Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

On Jul 1, 2025 at 8:26:44 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 6/30/2025 9:01 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.
 
 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.

 
 It's also illegal to sexually rent one's body out to another. Another
 violation of moviePig law!

 
Surrogate mothers take note...

>
Are surrogate mothers renting themselves out sexually?