Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 20:30:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <103pjdg$129f7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103cdlv$1gc1q$1@dont-email.me> <103pcno$10pe5$1@dont-email.me> <103pgcf$11leg$1@dont-email.me> <103pihq$12903$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 22:30:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77cc6ba2d2c4f54d206c4983f7f67be4";
	logging-data="1123815"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PXLJtpKAI6tyyGlYQaa9uADIBN6LAmMY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KGRMystfw7K664LJ5wJQqkP3ajw=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> 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.

I don't see a Sixth Amendment violation as lawyers (even if not feudal
lords), have been known to screw their clients.

I'd point out that America is not and never was a feudal society, that
the nobility would be unconstitutional, and that droit du seigneur
(which I'm sure moviePig must have seen in a pr0n movie) wasn't an
exercise of governmental power, just that the right of a woman not to be
raped wasn't protected by police. There's a difference between something
being legal and something not explicitly legal but not stopped by
enforcing the law that moviePig would never appreciate.