Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On Jun 28, 2025 at 4:00:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

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.

It's not the 'despot' that decides what is and is not unreasonable. The courts
do.

 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"...

Right, and since the 5th Amendment has been incorporated against the states,
any state law that violates it would be void.