Missouri State Senator Proposes Banning Seersucker Suits

Because he is apparently some sort of sartorial authority and thinks they look ridiculous


Because apparently he has nothing better to do, Missouri Senator Ryan McKenna added an amendment to a bill on how his state should regulate educational funding that would ban citizens over the age of eight from wearing seersucker suits. Eh? The main purpose of Senate Bill 437 may be to provide structure to "the way the state funds public institutions of higher education," but McKenna saw it as an opportunity to make his personal sartorial predilections known. "Any person living in this state aged eight and under may wear seersucker suits at their leisure. Any person over the age of eight living in this state may not wear seersucker suits because adults look ridiculous in seersucker suits," the politician expounded in his handwritten proposal to alter the bill. What this has to do with the government's fiscal relationship with its colleges is beyond us, but it does indicate that senator sure must be bored at work.

NEXT: Irish Woman Loses Right-to-Die Appeal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What does it matter to you? Who’s going to enforce these sumptuary laws, and at what cost? Did someone try to force you to wear that fabric?

    1. I, for one, am offended that people want to use the force of law to change the traditional definition of “ridiculous.”

  2. If I were a state legislator, I might try to insert an amednment like that, only to try to make a point about the idiocy of so much state legislation.

  3. This is a ridiculous waste of public time and money.

    OTOH, if this were still the 70s, and and his proposal was to outlaw leisure suits, I’d be completely down with it, providing that, instead of allowing them for children eight and under, he made it punishable as child abuse for anyone to dress a kid in one.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.