| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 63:24:35 |
| Calls: | 482 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,072 |
| Messages: | 96,219 |
Even if passed, this could only be enforced on state and local police, and those aren't the ones the 'progressives' in Sacramento are so upset about. It's the ICE agents doing immigration operations that have their panties in a twist and their law will have no force or effect on them. Federal agents enforcing federal law places them well within the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, meaning state officials have no jurisdiction over them.
https://abc7.com/post/no-secret-police-act-bill-introduced-california-lawmakers-would-prohibit-law-enforcement-covering-faces/16767520/
Hawaii tried something similar about five years ago when its legislature passed a state law prohibiting law enforcement from carrying firearms while off-duty. The law specifically included federal agents-- FBI, Secret Service, DEA, etc.) in its prohibition. It took all of 10 seconds for a federal court to invalidate the law with regard to federal personnel and tell Hawaii to stay
in its lane; if they want to prohibit their own cops from being able to defend
themselves or others while off-duty, they can do it, but they have no authority over federal agents.
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.
And, of course, there's the real reason everyone from blue politicians to open
borders activists want them to stop wearing masks: so they can take pictures of them, run them through a Google reverse image search, and identify them, so
that masked (behold the irony, right?) Antifa types can show up at their homes
and terrorize them and their children.
On 6/23/2025 4:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Even if passed, this could only be enforced on state and local police, and >> those aren't the ones the 'progressives' in Sacramento are so upset about. >> It's the ICE agents doing immigration operations that have their panties in a
twist and their law will have no force or effect on them. Federal agents
enforcing federal law places them well within the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, meaning state officials have no jurisdiction over them.
https://abc7.com/post/no-secret-police-act-bill-introduced-california-lawmakers-would-prohibit-law-enforcement-covering-faces/16767520/
Hawaii tried something similar about five years ago when its legislature
passed a state law prohibiting law enforcement from carrying firearms while >> off-duty. The law specifically included federal agents-- FBI, Secret Service,
DEA, etc.) in its prohibition. It took all of 10 seconds for a federal court >> to invalidate the law with regard to federal personnel and tell Hawaii to stay
in its lane; if they want to prohibit their own cops from being able to defend
themselves or others while off-duty, they can do it, but they have no
authority over federal agents.
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.
And, of course, there's the real reason everyone from blue politicians to open
borders activists want them to stop wearing masks: so they can take pictures >> of them, run them through a Google reverse image search, and identify them, so
that masked (behold the irony, right?) Antifa types can show up at their homes
and terrorize them and their children.
Yes, there are obviously "legitimate reasons" for them to cover their
faces ...just as obviously as doing so smacks of 'secret police".
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.
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.
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 agents immigration today and working undercover on your own child exploitation case or human trafficking case tomorrow.
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
-- 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.
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.
-- 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.
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.
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.
-- 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.
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:No, I actually know how things work in a federal law enforcement agency as
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 >>>
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.
On Jun 28, 2025 at 12:38:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2025 2:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:reason for ICE
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
No, I actually know how things work in a federal law enforcement >agency asagents 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 >>>>>
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.
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:No, I actually know how things work in a federal law enforcement agency as
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 >>>>
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?
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.
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.
Anyone who knows anything about states' rights (which apparently excludes-- 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. >>>>
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?
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.
Anyone who knows anything about states' rights (which apparently excludes-- 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. >>>>>
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.
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.
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.
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"...
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:No, as that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, which have been >>>>> incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.
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? >>>>>
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.
On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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:AMENDMENT IV
On Jun 28, 2025 at 12:38:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/28/2025 2:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:No, as that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, which have been
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? >>>>>>
incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.
Interesting. What text in the 4th or 5th (or 14th) proscribes it? >>>>
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.
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion".
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".
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?
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.
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.
On Jun 29, 2025 at 8:16:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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:AMENDMENT IV
On Jun 28, 2025 at 12:38:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2025 2:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:No, as that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, which have been
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>They can have the 'privilege' now because agents rotate in and out
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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? >>>>>>>
incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.
Interesting. What text in the 4th or 5th (or 14th) proscribes it? >>>>>
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.
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against
state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion".
No, the 4th Amendment is in the federal Constitution, which means federal judicial interpretations apply to all states. The states have *no* discretion.
And the Founders left us the 2nd Amendment should the day come when the federal courts do something like legalize the rape of citizens by government officials.
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.
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.
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.
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:Hehehe
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. >>
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.
On 6/29/2025 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 8:16:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
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:AMENDMENT IV
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>I doubt you know how normal law enforcement procedure works at all
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They can have the 'privilege' now because agents rotate in and out
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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? >>>>>>
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.
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against >>> state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion".
No, the 4th Amendment is in the federal Constitution, which means federal >> judicial interpretations apply to all states. The states have *no*
discretion.
And the Founders left us the 2nd Amendment should the day come when the
federal courts do something like legalize the rape of citizens by government
officials.
Sure it is, if we consider anarchy via your protected guns part of the Constitutional process.
