Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

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.

 Uh, child?
 I don't think defining human life beginning at conception is a matter
state law.