The Coalition of the Swilling

"dancing is not constitutionally protected expression"

Okay, I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with that idea that stupid laws can be constitutional.

But I'm having trouble determining exactly where NYC acquired the kind of unrestricted bureaucratic power required to micro-regulate private businesses to that degree.

Ken, a city or a state is not like the feds. One doesn't have to find express authority somewhere to grant them the power to do something. Instead, they have plenary police powers to regulate as they see fit, except for in any way they are FORBIDDEN from doing so. This is because the states are the general repositories of sovereignty in this country: after 1776, they inherited the effectively unlimited powers of the British Parliament, and their state constitutions serve to limit those powers, not to grant powers by delegation as the federal constitution does.

A local government, as a creature of state law, can be granted by the state essentially the same far-reaching powers, and to a home rule charter city like NYC such a grant is typical, thugh as I understand it NYC has some of its power actually protected from state interference by the state constitution, not just by statute.

I tend to concur that these laws are both constitutional and stupid. I would commend their immediate repeal to the NY Legislature and/or NYC City Council...but I'm not about to hold my breath waiting.

B-b-b-but dancing leads to forrrrrrrnication!

...with a capital D which rhymes with P which stands for Pool.

Dave, I get the difference in scope between feds and states but please see my other comment here.

I still have an issue with the statement "the city has the right to regulate". The city may have the power to do so, but I object to calling it a "right".