Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

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.