Ludovic, please pardon my presumption in pretending to speak for all Americans. I was simply citing a common example of an adjective standing in for the unspoken noun it modifies. The gentle jab at our friends to the north was just for fun. I, also, do not refer to human beings as “illegals.” (But I do say, “Tell him to calm down before he gets arrested for drunken disorderly.” But keep that last part on the DL as I’m discovering that a lot of people hate it.)
Ja, suuure. I vas at de hospital and I saw disorderly who vas drunken!
Since you’re still with us, could you provide a link to an actual law or legal paper that refers to drunk and disorderly as drunken disorderly? Should be easy enough to do if are that familiar with Michigan stuff.
No. Just one state, and clearly this is unconstitutional. This is an excuse to harass certain members of society, not an example of your concern in the OP. It’s not widespread, which is why this case caught the attention of the media. It’s not run-of-the-mill “public intoxication” enforcement.
“Public intoxication,” because of the socio-historical context of the term, implies some kind of disorderly conduct to warrant the charge. Read posts #38 and #54 – when you start a thread, it’s a good idea to read all the responses, not just the ones that you think confirm your own beliefs.
But for your first OP, it’s an excellent question–something I’ve always wondered about myself.
So you agree with what I posted above?
Its New Year’s Eve in NJ. We have are drunken orderlies…
The phrase in question originally referred to a particular individual, one of the almost-forgotten minor players on the great stage of American history. “Drunken Disorder” Lee was a ne’er-do-well cousin of the illustrious “Light Horse Harry” Lee, who fought alongside Washington in the Revolution. “Drunken Disorder” Lee, so nicknamed because he suffered from an unusual neurological disorder causing him to incorrectly employ adjectives as past participles, was actually a teetotaler – he drank no alcohol at all, sticking totally to tee.
Nevertheless, “Drunken Disorder” Lee was strongly principaled – his high school principal had made a big impression on his moral character. And so he became involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, despite his personal aversion to alcohol, entirely to support the rights of the Scotch, whose spirits had been oppressed and whose grievances were aged.
The Whiskey Rebellion was eventually put down. It went down smoothly, with a hint of oak. Environmentally conscious and thrifty, “Drunken Disorder” Lee had the leftover bottles all shipped to Michigan, which has the highest container deposit refund in the United States (ten cents). Since these bottles had not been purchased in Michigan, the state’s coffers were bankrupted by the massive outlay of dimes.
Hence the bad reputation “Drunken Disorder” Lee continues to have in the state of Michigan. So bad that certain offenses are named after him even today, in the tradition of laws like the Brady Bill, which governs reruns of classic TV sitcoms, and the Amber Alert, which communicates the current quality of beer in a given region.
Thus you really can be charged under the “Drunken Disorder” Lee statute. If you happen to be offending while under the statute erected in his honor – Lee gazing heroically into the distance, gripping a Hefty bag full of empties, preparing to ruin the state’s economy.
His nephew, Robert “E.” Lee, so admired “Drunken Disorder” Lee’s life that he swore to remain civil and polite himself. He took this oath so seriously that he later served in the US Civil War.
(from reply #52):
The flexible English language often allows words to be used both as adjective and noun. Think of “intellectual”, “romantic”, and, for that matter, “drunk”.
However, I think OP owes us an answer to this repeated query:
(from reply #60):
(reply #63):
I suspect OP is incorrectly posing local idiom as now generally acceptable formal usage. Some day it may be, but it is not yet.
PS:
I also suspect that the ghost of The Rector of a certain prep school shakes his mighty head at his progeny’s choice of subject for a maiden threadstart.
Another example is “submarine” which was an adjective indicating that something was below the ocean surface before “submarine vessel” lost its noun.
What about Lizzie Borden? She was tried for her unlawful axe.
Regards,
Shodan
Just as a data point, South Dakota repealed it’s Public Intoxication law quite some years ago.
We do still have disorderly conduct and open container laws though. Nothing called ‘Drunk and Disorderly’ though.
Well, one can dismiss Texas as just one state, therefore only 2% of the country, or recognize it as roughly the size of the French Republic, containing over 25 million people. Any individual arrest(s) may be derided as unconstitutional, but Texas’ law was not struck down, as far as I could tell. Regardless, my OP was clearly asking whether PI was illegal. It is, but just barely. I’m thrilled to have that answer. We all KNOW the country isn’t drowning in PI arrests, but I wondered whether PI was a crime in its own right. For 25 million Texans, it is. (That still leaves 295 million Americans who needn’t worry.)
