Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On 7/10/2025 2:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 30, 2025 at 2:29:21 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/30/2025 3:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Jun 30, 2025 at 12:05:09 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 6/29/2025 5:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:46:02 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
   

    On 6/29/2025 5:39 PM, BTR1701 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.

>
    What is 'seizure' if not a curtailment of autonomy?

        Where in the abortion scenario has the government seized anything?

>
  It has taken, whether by prohibition or punishment, control of her body.

    Using that standard, the government can't prohibiting anyone from doing
  anything unless they get a warrant first.
    For example, I'm prohibited by law from selling one of my kidneys. It's
  illegal to do that. According to you, the government has 'seized' my
autonomy
  and freedom to do with my body as I wish, so it has violated the 4th
  Amendment's warrant requirement.
    Same with drugs. The government has made it illegal for me to use heroin.
  Under moviePig Law, it has illegally seized my bodily autonomy.
    Of course that's not how it works. It's not how any of it works.

>
Well, yes, I think that protecting my choices having consequence only to
me is very much in the spirit of both Declaration and Constitution.

 Except abortion isn't just something that affects you (or the woman, as the
case may be). I'm required to fund free abortions with my tax dollars. That
affects me.
 If you walked your talk, you should oppose anyone but the mother and father
having to pay for anything related to abortion.

I take no issue with defunding any rationally defined class.  But I'd exclude religious principles from rationality.

So, you might outlaw trafficking in body parts as ultimately harmful to
society ...like obscenity laws.  But, if you find some fun drugs in the
meadow and go on a 3-hour field trip, then by all means bon voyage.
>
It's not (or shouldn't be) your business to tell me how to live.

 Except that 'meadow' is really the city streets and the '3-hour field trip'
are tens of thousands of drug-addicted vagrants who lay around on the
sidewalks and in the gutters, stupefied on drugs until they die of disease or
overdose. And their drug use doesn't just affect themselves and no one else.
It affects everyone-- from the residents of the neighborhoods, whose kids
can't use the parks because of all the used needles in the grass, and who have
to play turd hopscotch just to get to school, to the taxpayers who are forced
to shell out billions in tax dollars to deal with the problem, to the
homeowners whose homes are routinely burglarized so these people can fund
their habits.
 Your fantasy utopia where drug use is something that only affects the user is
so absurdly naive that I suspect you're just playing stupid for effect here.

Afaics, recreational drugs are prosecuted not for their societal harm, but for their "immorality" ...which for me is a non-starter.  You're welcome to legislate prohibitions that don't (seek to) abrogate my right to any self-contained practice.