Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On 6/29/2025 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 29, 2025 at 8:16:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  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.

>
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against
state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion".

 No, the 4th Amendment is in the federal Constitution, which means federal
judicial interpretations apply to all states. The states have *no*
discretion.
 And the Founders left us the 2nd Amendment should the day come when the
federal courts do something like legalize the rape of citizens by government
officials.

Sure it is, if we consider anarchy via your protected guns part of the Constitutional process.  Short of that, though, it seems that women's personal rights under the Constitution hang solely on what a magistrate deems "reasonable", a.k.a. "fashionable".  Somehow, I don't think it was ever supposed to work that way...

    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.

>
I don't understand what you mean by "incorporated against the states".

 The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. So, for
example, the federal government couldn't search your home without a warrant or
infringe on your free speech but there was no restriction on state governments
from doing so. You had to look to your state's constitution for those
protections from state officials. But after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment
incorporated (most of)** the Bill of Rights against the states as well,
imposing the same limitations on state governments that it imposes on the
federal government. That's why you can sue under the 1st Amendment if your
local police shut down your protest or censor your newspaper.
  **I think the 3rd Amendment still exists as solely federal in application.
 

Are you placing some "burden of proof" on the states?  Regardless, both
abortion and rape are (intensely) personal matters for the individual,
so how do you see the Constitution as treating them differently?

 One is a seizure and invasion of a woman's body and the other isn't.

Why?  Because one is putting something in and the other is taking something out?  That distinction is grasping at (plastic) straws.