• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Greenies take on XL Pipeline

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
This is what I feared (and commented on) when the Pipeline issues was stuck into the tax cut extension bill...There is no doubt that all the enviro testing and research for the proposed new line alternatives can never be done in 60 days (I'm not sure if they've even got the alternative lines totally ironed out) --- and that even if Obama does approve it- the greenies will have way more than enough ammo to use the courts to shut it down...

The way EPA was set up- it has less administrative/bureaucrat/Congressional oversight than any other agency- and is more controlled by the Courts than any other- supposedly dependent on the science of the day...

Greens say President Obama has no choice but to kill Keystone XL pipeline

By Andrew Restuccia - 12/28/11 12:20 PM ET

Republicans who lobbied aggressively for a measure to force President Obama to make a speedy decision on the Keystone XL pipeline have ensured the project’s demise, environmental groups say.

The activists said Obama will be forced to reject the pipeline — which would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast — under a measure in the two-month payroll tax cut extension that requires the administration to make a decision on the project within 60 days.

“The president is going to have no choice but to reject the pipeline,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “I don’t see any wiggle room.”


The GOP-backed provision forces Obama to weigh in on the pipeline well before the 2012 election, a scenario the president sought to avoid. The pipeline is a thorny political issue for the White House, as its splits parts of Obama’s base. Environmental groups vehemently oppose the project, while some major labor unions support it.

Environmental groups said they are working to assure Obama that rejecting the pipeline will not hurt him politically.

“We expect the president to do the right thing and to stand up to big oil and the political games being played by congressional Republicans,” said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation. “We’re confident that the American public will support the administration denying this dangerous pipeline.”

But proponents of the project are putting pressure on Obama to approve the pipeline and said there will be dire political consequences if the project is scrapped.

“If the president is serious about job creation and energy security, now is the time to act on the Keystone XL pipeline,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. “This is the perfect example of a shovel-ready project that makes sense for our economy.”

Obama last month sought to delay a final verdict on the pipeline by calling for review of alternative routes around the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. The move delayed a decision on the project until 2013.

Casey-Lefkowitz said approval of the pipeline in the next 60 days would violate the law, which requires additional environmental review of the alternative routes Obama has called for.

“I don’t think they legally can say it’s approved, because what approval would indicate is that they have finished this review process, which they haven’t,”
Casey-Lefkowitz said. “Republicans overreached this time in trying to pressure the president to do something when he’s already decided that additional review is needed.”

The Keystone measure from the GOP is written in a way that forces Obama’s hand, Sierra Club spokesman Eddie Scher said.

“It seems like [Republicans] wrote themselves into a corner,” he said.

Bill McKibben, a vocal opponent of the pipeline and founder of 350.org, agreed.

“[The administration] said it was going to take a year — it shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone that they can’t do it in 60 days,” McKibben said. “One assumes that they’re good for their word.”

Obama administration officials have made similar comments in recent weeks. The State Department, which is leading a multi-agency review of the proposed pipeline, has said the administration will have little choice but to reject the project because the expedited timeline will not leave enough time to conduct the necessary review.

Other administration and White House officials have made similar comments. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said earlier this month on Twitter that the GOP-backed Keystone provision “simply shortens the review process in a way that virtually guarantees that the pipeline will NOT be approved.”

McKibben said opponents of the Keystone pipeline plan to hit back in the coming months at Republicans who pushed for the Keystone measure, by painting them as pawns of the oil industry.

“It became clearly a function of the fossil fuel lobby doing its thing,” McKibben said. “In any other realm of our life, that would be regarded as incredibly unfair.”

Though they believe the Keystone measure will force Obama to reject the pipeline, environmental groups said they are prepared for continued efforts by Republicans and some centrist Democrats to ensure that the pipeline project moves forward.

“Other things could happen, but not under this bill,” Casey-Lefkowitz said.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
oldtimer wrote:
The way EPA was set up- it has less administrative/bureaucrat/Congressional oversight than any other agency- and is more controlled by the Courts than any other-

the EPA Huh?


