Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:20:52 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

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.

Dude, your entire scenario is based on the idea of government officials
invading your home and raping your wife on your wedding night, so we're
already completely off the reservation here.

  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...

Depends on what personal rights you're talking about. If it's her right to be
free from unreasonable warrantless seizures of her person or property, then
the definition of reasonableness has been well established with 200+ years of
jurisprudence.

If it's her right to kill her baby in the womb that you're talking about, that
is not a seizure or intrusion of her person by the government, so it is not
covered by the federal Constitution and is therefore properly a matter of
state jurisdiction, where her ability to legally kill her child will
necessarily vary from state to state.

     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?

Yes. The 4th Amendment protects against the government seizing your body
without a warrant and absent probable cause that you've committed a crime.

It doesn't apply to what *you* do with your body.

The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from taking my car out of my garage
and seizing it without a warrant. However, the 4A doesn't prohibit *me* from
taking my car to a junkyard and crushing it in a hydraulic press.

That distinction is grasping at (plastic) straws.

Not hardly, but even so, plastic straws are the best straws.