Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On 6/28/2025 6:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 28, 2025 at 3:14:39 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/28/2025 4:15 PM, BTR1701 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.

>
Interesting.  What text in the 4th or 5th (or 14th) proscribes it?

 AMENDMENT IV
 The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

"Unreasonable" would seem to offer a despot considerable leeway.

AMENDMENT V
 No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.

But we're talking about something that'd *be* a state "law"...