.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 6:47 pm to Traffic Circle
Yes, especially to stop those low life looters from stealing snicker bars.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 6:53 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Law states people under 18 can't be out past 11 pm. Constitutional or not?
I'm thinking it sure does happen frequently enough for it not to be but I don't know.
Minors don't have the same rights as adults and shouldn't IMO. Of course, some laws pertaining to minors don't always work in the best interest of minors either. But with the situation in Ferguson, it probably helps steer some kids away from getting in trouble.
This post was edited on 8/17/14 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 8/17/14 at 7:13 pm to PrimeTime Money
In May 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a case, Qutb v. Bartlett, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a Dallas, TX, curfew ordinance. The refusal to hear the case allowed the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand.
The Federal district court ruled in favor of the Qutbs. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that an ordinance may be constitutional, even when it infringes upon a fundamental right, if it promotes a compelling governmental interest and if no less restrictive way exists to achieve the State's objective. The court held that the Dallas City Council proved its compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime by providing statistical findings that showed the incidence of youth misconduct in the city. The data provided demographic information about the prevalence of juvenile delinquency, the incidence of specific crimes, and the times of day and locations at which most violent juvenile crimes were committed. This effort, combined with the numerous exceptions written in the ordinance, indicated to the court the council's intent of limiting youth crime and victimization in the least restrictive manner possible. The court concluded that "the ordinance presents only a minimal intrusion into the parents' rights" because of the broad exemptions.
The Court's refusal to hear an appeal in the Qutb case does not guarantee protection against future challenges to curfews on constitutional or nonconstitutional grounds. However, a more recent ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California upheld that city's more stringent curfew legislation based upon the Qutb precedent. In March 1995, ACLU filed a suit in San Diego Federal court challenging the city's juvenile curfew ordinance on the grounds that it unreasonably restricted the mobility of youth in the city. The ACLU suit came in response to 6 months of aggressive enforcement of the curfew legislation in late 1994. From June to November of that year, 2,300 young people were arrested for curfew violations, an increase from the 1,000 charged with a violation during that same period in 1993
(yep, i cut and paste but the info is accurate as far as i know)
The Federal district court ruled in favor of the Qutbs. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that an ordinance may be constitutional, even when it infringes upon a fundamental right, if it promotes a compelling governmental interest and if no less restrictive way exists to achieve the State's objective. The court held that the Dallas City Council proved its compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime by providing statistical findings that showed the incidence of youth misconduct in the city. The data provided demographic information about the prevalence of juvenile delinquency, the incidence of specific crimes, and the times of day and locations at which most violent juvenile crimes were committed. This effort, combined with the numerous exceptions written in the ordinance, indicated to the court the council's intent of limiting youth crime and victimization in the least restrictive manner possible. The court concluded that "the ordinance presents only a minimal intrusion into the parents' rights" because of the broad exemptions.
The Court's refusal to hear an appeal in the Qutb case does not guarantee protection against future challenges to curfews on constitutional or nonconstitutional grounds. However, a more recent ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California upheld that city's more stringent curfew legislation based upon the Qutb precedent. In March 1995, ACLU filed a suit in San Diego Federal court challenging the city's juvenile curfew ordinance on the grounds that it unreasonably restricted the mobility of youth in the city. The ACLU suit came in response to 6 months of aggressive enforcement of the curfew legislation in late 1994. From June to November of that year, 2,300 young people were arrested for curfew violations, an increase from the 1,000 charged with a violation during that same period in 1993
(yep, i cut and paste but the info is accurate as far as i know)
Posted on 8/17/14 at 7:15 pm to PrimeTime Money
Dint know if it's constitutional but it certainly is anti-freedom.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 7:41 pm to PrimeTime Money
State can do what it wants. The Federal Govt needs a damned good reason to over step state authority to do it. But then again Federal over reaches are common these days.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 7:46 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
State can do what it wants.
So you're one of those people, eh? You love big nanny-state governments so long as it's your state and local governments.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 8:45 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Law states people under 18 can't be out past 11 pm. Constitutional or not?
Possibly infringes on the Assembly and Equal Protection Clauses.
Posted on 8/17/14 at 8:47 pm to Porky
quote:
Minors don't have the same rights as adults
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News