The Environmental Protection Agency U-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l


By: Richard Mack

Featured Liberty News Radio Columnist

See all articles by this author

02/04/2011




The landmark Mack/Printz case of 1997, answered many questions about federalism and state sovereignty. Indeed, it was arguably the most powerful Tenth Amendment decision in our nation's history. Besides all the principles of "dual sovereignty" as explained by Justice Scalia and the lack of Federal authority within the jurisdictions of the States, Scalia makes a rather surprising historical reference about the EPA in this monumental ruling that will astonish even the most complacent observer. Scalia quotes the Federalist Papers and Madison frequently in this landmark opinion, but he also refers to the "prior jurisprudence" of the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, Justice Scalia makes it clear that the EPA was ruled to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the early 1970s. Rather than attempt to convince the reader that this actually is the truth, let us simply look at the Mack/Printz decision and quote Scalia word for word.

Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court's first experience with it did not occur until the 1970s, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retro- fit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPA,530 F. 2d 215, 226 (CA4 1975); Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 838-842 (CA9 1975); and the District of Columbia Circuit in- validated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F. 2d 971, 994 (CADC 1975). After we granted certiori to review the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (1971).

Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or execu- tive action, federal regulatory programs.

Well, glory be! The U.S. Supreme Court telling the feds that their Gestapo tactics and laws are not proper, lawful, or constitutional. I know what you are thinking; then why do we still have the EPA making their own laws, enforcing all their regulations and acting as if they own our states and counties?

To understand this we must all comprehend the establishment of the bureaucracies that have completely taken over Washington D C/American politics. The easy answer is; we have all gone to sleep and we trusted someone the Founders of America warned us to never trust; POLITICIANS!

The EPA now issues fines to citizens without due process; no hearings, no trials, no “innocent until proved guilty” requirements; they do whatever they want to whomever they want and there's very little we can do about it. (Who does the EPA think they are, the IRS? Even though the states are entirely capable of dealing with clean water and air, and in fact, have their own bureaucracies charged with doing just that, the EPA is now more powerful than ever before, the Brown and Maryland cases notwithstanding. It's easy to circumvent the Federal Courts if the Media and our “leaders” allow it. If it's a “good idea” or if it is indeed “for our own good,” then get out of the way, our leaders have an agenda to shove down our throats, the Constitution be damned!

In the Mack/Printz case Scalia offers the solution for such tyranny:

But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.

The “crisis of the day;” is this not the motto of the Obama administration? “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Well, it is the same philosophy behind the EPA and all other bureaucracies in DC, we had to form all these agencies to protect our land, forests, rivers, lakes, to stop disease, or drug abuse, and of course, to make sure we all pay our “fair share” of taxes. But you see, no matter how worthy or benevolent the cause, if it does not coincide with our Constitution, then the government IS NOT ALLOWED to do it! “But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.”

As crazy as it may sound, I still believe that Arizona can run its own land, air, rivers and lakes. I would even wager my last dollar (on the State approved lottery, of course) that Arizona could run its own education, and even run the Grand Canyon without the Federal Government! The Federal Government is not our boss, and therefore, the EPA is not our boss. They have no law enforcement authority or jurisdiction within the States whatsoever. Local officials, county commissions, sheriffs and county attorneys should make certain that local citizens are protected from the whimsical regulations of this unbridled DC bureaucracy.

Let's make sure we did not miss anything here;

-The EPA does not have law enforcement authority.

-The EPA is not allowed to make it's own laws.

-The EPA violates the principles of federalism and State Sovereignty.

-The States can and should run their own geography.

-The States are not subject to Federal direction. (Scalia, Mack/Printz ruling)

Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency is indeed UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Even without the evidence aforementioned, you pretty much know the EPA is unconstitutional, because the U.S. Congress has done virtually nothing constitutional in the past 50 years. But then again, maybe we should just let all this go. They know what's best for us. They're much wiser than Henry, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington! We have to take care of our environment no matter what the Constitution says. What would we have without the EPA, OSHA, IRS, BLM, Dept. of ED, DHS, BATFE, DEA, USFS, TSA, etc.?

FREEDOM!
http://libertynewsradio.com/wire/articles13/2011//00274_The_Environmental_Protection_Agency_U-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l_094840.php
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In doing so, Justice Scalia makes it clear that the EPA was ruled to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the early 1970s.

It was amended in 1983- and I know of no SCOTUS rulings since that has declared it Unconstitutional...

But I agree with you (and as I have posted here before)- the EPA is one agency that should be done away with- and the enviromental laws be up to the states to enforce...