I have read every thread. Those that said, essentially, “PI only gets arrested with danger to self or others” were simply paraphrasing what was conceded in the OP. We all KNOW the cops will intervene if you’re so drunk you’re wandering into traffic. I wasn’t aware that there was some protocol to acknowledge posts that agree with the OP.
I haven’t seized on only the posts that confirm my beliefs. I’ve read all relevant posts. I guess you and I disagree on which are relevant. In Texas, cops can make PI arrests that do NOT depend on other harms. No other states have been identified here that allow that. I got it. I think I have a grasp of the evidence. I’m good, dude.
Totally.
I never claimed “Drunken Disorderly” was listed as a crime in the Michigan Constitution or compiled laws. I claimed we use the term in Michigan and I provided a link demonstrating its use. For those who are not convinced–I’m fine with that. It’s going to be ok.
P.S. I think The Rector’s ghost shakes his head at a great many things. The school isn’t nearly as Episcopal as it once was. More’s the pity.
For those of you who will not let go of “Drunken Disorderly,” it’s right above. I don’t understand your demands for more proof. This is a law firm’s website and it uses the phrase. What is your argument, anyway? That I’m wrong about the phrase being used in Michigan? That I just happened to, by an immense stroke of luck, find one law firm with an error in its headline that fortunately conformed to my own corruption? And that, fortuitously, that law firm chanced to be located in Michigan? Don’t you people have moon landings you should be debunking?
I’m gonna go have a can of pop. Vernor’s.
Yes, you can find laws on the books that make it illegal–we knew that already. The trickier question is how do you ever get cited for that–short of this clearly exceptional case, which is obviously a violation of equal protection? And surely you know what it takes for something like that to make its way to the Supreme Court? The article (and the practice it describes) is fairly recent.
Well, we had established that all jurisdictions have PI laws (or their equivalent) to protect people. The central question was if they were enforced against the, “drunk, but not dangerous” (for lack of a better term). All initial posts that came back, from different states, were, essentially, “Nope, our state doesn’t have/enforce a law like that.” But Texas does. The article describes clearly questionable enforcement practices in Texas in the events reported. But if we imagine, say, a 40-year-old man walking down the street after 8 martinis in 2 hours, that, too, is illegal in Texas. Clearly illegal. Enforcement may be spotty in different jurisdictions, but Texans should be careful about walking around drunk. I always assumed that this very aspect of the Texas law was what Public Intox meant everywhere. I was obviously wrong.
Is it your contention that Texas’ law violates the Equal Protection Clause, or only those specific arrests? IANAL, but I know states have wide latitude to regulate behavior, especially in public. (Not really germane, but kind of interesting–Michigan enforces obscenity laws against those who swear in front of children in public. Tickets are rare and I think just civil infractions, but the 1st Amendment is not a defense. The law’s been upheld by federal courts)
Right. Behavior. So that wouldn’t apply to anyone convicted for solely being intoxicated, and behaving in an otherwise completely normal manner. They have no way of knowing if a person is “intoxicated” except by behavior. Unless they go into a bar, and assume that everyone is intoxicated. But then they would have to go into every bar. Just going into a gay bar, or a bar with Latinos–i.e., picking and choosing bars–is obviously problematic. But walking up to people randomly and asking for a breath test is also problematic. IANAL either, but I doubt any jurisdiction would even pursue a conviction beyond the first appeal, where it would be overturned.
Well, unless choosing to appear in public in a state of intoxication constitutes “behavior” that can be proscribed. I get naked in my shower every day. No crime there. But if I choose to go out in public in that condition, that’s behavior that most states regulate. Isn’t that at the crux of Public Intoxication? It’s the “Public”, not the “Intoxication”, that is at issue.
I did not mean to imply I questioned the fact that the term was used in Michigan. I see from the link (which I did not look at earlier) that it is even used in formal (semi-formal?) writing in Michigan. However, I would be willing to bet that usage authority would disapprove. I wonder what a linguistics professor at a Michigan university would have to say about it.
I was only conjuring up an image, amusing to me, of The Rector, a very proper Victorian, saying to himself “We are not amused” at discussion of a subject he would surely consider most undignified. So much the worse for me as for anyone, since I am enjoying the thread.
Excess will always be frowned on by responsible moral authority, including prep school headmasters. That is not to imply that you have committed any excess (or that I have not committed any!).