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.

. . .