PDA

View Full Version : President Obama vetoes Keystone pipeline bill




Suzanimal
02-24-2015, 03:29 PM
United States President Barack Obama as promised has vetoed a bill from Congress that for now will halt construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Defying the wishes of the Republican-led House and Senate, the president on Tuesday rejected the years-in-the-making would-be legislation that sought to pave the way for a 1,179-mile pipeline to carry crude tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Congress authorized the bill more than a week ago, and in recent days it was handed off to the White House.

"The president does intend to veto this pace of legislation, and we intend to do it without drama or fanfare or delay,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said at a scheduled media briefing early Tuesday afternoon in Washington, DC. Later in the day it was confirmed that the president had, in fact, vetoed the bill.

Ahead of the president’s expected decision, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—top-ranking Republicans representing Ohio and Kentucky, respectively—published an op-ed condemning Obama’s intentions.

"The allure of appeasing environmental extremists may be too powerful for the president to ignore. But the president is sadly mistaken if he thinks vetoing this bill will end this fight," they wrote. "Far from it. We are just getting started."

http://rt.com/usa/235227-obama-veto-pipeline-bill/

Mr.NoSmile
02-24-2015, 03:37 PM
Pretty sure that everyone saw this coming, and I don't believe there are enough votes to even override his veto, either.

invisible
02-24-2015, 03:37 PM
Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.

KingNothing
02-24-2015, 09:29 PM
Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.

Well, it isn't about that. It should be about that, but it isn't. This specific action was about appeasing environmental extremists, and voters that Democrats want to court.

invisible
02-24-2015, 09:34 PM
Well, it isn't about that. It should be about that, but it isn't. This specific action was about appeasing environmental extremists, and voters that Democrats want to court.

Perhaps that is the case, that he did the right thing for the wrong reason. But if that's true, then why hasn't he eliminated the halliburton loophole and simply ended the issue?

pcosmar
02-24-2015, 09:53 PM
This specific action was about appeasing environmental extremists, and voters that Democrats want to court.

SO WHAT.
I don't care why he killed this stupidity. He killed it.
GOOD.

And the hell with everyone that was pushing for this bullshit..

invisible
02-24-2015, 09:58 PM
SO WHAT.
I don't care why he killed this stupidity. He killed it.
GOOD.

And the hell with everyone that was pushing for this bullshit..

Killed it for now. Don't worry, it'll be back soon enough, after a few dozen more train derailments and tanker truck crashes. Perhaps the fracking industry and chamber of commerce will manage to bankroll a few more candidates into office in the meantime.

puppetmaster
02-24-2015, 10:48 PM
Perhaps that is the case, that he did the right thing for the wrong reason. But if that's true, then why hasn't he eliminated the halliburton loophole and simply ended the issue?

Can't stand imminent domain but warren buffet is happy that this bitch does his bidding....

AngryCanadian
02-24-2015, 10:54 PM
I am for once happy. The senators have failed to prove just how safe the Keystone pipeline would be even for Canadians.

amartin315
02-25-2015, 12:50 PM
wow. both pauls are in favor of the pipeline and most of this thread seems to be against it?

Brett85
02-25-2015, 12:57 PM
wow. both pauls are in favor of the pipeline and most of this thread seems to be against it?

There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

dannno
02-25-2015, 12:59 PM
There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

Hah, I didn't realize property rights was a leftist issue.

The Gold Standard
02-25-2015, 01:00 PM
There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

Yes, it is the "left libertarians" that oppose the seizure of private property by the government.

The Gold Standard
02-25-2015, 01:01 PM
Hah, I didn't realize property rights was a leftist issue.

You beat me to it. Apparently "right libertarians" approve of government confiscation of property for some uses, but not others.

kahless
02-25-2015, 01:06 PM
There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

I have not heard enough on this either way but my concerns were related to our government executing eminent domain on property owners on behalf of a foreign corporation. I do not see how that would make one a "left libertarian" for being against eminent domain.

If Ron/Rand are supporting it as mentioned by the poster above and they do not have issues with eminent domain then that would make them far worse than "left libertarians" on this issue.

kahless
02-25-2015, 01:09 PM
You beat me to it. Apparently "right libertarians" approve of government confiscation of property for some uses, but not others.

You guys are fast or I am old and slow. I have to remember to refresh but did not seem like all that long when I started typing. :)

Brett85
02-25-2015, 02:25 PM
Hah, I didn't realize property rights was a leftist issue.


