Okay, at this rate, who’s going to be the one to make /c/babyhipposhitposts or /c/babyhippomemes?

??? 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.”

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.

Okay, many of Newsom’s vetoes are complete BS, but I think this article really buries the lead:

The proposal by itself would not have been able to take full effect because lawmakers blocked another bill to create a reparations agency that would have reviewed claims.

“I thank the author for his commitment to redressing past racial injustices,” Newsom said in a statement. “However, this bill tasks a nonexistent state agency to carry out its various provisions and requirements, making it impossible to implement.”

I mean… If you have two co-dependent bills, one where people can make claims and one where you create an agency that reviews those claims, I feel like you kind of have to veto one if the other fails. If the bill fails to establish the agency to review the claims, then how do claims get processed? Have you just created a bill that allows the people you’ve wronged to send their complaints into a black hole? Here’s hoping this gets pushed back through at some point but either with both bills intact or combined into the same piece of legislation.

Ah, yep, I was too sleep-deprived to remember that proposal and ratification are separate processes. Still objectively represents a failure of the United States that they can’t push this through. And of course that Congress could actually at any time ban it at the federal level with just a majority vote and haven’t done so. Or that the SCOTUS could actually ban it unilaterally. Or that even just a successfully proposed constitutional amendment would represent taking a stand against it, but they haven’t even done that.

That was said in your comment. Maybe you should reread it.

I didn’t mention numbers

One state

I think you got lost on the way to /c/preschool where they teach you what numbers are.

And 269 of those legislators are Republicans

I 100% agree with you that they’re vermin. My point is that they nonetheless are members of the federal government which could otherwise ban this.

Don’t bitch about it. Vote.

I’m quite content to do both actually, thank you very much.

I wonder where I’ve heard that split before?

Yes, and I’ve mentioned that split elsewhere in this thread; doesn’t mean that these traitorous fucks don’t have control over the entire US through essentially unchecked authority and that that is – say it with me – inherently the fault of the United States.

Most of those states are red states.

Nobody’s disputing that. See the first portion of this response.

I think you think what I’m saying is some kind of weird both-sidesism (it’s not; the world would be a markedly better place if every Republican were replaced by a Democrat counterpart), but the fact is that a ban on capital punishment can’t happen because the US is backward enough to have too many of these Republicans representing it.

Damn, last I checked, 27 plus the federal government was more than 1. Maybe the federal government expressed as an integer actually comes out to negative 26 and makes your ridiculous defense make any sense.

Would you come to the US’ defense in the same way that you are right now over state-sanctioned murder in the situation I outlined? It’s a very simple yes/no question that you’re tiptoeing around for seemingly no reason.

The fact that the US federal government has the power to outlaw this but doesn’t, that this specific execution was brought before the Supreme Court and they voted against blocking it 6–3, and the fact that the majority of US states (27) and the federal government have this on the books speak for the US now, yes.

Taken to an absurd extreme, let’s imagine that the US federal government and 27 of its states explicitly had statutes on the books stating “you can legally rape puppies”, and you stepping in and saying “Well that doesn’t speak for the entire US! Stop trying to make it sound like everyone condones puppy rape just because Missouri allows it!” Would you say that then? Because I feel like any rational person would be asking “Why does the US allow this to happen?” If not, why would you say it here? The US is simply backwards in this regard.

Just casually blaming a victim of lynching for being lynched. I bet you’re the type that peddled the George Floyd overdose conspiracy too. 🙄

No, it is not, and it was carried out under Trump.

• The US federal government has the authority to, at any time, outlaw state-sanctioned murder across the country either via Supreme Court ruling or via constitutional amendment and tell states to kick rocks. It chooses not to do this. I don’t care that an amendment is “hard”; if it’s possible to do but it fails to do this, then it’s the federal government’s fault. The votes of about 355 legislators and the signature of Joe Biden 5 SCOTUS justices could end this today; it’s the stroke of a pen, and they simply don’t do it.
• This case went before the SCOTUS requesting an emergency block, where it was voted against 6–3. The SCOTUS had the power to trivially prevent this and decided not to.
• The majority of US states (27) as well as the federal government have state-sanctioned murder on the books as a legal criminal punishment. 12 states and the federal government have carried it out in the last 10 years.
• This is incidental to your overall point, but the current US population is ~337 million; “almost” 400 million is doing so much lifting there.

Edit: I accidentally became so sleep-deprived that I forgot a constitutional amendment has a separate proposal and ratification process. The SCOTUS method would 100% work, though, and it hasn’t yet been banned at the federal level which is a simple majority of Congress and a presidential signature, so they do overall endorse it.

How is this a misleading title? On the one hand, yes, the fed can carry out state-sanctioned murder too (and it’s something Trump resumed), but 1) it’s absolutely the case that the “death penalty” should and could be banned nation-wide but isn’t, and 2) this went before the SCOTUS for an emergency block, but it was voted 6–3 not to block (I’m guessing you know that all of the six were the treasonous fuckwits nominated by Republicans and all three were sensible jurists nominated by Democrats).

What happened here is absolutely still the fault of the federal government. Of course I still agree with the rest of your comment. I just mean to say that even if you somehow totally divorce a US state from the US itself, it’s still the US’ fault.

Oh wait, yeah, you’re right, I accounted for “late the next February” without taking into account that wouldn’t be a leap year. Sometimes math escapes me.

you’d have gone 8 years without a vote between 1996 and 2004

On second thought, OP is absolutely correct and we need to invent a time machine to fix this mistake.

To add to this, weather conditions on November 5 are likely to be more temperate than February 29. November 5 can definitely still have bad weather, but you would be making in-person voting overall objectively statistically more difficult by pushing it into the end of February thanks to snow, where November doesn’t even crack the top 5 months for the most snowfall (and we’re talking early November here).

You would also be giving some president/Congress three-ish extra months nine-ish fewer months of a term for literally no reason by shifting it all the way to February 29, unless you wanted to roll out some decades-long scheme to incrementally push it there.

Edit: that also leaves the fact that you would have (presumably the first day of) one of the most watched events on Earth taking place on the same day as the general election, meaning arguably one of the few times when minute-by-minute 24-hour news coverage is necessary for the election, you’d get it interspersed with a ton of Olympics stuff, and you’d likely also have a decent chunk of people staying home to watch the Olympics instead of voting, further depressing turnout in addition to possible weather issues.

So just a state-sponsored lynching in broad daylight. Fuck you, Mike Parson; you look like if a resident of Whoville from Jim Carrey’s Grinch were an active member of the KKK.

“If I don’t get to have sex with girls who are underage, then people who are actually the same age shouldn’t get to either.” —Matt “pays to commit statutory rape” Gaetz