Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 20:15:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <103pihq$12903$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103cdlv$1gc1q$1@dont-email.me> <103op8r$s6lm$1@dont-email.me> <103pcno$10pe5$1@dont-email.me> <103pgcf$11leg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 22:15:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0750db602f8916b381c334fc8eabd664";
	logging-data="1123331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kbL36C2wfzYTu40KzUV9Q"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mvK22sRXqlsYZZtbdUJCf80ieno=

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.