While everyone screams about Nixon being a crook- to me the much worse crime he committed was when, by executive order, he sat up the EPA and gave them the huge power they have...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Oldtimer said:
In doing so, Justice Scalia makes it clear that the EPA was ruled to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the early 1970s.

It was amended in 1983- and I know of no SCOTUS rulings since that has declared it Unconstitutional...

But I agree with you (and as I have posted here before)- the EPA is one agency that should be done away with- and the enviromental laws be up to the states to enforce...

While everyone screams about Nixon being a crook- to me the much worse crime he committed was when, by executive order, he sat up the EPA and gave them the huge power they have...

that is the point oldtimer- they don't have "huge power" they just try and take it. "huge power" was not in Nixon's authority as POTUS to give. "all just powers come from the consent of the governed"- we didn't consent, the powers are not just- they are just taken!
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
It's all pure BS. Obamanure will lay down for the greenies to get their vote next November, and to hell with the jobs (and increased taxes) the pipeline would have created. If he had any testicular fortitude, he would sign the bill right away and get the ball rolling, but he's beholden to his oil rich Muslim masters, too.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKYKok9d5g&feature=player_embedded






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/victoria-jackson-muslim-brotherhood-fbi_n_1170790.html?ref=mostpopular
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
loomixguy said:
It's all pure BS. Obamanure will lay down for the greenies to get their vote next November, and to hell with the jobs (and increased taxes) the pipeline would have created. If he had any testicular fortitude, he would sign the bill right away and get the ball rolling, but he's beholden to his oil rich Muslim masters, too.

knowing Obama's green agenda and his continued inaction that has made US more dependent on hostile muslim nations' oil ,.. if he had balls the prick would have already disapproved of the pipeline... but he is to weak to take a stand even for what he believes in..

heck even Carter has more "testicular fortitude" then Obama
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
It's all pure BS. Obamanure will lay down for the greenies to get their vote next November, and to hell with the jobs (and increased taxes) the pipeline would have created. If he had any testicular fortitude, he would sign the bill right away and get the ball rolling, but he's beholden to his oil rich Muslim masters, too.

How do you sign a plan that isn't even developed- or sign off on studies and research that hasn't been done... :???:

No the Teapartyiers should have kept their nose out of the middle of it- and it would be signed off on in 2013 after the plan was developed..
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,489
Reaction score
671
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Larrry said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKYKok9d5g&feature=player_embedded






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/victoria-jackson-muslim-brotherhood-fbi_n_1170790.html?ref=mostpopular

"Michelle [sic] Bachmann and Rick Santorum are the only GOP candidates so far to acknowledge the above facts and warn against the present threat of Islamic Law replacing our Constitution," Jackson concluded in her blog post on the ex-FBI briefing. In a Fox News appearance early in December, she called Bachmann "my girl" and said, "Very few people in America are informed and educated as I am."
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
It's all pure BS. Obamanure will lay down for the greenies to get their vote next November, and to hell with the jobs (and increased taxes) the pipeline would have created. If he had any testicular fortitude, he would sign the bill right away and get the ball rolling, but he's beholden to his oil rich Muslim masters, too.

How do you sign a plan that isn't even developed- or sign off on studies and research that hasn't been done... :???:

No the Teapartyiers should have kept their nose out of the middle of it- and it would be signed off on in 2013 after the plan was developed..

Do you honestly think Obama would have approved of the pipeline after the election?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,489
Reaction score
671
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
It's all pure BS. Obamanure will lay down for the greenies to get their vote next November, and to hell with the jobs (and increased taxes) the pipeline would have created. If he had any testicular fortitude, he would sign the bill right away and get the ball rolling, but he's beholden to his oil rich Muslim masters, too.

How do you sign a plan that isn't even developed- or sign off on studies and research that hasn't been done... :???:

No the Teapartyiers should have kept their nose out of the middle of it- and it would be signed off on in 2013 after the plan was developed..

Do you honestly think Obama would have approved of the pipeline after the election?

NO!! He wants to bring America to it's knees.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
It's all pure BS. Obamanure will lay down for the greenies to get their vote next November, and to hell with the jobs (and increased taxes) the pipeline would have created. If he had any testicular fortitude, he would sign the bill right away and get the ball rolling, but he's beholden to his oil rich Muslim masters, too.

