President Obama vetoes Keystone pipeline bill

[Brett85]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Then apparently Ron Paul himself is a non libertarian.

 

[Cabal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well I am glad it was vetoed I am against this for many reasons.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

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]

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]

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?