Short of that, though, it seems that women's
personal rights under the Constitution hang solely on what a magistrate
deems "reasonable", a.k.a. "fashionable". Somehow, I don't think it was
ever supposed to work that way...
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. >>
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.
Why? Because one is putting something in and the other is taking
something out?
That distinction is grasping at (plastic) straws.
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?
On Jun 29, 2025 at 1:50:43 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:the states,
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
Heheheany 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. >>
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.
On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:20:52 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 8:16:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 4:00:54 PM PDT, "moviePig"
no legitimate
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
agents rotate in and outThey can have the 'privilege' now becausereason 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
exploitation case or humanassignments
all the time. You can be an assist on another agent's
immigration case
today and
working undercover on your own child
law enforcementtrafficking
case tomorrow.
You're giving those involved in this ragtag >operation too
much credit
No, I actually know how things work in a federal
understanding of how lawagency as
opposed to you, with your Hollywood
procedure works at allenforcementI doubt you know how normal law enforcement
works, who just spouts off on Usenet about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
doing exactly what Ijackass, these people have been caught on tape
means I don't knowsaid.
Yeah, 23+ years with a federal badge on my belt
Usenet aboutas 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
when arrestingCalifornia deciding their own policy for face masks
what agenda itemresidents on their own streets.
But everyone knows "states rights" just depends on
-- they use ittoday's nightmare Trump regime wants to accomplish
their convenience.(abortion) and reject it (immigrant roundups) at
(which apparently
Anyone who knows anything about states' rights
Constitution expresslyexcludes
you
from the Venn diagram) knows that if the
states have nogives the
federal government jurisdiction over a thing, the
school. But I"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
days are too busysuppose
the
proto-communists who run our public schools these
than teachingteaching
about the 87 genders and how to smash capitalism
not enumerated inkids how
their
government actually works.
The 10th Amendment gives states rights to everything
like abortion, isthe Constitution ...which, especially for something
which have beenabsurd on its face. E.g., will you give them droit du >seigneur?
No, as that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments,
It's not the 'despot' that decides what is and is not unreasonable. Theincorporated 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. >>>>>
courts
do.
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against >>>> state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion".
No, the 4th Amendment is in the federal Constitution, which means federal >>> judicial interpretations apply to all states. The states have *no*
discretion.
And the Founders left us the 2nd Amendment should the day come when the >>> federal courts do something like legalize the rape of citizens by government
officials.
Sure it is, if we consider anarchy via your protected guns part of the
Constitutional process.
Dude, your entire scenario is based on the idea of government officials >invading your home and raping your wife on your wedding night, so we're >already completely off the reservation here.
Short of that, though, it seems that women's
personal rights under the Constitution hang solely on what a magistrate
deems "reasonable", a.k.a. "fashionable". Somehow, I don't think it was
ever supposed to work that way...
Depends on what personal rights you're talking about. If it's her right to be >free from unreasonable warrantless seizures of her person or property, then >the definition of reasonableness has been well established with 200+ years of >jurisprudence.
If it's her right to kill her baby in the womb that you're talking about, that >is not a seizure or intrusion of her person by the government, so it is not >covered by the federal Constitution and is therefore properly a matter of >state jurisdiction, where her ability to legally kill her child will >necessarily vary from state to state.
. . .
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.
Either way, she lacks autonomy.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. >>>>
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?
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. >>>>>
Either way, she lacks autonomy.Are you placing some "burden of proof" on the states? Regardless, bothOne is a seizure and invasion of a woman's body and the other isn't. >>>>>
abortion and rape are (intensely) personal matters for the individual,
so how do you see the Constitution as treating them differently? >>>>>
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.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:20:52 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 8:16:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 4:00:54 PM PDT, "moviePig"
<nobody@nowhere.com>
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"
no legitimatewrote:
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
deportationreason for ICE
agents to cover their faces while engaged in
agents rotate in and outThey can have the 'privilege' now becauseoperations, butWhen they start working undercover in this tactless
there is actually a helluva good reason to do so:
it preserves their
ability to
work undercover in future cases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and heavy-handed
roundup they can have that privilege then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
exploitation case or humanassignments
all the time. You can be an assist on another agent's
immigration case
today and
working undercover on your own child
operation tootrafficking
case tomorrow.
You're giving those involved in this ragtag
law enforcementmuch credit
No, I actually know how things work in a federal
understanding of how lawagency as
opposed to you, with your Hollywood
procedure works at allenforcementI doubt you know how normal law enforcement
works, who just spouts off on Usenet about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
doing exactly what Ijackass, these people have been caught on tape
means I don't knowsaid.
Yeah, 23+ years with a federal badge on my belt
workers-turned-storm troopersas much
as
some rando on Usenet.
Yep, that checks out.
-- they appear a bunch of office
continue moaningwho 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
Usenet aboutimpotently
on
Usenet about it. Whatever.
You're the one who started impotently moaning on
when arrestingCalifornia deciding their own policy for face masks
what agenda itemresidents on their own streets.
