President Obama vetoes Keystone pipeline bill

[pcosmar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[Brett85]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-govern...n-property-rights-key-step-in-reversing-kelo/

Surprisingly, Kelly Ayotte was the other Republican Senator.

 

[invisible]

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! ... 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-govern...n-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]

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]

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.