House passes bill that would ban state limits on selling gas-powered vehicles

[Crusty Trucker]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/house-passes-bill-ban-state-limits-on-gas-powered-vehicles

 

 

[MotiveLensPhoto]

Of the multiple sources reporting this, not a single one I found could be bothered to list the bill. So if you want to read it this is the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1435

[ted sweet]

wont pass the senate

[Leif in Calif]

Old Washington Custom: The party that holds the house passes all sorts of stuff to show their "base" they are trying, knowing full well it won't go anywhere. Both parties do it. 

[auburnseeker]

Well it will clearly show where each senate member stands and how you should vote in upcoming elections.

[MotiveLensPhoto]

I am no lawyer, etc., but one thing I did NOT see is any language about the states that already have a sunset date on fossil fuel car sales. This aggravates me to the same extent that weed is legal in some states but illegal at the federal level in those states.

[Borough Essex]

So senators from the party which supports state rights and reducing the power of the federal government will all vote against this bill?

[auburnseeker]

The problem is state gov'ts are acting in an authoritarian position when enacting these laws/ mandates.  They seem wildly unpopular,  yet they get rammed through, often without any time for public comment.  Much like other laws,  some in direct conflict with the constitution.  Which the right of the individual has to be clawed back from the state after many years in court and at a great expense to the individual to get their right back.   So is the federal gov't in this case trying to protect individual rights by taking power from the states?  You have to look at it from all sides.  

 

Preventing states from enacting legislation to cut citizens rights or choices seems much different the the federal gov't forcing people to do something or enacting laws that limit their freedom.  

 

 

Not very often have people complained about too much freedom,  but they surely complain and feel it when a freedom of choice is taken away. 

[Leif in Calif]

On 9/17/2023 at 6:58 PM, auburnseeker said:

Well it will clearly show where each senate member stands and how you should vote in upcoming elections.

Many (most) of these never come up for a vote in the Senate. It's up to the leader (in this case Chuck Schumer). Also, if they do come up, it's often sort of a ceremonial vote because it takes 60 votes to pass, so the result is usually known ahead of time. It's easy to vote for or against something when you know your vote won't make a difference.  

[ted sweet]

60 votes?

[Leif in Calif]

On 9/20/2023 at 5:14 PM, ted sweet said:

60 votes?

Yes. Regular order in the Senate requires 60 votes. 

[ted sweet]

 a roll-call vote, each senator votes “yea” or “nay” as his or her name is called by the clerk, who records the votes on a tally sheet. In most cases a simple majority is required for a measure to pass. In the case of a tie, the vice president may cast the tie-breaking vote.

[Paul Dobbin]

I thought this sort of thread a was, political and banned.  Especially when I couldn't open it.   It reads like a rumor mill story

to incite a revolt about imaginary legislation.