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.
President Obama vetoes Keystone pipeline bill
- Thread starter Suzanimal
- Start date
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,972
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.
Evidently there's a lot of non-libertarians within the liberty movement as well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 64,262
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.
You know it.
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 64,262
The reason to pipe it to a port is for export. How does that help the U.S. stop depending upon Saudi Oil?
morfeeis
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 395
I disagree with most almost everything Obama has done, said or wanted to do, but with this veto i agree with.
Then apparently Ron Paul himself is a non libertarian.
Cabal
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,972
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,972
You said you'd have voted for the bill.
Eminent domain seizures and cronyism are necessary results of 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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,972
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 11,004
Well I am glad it was vetoed I am against this for many reasons.
NIU Students for Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,691
Your point? Ron voted for AUMF in 2001, so was that not a mistake?
NIU Students for Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,691
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?
Similar threads
