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: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <104p4fn$10uaq$2@dont-email.me>
References: <103cdlv$1gc1q$1@dont-email.me> <103vc1p$2fcjc$1@dont-email.me> <1040unl$2tgtp$2@dont-email.me> <104ovna$10111$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 21:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4452738aea912179e4fc050617b49aa9";
	logging-data="1079642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wiHAAriZbfvx8HYMUrrmPC0eG9nQhmPI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a2Nx+SbZwd1Ezsot/nHOZjr+AZg=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Jul 1, 2025 at 8:26:44 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2025 9:01 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.
>>>> 
>>>>  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!
>> 
>> Surrogate mothers take note...
>
>Are surrogate mothers renting themselves out sexually?

Must resist obvious straight line...