Social media platforms would be required to implement age verification measures to ensure youth under 16 can’t create social media accounts and allow parents to oversee social media use by 16- and 17-year-olds.
Yes.
It’s tiresome how lawmakers love to put a ton of shit into a single vote.
It may be that is the actual reason these republicans voted no. Not that I trust them with kids close by, but 1 vote for a bill that looks more like a Walmart on crack than, well, a proper bill, I can imagine you end up voting in interesting ways sometimes.
It really is a pervasive issue, similar to how Republicans keep ramming pet projects into budget reconciliation bills in the House. We really need legislation that bars bills from containing unrelated items in them.
So that sounds good in theory, but in practice it is used to prevent anything the judiciary dislikes from being done. Have a single issue bill that all it says is it moves cannabis from class 1 to class 3 controlled substance? Well that affects interstate commerce too so whoopsie can’t write that law.
I’m not from the states so please forgive me if this is incorrect, but I’ve read a “bill” can start out as one thing. Get a load of traction, then be changed last minute to something else entirely just before the vote. Is that true? Seems impossible track if it is
“Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act”
Amendment: "… Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
1.Short titles; table of contents
(a)Short titles
This Act may be cited as the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act."
This is a strategy, and has been for years, ever since political advertising became a thing over the air. “Congressman X voted NO on a bill that would stop people from having to drink acid every day (because it also contained a section that would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate food)”, etc.
Didn’t this bill also contained a social media ban?
Yes.
It’s tiresome how lawmakers love to put a ton of shit into a single vote.
It may be that is the actual reason these republicans voted no. Not that I trust them with kids close by, but 1 vote for a bill that looks more like a Walmart on crack than, well, a proper bill, I can imagine you end up voting in interesting ways sometimes.
It really is a pervasive issue, similar to how Republicans keep ramming pet projects into budget reconciliation bills in the House. We really need legislation that bars bills from containing unrelated items in them.
So that sounds good in theory, but in practice it is used to prevent anything the judiciary dislikes from being done. Have a single issue bill that all it says is it moves cannabis from class 1 to class 3 controlled substance? Well that affects interstate commerce too so whoopsie can’t write that law.
I’m not from the states so please forgive me if this is incorrect, but I’ve read a “bill” can start out as one thing. Get a load of traction, then be changed last minute to something else entirely just before the vote. Is that true? Seems impossible track if it is
they do that alot , the REPUBLICANS did this with NN bills which was actually disguising the TAX CUT of 2017.
Yup. Check the title of this bill vs the amendment
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s1318/text
“Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act”
Amendment: "… Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
1.Short titles; table of contents (a)Short titles This Act may be cited as the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act."
I’m speechless
it will be hard to do that in missouri , the republicans have total control of the state.
This is a strategy, and has been for years, ever since political advertising became a thing over the air. “Congressman X voted NO on a bill that would stop people from having to drink acid every day (because it also contained a section that would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate food)”, etc.