Yes, it is the "left libertarians" that oppose the seizure of private property by the government.

So you're claiming that Ron Paul supports the seizure of private property by the government?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVDbkp-a4_g

The Gold Standard
02-25-2015, 02:32 PM
So you're claiming that Ron Paul supports the seizure of private property by the government?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVDbkp-a4_g

I can't watch the video at work, but if he supports this then he sure does. The man isn't perfect. It's possible he supports it on the condition that no one involuntarily surrenders their property. Or he might just have been playing politics. It doesn't affect how I feel about it one way or another.

dannno
02-25-2015, 02:32 PM
So you're claiming that Ron Paul supports the seizure of private property by the government?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVDbkp-a4_g

He seems to be less in favor of the Fed Gov banning it and more in favor of returning the power to setup these things to the states and local governments. Sort of like how he is for ending the federal war on drugs, even though states may make the same mistake of banning drugs.

I'm ok with the pipeline, I'm not ok with eminent domain seizures.

Do you think Ron Paul is ok with eminent domain seizures?

dannno
02-25-2015, 02:34 PM
I can't watch the video at work, but if he supports this then he sure does. The man isn't perfect. It's possible he supports it on the condition that no one involuntarily surrenders their property. Or he might just have been playing politics. It doesn't affect how I feel about it one way or another.

I'm pretty sure he just doesn't want to see the headline "Rand Paul's Father Ron Paul Doesn't Support the Keystone Pipeline" plastered across mainstream media.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 02:39 PM
He seems to be less in favor of the Fed Gov banning it and more in favor of returning the power to setup these things to the states and local governments. Sort of like how he is for ending the federal war on drugs, even though states may make the same mistake of banning drugs.

I'm ok with the pipeline, I'm not ok with eminent domain seizures.

Do you think Ron Paul is ok with eminent domain seizures?

I don't disagree with either you or Ron. I would still vote to allow the pipeline if I were a member of Congress, because I don't think it should be the role of the U.S Congress to stop pipelines from being built. Like Ron Paul said, the issue should be handled by the states and the free market.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 02:56 PM
My position is basically that I'm not in favor of the pipeline actually being built if it involves the taking of land and property, but it just shouldn't be Congress or the President that gets in the way of the pipeline being built. So I agree with Ron's position.

The Gold Standard
02-25-2015, 03:00 PM
Well I highly doubt the bill is just written to legalize the building of the pipeline. That would be a one sentence bill. They have to specify who gets the benefits, maybe regulate away some of their competition, specify who will have their land stolen, and so on.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 03:05 PM
I would still vote to allow the pipeline if I were a member of Congress, because I don't think it should be the role of the U.S Congress to stop pipelines from being built.

Even if it required or inevitably resulted in State seizure of private property?

Do you think it should be the role of the U.S. Congress to build pipelines, or to award special treatment to private/foreign corporations?

Incidentally, Ron Paul is known as Dr. No because of his tendency to vote against proposed bills. IIRC, I also believe he liked to campaign on how liberally he'd use veto power were he president, for the same reasons.


There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

Evidently there's a lot of non-libertarians within the liberty movement as well.

Brian4Liberty
02-25-2015, 03:09 PM
Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.

Yep, that is the real concern for anyone who values private property rights, rule of law and the Constitution. As Obama values none of those, it's safe to say that Obama's reasoning for this is invalid.


Killed it for now. Don't worry, it'll be back soon enough, after a few dozen more train derailments and tanker truck crashes. Perhaps the fracking industry and chamber of commerce will manage to bankroll a few more candidates into office in the meantime.

You know it.

The Gold Standard
02-25-2015, 03:15 PM
Obama doesn't give a fuck about anyone's property rights. He doesn't believe people have such a thing, and you are a terrorist if you disagree. He voted no because Buffett stands to lose a lot of money if a pipeline is built that bypasses his rail service.

muh_roads
02-25-2015, 03:49 PM
SO WHAT.
I don't care why he killed this stupidity. He killed it.
GOOD.

And the hell with everyone that was pushing for this bullshit..

What was bad about it? Were the pipelines going to completely destroy all vegetation within a 200 mile radius of the path or something?

All I see now is less jerbs and more dependence on Saudi 911rabia with no passage.

Brian4Liberty
02-25-2015, 03:55 PM
All I see now is less jerbs and more dependence on Saudi 911rabia with no passage.

