Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:47:26 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <104p1rv$1072k$2@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>
 <104ovuh$10111$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:47:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62c59162367aa61f15194ee8b13bf952";
	logging-data="1055828"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wQIFIPqxt2kN+82XBDySIvuj3l86kUA0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+Np5Hr50mFz6a2EQ1NpLrGC6FgM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <104ovuh$10111$2@dont-email.me>

On 7/10/2025 2:14 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.
> 
> Except abortion isn't just something that affects you (or the woman, as the
> case may be). I'm required to fund free abortions with my tax dollars. That
> affects me.
> 
> If you walked your talk, you should oppose anyone but the mother and father
> having to pay for anything related to abortion.

I take no issue with defunding any rationally defined class.  But I'd 
exclude religious principles from rationality.


>> 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.
> 
> Except that 'meadow' is really the city streets and the '3-hour field trip'
> are tens of thousands of drug-addicted vagrants who lay around on the
> sidewalks and in the gutters, stupefied on drugs until they die of disease or
> overdose. And their drug use doesn't just affect themselves and no one else.
> It affects everyone-- from the residents of the neighborhoods, whose kids
> can't use the parks because of all the used needles in the grass, and who have
> to play turd hopscotch just to get to school, to the taxpayers who are forced
> to shell out billions in tax dollars to deal with the problem, to the
> homeowners whose homes are routinely burglarized so these people can fund
> their habits.
> 
> Your fantasy utopia where drug use is something that only affects the user is
> so absurdly naive that I suspect you're just playing stupid for effect here.

Afaics, recreational drugs are prosecuted not for their societal harm, 
but for their "immorality" ...which for me is a non-starter.  You're 
welcome to legislate prohibitions that don't (seek to) abrogate my right 
to any self-contained practice.