But everyone knows "states rights" just depends on
-- they use ittoday's nightmare Trump regime wants to accomplish
their convenience.(abortion) and reject it (immigrant roundups) at
(which apparently
Anyone who knows anything about states' rights
Constitution expresslyexcludes
you
from the Venn diagram) knows that if the
states have nogives the
federal government jurisdiction over a thing, the
jurisdiction over"rights"
over
that thing.
The federal government has an express grant of
Constitution.immigration
in Article I, Section 8. Conversely, there is no grant of
federal power
over
abortion (or even health care in general) in the
whatsoever with
That's why states have no jurisdiction or business
school. But Iregard 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
days are too busysuppose
the
proto-communists who run our public schools these
than teachingteaching
about the 87 genders and how to smash capitalism
not enumerated inkids how
their
government actually works.
The 10th Amendment gives states rights to everything
like abortion, isthe Constitution ...which, especially for something
seigneur?absurd on its face. E.g., will you give them droit du
which have been
No, as that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments,
No, the 4th Amendment is in the federal Constitution, which means federalIt's not the 'despot' that decides what is and is not unreasonable. Theincorporated 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. >>>>>>
courts
do.
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against
state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion". >>>>
judicial interpretations apply to all states. The states have *no*
discretion.
And the Founders left us the 2nd Amendment should the day come when the >>>> federal courts do something like legalize the rape of citizens by government
officials.
Sure it is, if we consider anarchy via your protected guns part of the
Constitutional process.
Dude, your entire scenario is based on the idea of government officials
invading your home and raping your wife on your wedding night, so we're
already completely off the reservation here.
Short of that, though, it seems that women's
personal rights under the Constitution hang solely on what a magistrate
deems "reasonable", a.k.a. "fashionable". Somehow, I don't think it was >>> ever supposed to work that way...
Depends on what personal rights you're talking about. If it's her right to be
free from unreasonable warrantless seizures of her person or property, then >> the definition of reasonableness has been well established with 200+ years of
jurisprudence.
If it's her right to kill her baby in the womb that you're talking about, that
is not a seizure or intrusion of her person by the government, so it is not >> covered by the federal Constitution and is therefore properly a matter of
state jurisdiction, where her ability to legally kill her child will
necessarily vary from state to state.
Uh, child?
I don't think defining human life beginning at conception is a matter
state law.
On Jun 29, 2025 at 2:20:52 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 29, 2025 at 8:16:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 6/28/2025 7:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 4:00:54 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/28/2025 6:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:It's not the 'despot' that decides what is and is not unreasonable. The
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>Interesting. What text in the 4th or 5th (or 14th) proscribes it?
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>I doubt you know how normal law enforcement procedure works at all
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They can have the 'privilege' now because agents rotate in and out
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>
courts
do.
And, since "reasonable" depends solely on the courts' mood, the
Constitution wouldn't've (and, hence, doesn't) afford protection against >>>> state-mandated kingly rape, leaving it to each state's "discretion".
No, the 4th Amendment is in the federal Constitution, which means federal >>> judicial interpretations apply to all states. The states have *no*
discretion.
And the Founders left us the 2nd Amendment should the day come when the >>> federal courts do something like legalize the rape of citizens by government
officials.
Sure it is, if we consider anarchy via your protected guns part of the
Constitutional process.
Dude, your entire scenario is based on the idea of government officials invading your home and raping your wife on your wedding night, so we're already completely off the reservation here.
Short of that, though, it seems that women's
personal rights under the Constitution hang solely on what a magistrate
deems "reasonable", a.k.a. "fashionable". Somehow, I don't think it was
ever supposed to work that way...
Depends on what personal rights you're talking about. If it's her right to be free from unreasonable warrantless seizures of her person or property, then the definition of reasonableness has been well established with 200+ years of jurisprudence.
If it's her right to kill her baby in the womb that you're talking about, that
is not a seizure or intrusion of her person by the government, so it is not covered by the federal Constitution and is therefore properly a matter of state jurisdiction, where her ability to legally kill her child will necessarily vary from state to state.
The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. So, >>> forAMENDMENT 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". >>>
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.
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.
Why? Because one is putting something in and the other is taking
something out?
Yes. The 4th Amendment protects against the government seizing your body without a warrant and absent probable cause that you've committed a crime.
It doesn't apply to what *you* do with your body.
The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from taking my car out of my garage
and seizing it without a warrant. However, the 4A doesn't prohibit *me* from taking my car to a junkyard and crushing it in a hydraulic press.
That distinction is grasping at (plastic) straws.
Not hardly, but even so, plastic straws are the best straws.
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, bothOne is a seizure and invasion of a woman's body and the other isn't.
abortion and rape are (intensely) personal matters for the individual,
so how do you see the Constitution as treating them differently? >>>>>>
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.
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:Using that standard, the government can't prohibiting anyone from doing
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, bothOne is a seizure and invasion of a woman's body and the other isn't.
abortion and rape are (intensely) personal matters for the individual,
so how do you see the Constitution as treating them differently? >>>>>>>
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. >>
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.