The reason to pipe it to a port is for export. How does that help the U.S. stop depending upon Saudi Oil?

morfeeis
02-25-2015, 04:02 PM
Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.


I disagree with most almost everything Obama has done, said or wanted to do, but with this veto i agree with.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 04:06 PM
Evidently there's a lot of non-libertarians within the liberty movement as well.

Then apparently Ron Paul himself is a non libertarian.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 04:35 PM
Then apparently Ron Paul himself is a non libertarian.

Meanwhile, you've avoided the actual issues--namely the fact that if you say you'd have voted yes on this bill, you're apparently okay with eminent domain seizures, and cronyism.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 05:15 PM
Meanwhile, you've avoided the actual issues--namely the fact that if you say you'd have voted yes on this bill, you're apparently okay with eminent domain seizures, and cronyism.

No, I said the exact opposite. I said that Congress should have no role in the issue, and that I agree with Ron that the issue should be handled by the states and the free market.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 05:23 PM
No, I said the exact opposite. I said that Congress should have no role in the issue

You said you'd have voted for the bill.


I would still vote to allow the pipeline if I were a member of Congress

Eminent domain seizures and cronyism are necessary results of the bill.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 05:32 PM
You said you'd have voted for the bill.

Sure, the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to prevent pipelines from being built. I don't see anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to block pipelines from being built. So voting against this bill would violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I would support a court decision which would allow private companies to use eminent domain seizures to build the pipeline. I support allowing companies to build pipelines as long as land owners agree to allow the pipeline to go through their land.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 05:41 PM
So voting against this bill would violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Thus


you're apparently okay with eminent domain seizures, and cronyism.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 07:28 PM
Thus

No. I'm just against the federal government handling the issue. If a particular state wants to either allow a pipeline to go through their state or stop a pipeline from going through their state, they should have the right to do that.

Working Poor
02-25-2015, 07:31 PM
Well I am glad it was vetoed I am against this for many reasons.

NIU Students for Liberty
02-25-2015, 08:30 PM
wow. both pauls are in favor of the pipeline and most of this thread seems to be against it?

Your point? Ron voted for AUMF in 2001, so was that not a mistake?

NIU Students for Liberty
02-25-2015, 08:32 PM
No. I'm just against the federal government handling the issue. If a particular state wants to either allow a pipeline to go through their state or stop a pipeline from going through their state, they should have the right to do that.

Property rights trump state authority. Regardless of Obama's intentions behind the veto, he prevented the seizure of individual private property that otherwise would have been dismissed by state governments in support of the pipeline.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 08:36 PM
Property rights trump state authority. Regardless of Obama's intentions behind the veto, he prevented the seizure of individual private property that otherwise would have been dismissed by state governments in support of the pipeline.

Why can't the pipeline be built as long as the company gets the permission of the landowners to go through their land? If a particular land owner won't allow them to go through their land, then why couldn't they just go around that land owner and go through the land of someone who consented to it?

pcosmar
02-25-2015, 08:38 PM
No. I'm just against the federal government handling the issue. If a particular state wants to either allow a pipeline to go through their state or stop a pipeline from going through their state, they should have the right to do that.

It is not a state issue..
it is first a private property issue..
It is secondly a treaty issue. as it goes through tribal lands.

If the company wanted to buy land,,or land rights from each and every person from Canada to Texas there would be no issue.
There would be nothing for the Fed Gov to say or vote about. period.

That is not and never was the case.. The Corporations want to TAKE the lands.. with Federal guns to back them up.

That is the issue. It was rightfully vetoed..regardless of what you think of Obama,,and regardless of his reasons for doing so.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 08:40 PM
No. I'm just against the federal government handling the issue. If a particular state wants to either allow a pipeline to go through their state or stop a pipeline from going through their state, they should have the right to do that.

That's irrelevant to the fact that if you support the bill, you, by extension, are supporting cronyism and eminent domain seizure of private property.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 08:41 PM
That's irrelevant to the fact that if you support the bill, you, by extension, are supporting cronyism and eminent domain seizure of private property.

Lol. Well, ok. I guess I'm in good company since Ron also supports the bill.

pcosmar
02-25-2015, 08:41 PM
Why can't the pipeline be built as long as the company gets the permission of the landowners to go through their land?

It could.. However the land owners said NO. or at least a good number of them did.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 08:43 PM
It is not a state issue..
it is first a private property issue..
It is secondly a treaty issue. as it goes through tribal lands.

