Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On 6/29/2025 5:53 PM, BTR1701 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.
 

      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.

Again, it seems you'd have that protection consist solely in the vagaries of what some handy arbiter is willing to call "reasonable".  No one believes such parochial whimsicality was ever the authors' intent.

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.