From: ahk@chinet.com
BTR1701 wrote:
>On Jan 10, 2026 at 6:18:12 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.
>>
>>>
>>>
>https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vid
avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4
>>
>> Hey! Masks are a Sarbanes-Oxley violation! You are obligated to create
>> evidence against interest! The feds have prosecuted people for this,
>> Fifth Amendment be damned.
>>
>> As to your basic point, if wearing a mask is speech, I don't see how
>> denying this right preserves democracy.
>
>While that might be an alternative argument, my basic point is that the
>Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate the
>behavior, equipment, and attire of federal agents. The state of Pennsylvania
>doesn't get to impose a dress code on federal law enforcement officers. The
>chief of police doesn't get a vote on what they can and can't wear while
>enforcing federal law.
>
>How would this even work as a practical matter? Let's say ICE is out on the
>street conducting a lawful, constitutional immigration enforcement operation
>and the Philly PD rolls up, sees some of them are wearing masks... and then
>what?
>
>Are they going to pull their guns on the federal agents and order them to get
>down on the ground and put their hands behind their backs? Because if they did
>that, they'd find themselves under arrest themselves for obstruction and
>interference with a federal operation/investigation. That's a felony with a
>maximum sentence of 10 years in a federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. And
>it'll be a special treat for them to arrive there as former cops.
>
>What cop is going to risk all that to act as a pawn in the mayor or chief's
>political games with Trump?
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
