Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jun 29, 2025 at 1:50:43 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

. . .

 

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.

 
Hehehe
 
I knew you were going there.
 
Here's a helpful chart on the off chance moviePig is interested.
 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
 
Note that the Seventh Amendment, which is the procedural right to a jury
trial in a civil suit, is not incorporated, and clauses in the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments aren't incorporated. It's unlikely that the Ninth will
be incorporated, the forgotten part of the Constitution, and the Tenth
wouldn't make any sense.
 
Also, moviePig needs an understanding of substantive due process.
 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_due_process
 
In fact, he should appreciate it since due process is literally procedural
and therefore "substantive" makes no sense. Also, the original meaning of
"substantive" from the Lochner era got reversed in the post-Lochner era
(after Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court and decisions finally
went his way), so moviePig should appreciate that contradiction too.
 
I have the most minimal understanding of substantive due process.
 

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.

 
Either way, she lacks autonomy.

>
Which isn't what the 4th Amendment protects.

Till you made this comment to moviePig, I would have assumed it would
have been a deprivation of liberty contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, but I've never thought about a feudal lord in America raping
female serfs.

Abortion care should be a matter of liberty if it's not an unenumerated
right under the Ninth Amendment. Yes, I know you make fun of Griswold.