Posted on 08/27/2004 5:34:34 PM PDT by truthkeeper
Well guys, "One Bill Gil" Cedillo snuck this monstrosity in as an attachment to some bill the state senate just HAD to pass. (The official story, anyway.) John and Ken just announced that it passed 21 - 14 moments ago, despite an impassioned, intelligent plea against it by Tom McClintock. The bill now moves on the entire assembly, where it is also expected to pass.
So it looks like Arnold will have a bill to either sign or veto after all.
Once more into the breach.
"????"
Sorry, you replied to my "Yes. You are a "cost.""
It's a sarcastic comment how Americans are treated.
"...despite an impassioned, intelligent plea against it by Tom McClintock."
Once again Tom proves his effectivness ...
I think the answer to your question is abundantly clear. We're here to pay the bills and be told that we're not intelligent enough to comprehend the big picture.
I may not like reality, but at least I know what reality is.
"Does the CA governor have line item veto? "
Dosen't matter, whatever the damn bill they pasted it onto it should be vetoed -
Veto the whole thing Arnold - force THEM to go back and pass the "must-pass" again...
While they are in the ivory tower out of touch with the reality of what we deal with.
Arnold is anti-gun, so I expect him to sign the fraudulently passed bill.
...exactly right.
Looks like it was another use of the "gut and amend" process, which has been controversial for years since it bypasses all of the public comment rights that are afforded by the operation of the committee process. (But since when do the Dems believe in hearing what we, the "ignorant public" have to say?) The Assembly's been standing by to receive this bill all afternoon.
AB 2895 was a domestic violence bill stuck in the Senate Appropriations committee. Did they spring it out of committee today prior to doing the gut and amend? If so, there were two votes.
Folks, this bill has little or nothing to do with driving. You are not going to see a rush of aliens heading to driving school or buying insurance.
Cedillo still insists there can be no distinguishing mark on the license indicating illegal status. Also, all it takes to get one is a damn Matriculas Consulares -- and even the Mexican government doesn't accept them as legit ID.
This is about putting what passes as our defacto national ID into the hands of illegal aliens so they can hide in plain sight.
TELL YOUR STATE LEGISLATURES TO >>> BAN <<< CALIFORNIA LICENSEES FROM DRIVING IN THEIR STATES!!!!!
... and don't forget the other States that already allow them to get licenses... North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Utah and Texas
Cedillo moved to change ALL the language in the bill in committee. Then Senate rules sent the bill directly to the Senate floor "without Reference to File (worf as they call it here) which means they take it up immediately. Since it has been ammended it needs to go back to the Assembly. I believe it is in Assembly Public Safety right now, and before the night is out it will be voted on by the floor (and it will pass, they have the votes).
Everyone in California... time to call Arnold and remind him what happened to Davis when he went against the will of the vast majority on this issue.
I don't doubt that they have the votes. The debate should be interesting, though. It appears they're in recess until 7:15 at the moment.
What about a statewide referendum banning drivers liscences for illegal aliens? I think that would be prevent the legislative 'Rats from passing stuff like this.
If Arnold does not veto this, a California license can and will be considered useless as identification.
Odd timing on this isn't it -- just before the GOP convention where Arnold is supposed to be a keynote speaker.
Those recesses are to hold impromptu committee hearings. My guess is they are passing AB 2895 out of Asm Pub Safety right about now. I'll go check as soon as the Sen breaks and post back here.
That's it.
Thanks much.
With a 21 - 14 vote, it couldn't have been an urgency measure, right? I'm still in the process of learning my way around that operation up there, so I'm often surprised by the disparity between the language of the rules and their practical application, but I think that one's still intact. True?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.