Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 2025 at 12:38:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 6/28/2025 2:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 On Jun 28, 2025 at 6:04:27 AM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid>
 wrote:
 

 On 2025-06-27 16:13:58 +0000, BTR1701 said:
 

   On Jun 27, 2025 at 3:42:19 AM PDT, "super70s"

<super70s@super70s.invalid>

   wrote:
  

   On 2025-06-24 01:23:50 +0000, BTR1701 said:
  

   On Jun 23, 2025 at 5:32:34 PM PDT, "super70s"

<super70s@super70s.invalid>

   wrote:
  

   On 2025-06-23 20:33:04 +0000, BTR1701 said:
  

   The 'progressive' pols keep saying there's no legitimate

reason for ICE

   agents to cover their faces while engaged in deportation

operations, but

   there is actually a helluva good reason to do so: it preserves their
 ability to
   work undercover in future cases.

  
   When they start working undercover in this tactless and heavy-handed
   roundup they can have that privilege then.

  
   They can have the 'privilege' now because agents rotate in and out
   assignments
   all the time. You can be an assist on another agent's immigration case
   today and
   working undercover on your own child exploitation case or human
trafficking
   case tomorrow.

  
   You're giving those involved in this ragtag operation too much credit

  
   No, I actually know how things work in a federal law enforcement

agency as

   opposed to you, with your Hollywood understanding of how law enforcement
   works, who just spouts off on Usenet about it.

 
 I doubt you know how normal law enforcement procedure works at all
 jackass, these people have been caught on tape doing exactly what I
 said.

 
 Yeah, 23+ years with a federal badge on my belt means I don't know as much
as
 some rando on Usenet.
 
 Yep, that checks out.
 

   -- they appear a bunch of office workers-turned-storm troopers who have
   been filmed brandishing their weapons at innocent bystanders for no
   good reason. Behavior that would get normal law enforcement officers
   fired.

  
   Then file a lawsuit and get them fired. Or just continue moaning
impotently
 on
   Usenet about it. Whatever.

 
 You're the one who started impotently moaning on Usenet about
 California deciding their own policy for face masks when arresting
 residents on their own streets.

 

 But everyone knows "states rights" just depends on what agenda item
 today's nightmare Trump regime wants to accomplish -- they use it
 (abortion) and reject it (immigrant roundups) at their convenience.

 
 Anyone who knows anything about states' rights (which apparently excludes
you
 from the Venn diagram) knows that if the Constitution expressly gives the
 federal government jurisdiction over a thing, the states have no "rights"
over
 that thing.
 
 The federal government has an express grant of jurisdiction over immigration
 in Article I, Section 8. Conversely, there is no grant of federal power over
 abortion (or even health care in general) in the Constitution.
 
 That's why states have no jurisdiction or business whatsoever with regard to
 immigration enforcement but, per the 10th Amendment, states *do* have
 jurisdiction over health care, which includes abortion.
 
 These are things you should have learned in grade school. But I suppose the
 proto-communists who run our public schools these days are too busy teaching
 about the 87 genders and how to smash capitalism than teaching kids how
their
 government actually works.

 
The 10th Amendment gives states rights to everything not enumerated in
the Constitution ...which, especially for something like abortion, is
absurd on its face.  E.g., will you give them droit du seigneur?

>
No, as that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, which have been
incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.

I don't see a Sixth Amendment violation as lawyers (even if not feudal
lords), have been known to screw their clients.

I'd point out that America is not and never was a feudal society, that
the nobility would be unconstitutional, and that droit du seigneur
(which I'm sure moviePig must have seen in a pr0n movie) wasn't an
exercise of governmental power, just that the right of a woman not to be
raped wasn't protected by police. There's a difference between something
being legal and something not explicitly legal but not stopped by
enforcing the law that moviePig would never appreciate.