If the company wanted to buy land,,or land rights from each and ever person from Canada to Texas there would be no issue.
There would be nothing for the Fed Gov to say or vote about. period.

That is not and never was the case.. The Corporations want to TAKE the lands.. with Federal guns to back them up.

That is the issue. It was rightfully vetoed..regardless of what you think of Obama,,and regardless of his reasons for doing so.

I think you bring up a good point in your argument. I would like to hear the counter argument from Ron, Rand, and Thomas Massie. Because there are always two sides to every issue.

Lucille
02-25-2015, 08:45 PM
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguinpookie/images/3/32/Grumpy_Cat_Good.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width/640?cb=20140306235947

Brett85
02-25-2015, 08:49 PM
This is what The New American said about it. They gave Thomas Massie a "good vote" rating for his vote in favor of the pipeline.


H.R. 5682 would immediately allow TransCanada to construct, connect, operate, and maintain the Keystone XL pipeline, including any revision to the pipeline route within Nebraska as required or authorized by the state. It also would consider the January 2014 environmental impact statement issued by the State Department sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The bill would grant the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of the bill.

The House passed H.R. 5682 on November 14, 2014 by a vote of 252 to 161 (Roll Call 519). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this bill essentially gets the federal government out of the way of economic development. While one could correctly argue that the federal government should not have been involved in this issue in the first place, and that from a constitutional standpoint it should be left up to the states, private property owners, and TransCanada to work out an arrangement, this bill is definitely a step in the right direction since it would remove unconstitutional federal regulatory roadblocks against the pipeline project.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001184

NIU Students for Liberty
02-25-2015, 08:50 PM
Why can't the pipeline be built as long as the company gets the permission of the landowners to go through their land? If a particular land owner won't allow them to go through their land, then why couldn't they just go around that land owner and go through the land of someone who consented to it?

Because it's not that simple. Much of the land that the pipeline was to be built on is owned and operated by farmers and ranchers, so we're talking about hundreds of acres per property owner.

Besides, eminent cases rarely work like what you suggested. If the property owner declines, TransCanada is not going to simply say, "Well, thanks anyways. Onto the next owner!" No, they're going to offer the property owner shitty financial compensation and if the owner declines, TransCanada will lobby the government to intervene and seize the property without compensation.

NIU Students for Liberty
02-25-2015, 08:53 PM
Lol. Well, ok. I guess I'm in good company since Ron also supports the bill.

Again, why does it matter if Ron or Rand supported it? They're not infallible (especially Rand) and have made plenty of mistakes when it comes to votes, most notably Ron's initial support for AUMF
.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 09:01 PM
Lol. Well, ok. I guess I'm in good company since Ron also supports the bill.

If your method for arriving at conclusions about what's right and wrong, good and bad, conducive with liberty and antithetical to liberty is merely appealing to another human individual, and following them in lockstep without question, then that's another problem altogether.

Appeals to authority, even if Ron could be regarded as an authority, don't make positions any more valid, nor do they make the fact that you seem to be okay with eminent domain seizure of private property and cronyism any more 'pro-liberty.'

Brett85
02-25-2015, 09:07 PM
Appeals to authority, even if Ron could be regarded as an authority, don't make positions any more valid, nor do they make the fact that you seem to be okay with eminent domain seizure of private property and cronyism any more 'pro-liberty.'

I've said several times on this thread that I don't support that. I don't think Rand supports that either since he was one of only two Republicans who voted for a Senate amendment which would've prohibited Trans Canada from using eminent domain seizure to build the pipeline.

Cabal
02-25-2015, 09:12 PM
I've said several times on this thread that I don't support that.

You said you would have voted for the bill, too. Unfortunately you don't get to have it both ways. Are you now saying you wouldn't vote for the bill?

Brett85
02-25-2015, 09:18 PM
You said you would have voted for the bill, too. Unfortunately you don't get to have it both ways. Are you now saying you wouldn't vote for the bill?

I said that it shouldn't be a federal issue under the Constitution. It should be up to the individual states to decide. In a particular state like Nebraska, where eminent domain is taking place, it might be a good idea for the Nebraska state legislature to not allow the pipeline to go through, or to at least pass a law saying that Trans Canada can't use eminent domain seizure to build the pipeline.