How do you sign a plan that isn't even developed- or sign off on studies and research that hasn't been done... :???:

No the Teapartyiers should have kept their nose out of the middle of it- and it would be signed off on in 2013 after the plan was developed..

Do you honestly think Obama would have approved of the pipeline after the election?

Yep- Hillary and the State Dept had already gave it tenative approval- and I believe as the XL executives that have been up here several times said- he was going to sign off on it before---until the Nebraska NIMBY's objected...

Who else are the greenies going to vote for? Newt? Paul who wants to do away with the EPA? :lol: And what he was losing in greenie support he was picking up with union and moderate blue collar worker support...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
WWTRD, Old Geezer?

What would Teddy Roosevelt (one of your "heroes") do? Sit around like a milquetoast sop and wring his hands while the country slid further and further into the abyss, or would he get behind what was right for America, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead....and push harder than a woman having triplets to get the ball rolling on the pipeline? What about the "big stick"? Surely Teddy would have found ways to cut through the BS and get things moving.

YOUR Fearless Leader has no interest in what is best for this country. His only concern is getting another 4 year vacation next November so Sharia Law can become the law of the land. The EPA could have their power stripped, if that's what it took.

Big Government at it's finest.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Oldtimer said:
And what he was losing in greenie support he was picking up with union and moderate blue collar worker support...

WHAT blue collar support? 10% unemployment and he has blue collar support? :roll:

Union support? The unions are dead. Dead. Dead. The greenies have far more power and influence than the unions or blue collar folks ever had.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
WWTRD, Old Geezer?

What would Teddy Roosevelt (one of your "heroes") do? Sit around like a milquetoast sop and wring his hands while the country slid further and further into the abyss, or would he get behind what was right for America, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead....and push harder than a woman having triplets to get the ball rolling on the pipeline? What about the "big stick"? Surely Teddy would have found ways to cut through the BS and get things moving.

You forget- Teddy didn't have the Nixon Presidential mandated EPA law then either....

This whole pipeline has been a touch and go situation- fought not only in this country but Canada (and around the world) by national and international enviro groups who have put up $Millions opposing it and oil sands oil...

It was going to be touchy getting it all past the courts before-- but now if you don't do everything in the planning just right- dot every i and cross every t - there is a good chance that the courts would totally stop it....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
So your hero Teddy would have just laid down and took one for the team? All the EPA BS is just that. The EPA was "created"...it can damn sure be "un-created". Your Fearless Leader has bowed to just about every piss pot dictator and 3rd world man dress wearing thug, he may as well bow to an agency of his own government.

Seems like Fearless Leader follows the rules when it suits his agenda.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Killing the pipeline is not the only option......

Despite the language in the tax package, Obama can kill the project and likely can still delay it. He could reject it based on the national interest argument, or he could give it a thumbs up, but delay it by awaiting a route study.

If Obama decides the pipeline is not in the national interest, "it would effectively be the end of the project," said Johnston, although TransCanada would likely still move forward with a smaller leg of the pipeline from the Cushing, Oklahoma oil hub to Texas.

Even if Obama approves it within 60 days, he could do so conditionally by declaring the project is in the national interest, but contingent on the completion of the State Department's study on alternative routes through Nebraska.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-keystone-pipeline-idUSTRE7BM1A620111223
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kind of hard to even develop a plan- let alone approve a plan- when the Nebraska NIMBY's haven't even decided where they will allow the plan to be ... :roll: :p


OIL PIPELINE-NEBRASKA
Nebraska gives pipeline firm map of areas to avoid
Associated Press Montana News Summary
Friday, December 30th 2011

(Stations: Note Montana interest.)
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - The Canadian company that wants to build
a $7 billion pipeline to tar sands oil across the Plains to
refineries near the Gulf of Mexico now has a map of areas to
avoid in Nebraska.


Nebraska officials released the map of the Sandhills region
Thursday
to guide TransCanada's efforts to develop a new route
for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.


TransCanada agreed in November to develop a new route
through Nebraska to avoid the environmentally sensitive
Sandhills. The entire project remains on hold while a new route
is developed and studied.


TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL project is designed to
carry oil from Canada across Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

TransCanada also has proposed connecting it to the Bakken
oil field in Montana and North Dakota.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
It's not the actual landowners who are causing the problem Einstein. :roll:

It's your Democratic Green brethren................................. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top