this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
52 points (91.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1868 readers
627 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, you pass one and replace the other one instead of starting from scratch on both.
No you don't, because the tasks set out by this bill (SB 1050) are delegated to a non-existent agency (the "California American Freedmen Affairs Agency") established by SB 490 (not passed), and the bill requires that this non-existent agency carry out those responsibilities. This bill can be sent back to Newsom's desk whenever; it's simply the case that right now, it's not viable legislation, because it's bestowing responsibility onto an agency that presently doesn't exist and can't be created. In fact, it strictly sets a deadline for January 1, 2026, that the agency will "create a database, to be updated annually thereafter, of rightful owners". If that second bill never gets passed, then you have legislation on the books that says "you will have this thing done in 15 months even though you physically can't because the agency tasked with doing it does not exist."
This doesn't make the bill start over from scratch, and I don't understand where you're getting that idea from.
Sounds to me like SB 1050 forces the agency to exist whether SB 490 passed or not.
??? No, no it does not. SB 490 does. SB 1050 when discussing the agency says "as provided by SB 490 of the 2023–24 Regular Session". It is unambiguously predicated on the passage of SB 490. This is just mental gymnastics trying to take what's ultimately a fuck-up by the state legislature and push it onto Newsom for no reason whatsoever.
"Just put the bill on the books because I don't understand that a veto doesn't make a bill start from scratch and that the bill sets out legal obligations it can't fulfill."
"Just use the bill to create the agency that the bill never creates and thereby doesn't grant you the power to create."