The Gold Standard
02-25-2015, 09:37 PM
If the bill says, "The government of the United States has no authority or jurisdiction over the construction, operation, or regulation of the Keystone pipeline, or any other pipeline." Then I would vote yes. If there is even one more word, then I would vote no. And I don't give a fuck about how anyone else voted or feels about it.

invisible
02-25-2015, 09:39 PM
I said that it shouldn't be a federal issue under the Constitution. It should be up to the individual states to decide. In a particular state like Nebraska, where eminent domain is taking place, it might be a good idea for the Nebraska state legislature to not allow the pipeline to go through, or to at least pass a law saying that Trans Canada can't use eminent domain seizure to build the pipeline.

Why would yet another law even be necessary? All the state government would have to do is not exercise eminent domain. If they were going to pull eminent domain on people, then and only then should a law be passed to protect private property from being taken by eminent domain.

invisible
02-25-2015, 09:43 PM
I've said several times on this thread that I don't support that. I don't think Rand supports that either since he was one of only two Republicans who voted for a Senate amendment which would've prohibited Trans Canada from using eminent domain seizure to build the pipeline.

This is the first I've heard of such an amendment, do you have a source for this? I would be very interested in hearing more about this amendment, and if there was also any attempt to pass it in the House as well as the Senate. If Rand did indeed vote for such an amendment (and who was the second Senator?), then this goes a long way towards excusing his being in favor of the pipeline, although it still doesn't excuse his vote for any legislation not containing such an amendment.

Brett85
02-25-2015, 10:04 PM
This is the first I've heard of such an amendment, do you have a source for this? I would be very interested in hearing more about this amendment, and if there was also any attempt to pass it in the House as well as the Senate. If Rand did indeed vote for such an amendment (and who was the second Senator?), then this goes a long way towards excusing his being in favor of the pipeline, although it still doesn't excuse his vote for any legislation not containing such an amendment.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/23/sen-rand-paul-democrat-amendment-on-property-rights-key-step-in-reversing-kelo/

Surprisingly, Kelly Ayotte was the other Republican Senator.

invisible
02-25-2015, 10:10 PM
Thanks! Very interesting info, that I had not seen mention of before! Not only was this amendment put forth by a democrat, but the other Republican who voted for it was ayotte! :eek: ... Too bad the article doesn't explain Rand's vote for the pipeline legislation without an amendment protecting private property from eminent domain, I guess no interviewer has bothered to ask that apparently difficult question yet.

edit to add quote from article linked to in post #57:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/23/sen-rand-paul-democrat-amendment-on-property-rights-key-step-in-reversing-kelo/

Proposed by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), it was aimed at creating what Menendez in a news release called “a new ‘Private Property Protection’ that would prevent a foreign company from seizing private property to build the Keystone Pipeline unless the landowner is willing to sell.”

Sen. Paul is one of only two Republicans (Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire is the other) to vote for that amendment.

Brett85
02-26-2015, 07:59 AM
I apologize for the unnecessarily divisive rhetoric I sometimes use like "left-libertarian." I'm not sure why I do that, but it's probably part of the reason why people here don't like me very much. We all agree on the majority of the issues and should try to be civil and respectful when we disagree. I was wrong and shouldn't do that. I'll try to refrain from doing that in the future. Perhaps I can sort of "start over" with my new user name.

pcosmar
02-26-2015, 08:08 AM
I think you bring up a good point in your argument. I would like to hear the counter argument from Ron, Rand, and Thomas Massie. Because there are always two sides to every issue.

Regardless of "sides of the issue".. There should have never been a "Bill" in the first place.

It is not the business or function of the government. and it is the Canadian Government that wants this shit anyway.. which is no business of our government.

If a company wants the use of someones land,, negotiate with that person..

If they want a pipeline,,to increase their profits,, then they can buy land or rights from the property holders..
None of the governments business.

If anyone does not want it on their land.. they are shit out of luck.. Go around.. or do without.

pcosmar
02-26-2015, 08:15 AM
What is really,, and incredibly stupid is the idea that they need a pipeline in the first place.

They want to get crude from the fields to the refineries.. Build a refinery where the oil is.

Simple solution to a simple problem.

PRB
02-26-2015, 09:13 AM
Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.

No, it's about profits for the Koch brothers, who are big backers of the liberty movement.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/19/thom-hartmann/does-keystone-xl-promise-100-billion-profit-koch-b/

Todd
03-13-2015, 09:02 AM
I have an acquaintance who told me today that her property is being considered for the Mountain Valley pipeline in the Virginia area. She does not approve. There have already been surveyors out to look over her property. The local board of supervisors is neutral on this, and it's not looking good for support.

Are their any resources that could assist in these matters?