Path: 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 23:39:00 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <103puek$14qj2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103cdlv$1gc1q$1@dont-email.me> <103ppgg$13hvj$1@dont-email.me> <103ppug$13h0r$3@dont-email.me> <103ps76$14buh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 01:39:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="40c9946eba1ed4bac3d05f783ef9e46f";
	logging-data="1206882"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hQQBgzkqrdvKAqJJG9huY"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:keO6SRzysvLka4gsMAtPdtXtr1s=

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.

>>  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.