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: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 01:01:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <103vc1p$2fcjc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103cdlv$1gc1q$1@dont-email.me> <103un55$2b6ae$1@dont-email.me> <103unin$2b0h3$2@dont-email.me> <103uvjk$2d2qg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 03:01:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dfb954c8b85781dd569af783846f28f";
	logging-data="2601580"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bNRRIa1i2uvtCn0x83khP"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HcwqNDYPgbns0Eg6JMJqW8hXtaI=

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!