To be honest, I have never understood the liberal left opposition to the Keystone Pipeline. I have always figured the democrats oppose the pipeline because the republicans support it. The pipeline provides a safer way to transport oil, it would create jobs, and assist in the United States moving away from dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. The Keystone Pipeline would provide assistance in a problem we all admit we need to deal with - dependence on overseas oil.
Yet, there they are, fighting against a solution, and now the illogical battle has landed in Lincoln, Nebraska as the State’s Supreme Court hears arguments in a case examining whether lawmakers short-circuited the regular approval process in an attempt to expedite the pipeline’s construction.
The court’s ruling – not expected for several months -- could force President Obama’s hand in making a final decision whether to green light the oft-stalled project - a project he himself has found to be difficult to discuss, and impossible to support.
Friday’s case before the seven-member court does not examine whether the pipeline should be built in Nebraska – or anywhere else -- but rather if the state’s unicameral legislature improperly passed a law giving the governor authority to approve the project rather than the state’s Public Service Commission. It will take a supermajority of five justices to invalidate the law.
Earlier this year, a lower state court judge ruled the lawmakers’ actions violated Nebraska’s constitution. The Obama administration took the ruling as a sign that the Nebraska portion of the pipeline’s routing could be in jeopardy and effectively put its review process on hold.
Because the proposed pipeline originates in Canada and crosses over the border, the State Department must review the plan. In addition, Obama would have to sign off on the project before it can move forward - or at least that is what today's legal experts tell us.
Yet, there they are, fighting against a solution, and now the illogical battle has landed in Lincoln, Nebraska as the State’s Supreme Court hears arguments in a case examining whether lawmakers short-circuited the regular approval process in an attempt to expedite the pipeline’s construction.
The court’s ruling – not expected for several months -- could force President Obama’s hand in making a final decision whether to green light the oft-stalled project - a project he himself has found to be difficult to discuss, and impossible to support.
Friday’s case before the seven-member court does not examine whether the pipeline should be built in Nebraska – or anywhere else -- but rather if the state’s unicameral legislature improperly passed a law giving the governor authority to approve the project rather than the state’s Public Service Commission. It will take a supermajority of five justices to invalidate the law.
Earlier this year, a lower state court judge ruled the lawmakers’ actions violated Nebraska’s constitution. The Obama administration took the ruling as a sign that the Nebraska portion of the pipeline’s routing could be in jeopardy and effectively put its review process on hold.
Because the proposed pipeline originates in Canada and crosses over the border, the State Department must review the plan. In addition, Obama would have to sign off on the project before it can move forward - or at least that is what today's legal experts tell us.
Constitutionally, it's none of the federal government's business except where the pipe crosses the national border. The pipeline's existence inside States are solely the decision of those States. It is an internal State issue, at that point, and it is none of the federal government's business what the States do with the pipeline inside their State.
As for the regulation of interstate commerce, that too is a no-no for the federal government to get involved in. Based on the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the federal court system, and based on original jurisdiction as laid out by Article III, Section 2, the Supreme Court, is only supposed to get involved if their is a conflict between the States at the point where commerce will cross State lines. If there is no conflict between the State legislatures regarding interstate commerce, the federal government has no authority to be involved.
Environmentalists falsely claim the pipeline endangers underground water resources and further encourages oil drilling in the tar sands region of Alberta. “Why should we allow Canada to continue to mine this kind of fossil fuel which we know is only going to harm the climate?” claims one environmentalist.
Environmentalists falsely claim the pipeline endangers underground water resources and further encourages oil drilling in the tar sands region of Alberta. “Why should we allow Canada to continue to mine this kind of fossil fuel which we know is only going to harm the climate?” claims one environmentalist.
First of all, what they do in their country is their business. They are going to pump that oil out of the ground, whether there is a Keystone Pipeline, or not. They will ship that oil in a more dangerous manner, using the seas, if there is no pipeline, and we will receive no benefit regarding oil drilling they are going to do, whether we participate, or not.
As for harming the climate - You mean man-made global warming? You mean the debunked idea that man-made participation in "greenhouse gas emissions" have something to do with the temperature of the planet?
The carbon dioxide the human race emits into the atmosphere has a negligible effect on climate, with the primary source of climate change being the sun, and natural cycles. Yet, by supporting the fantasy of the man-made climate change hoax, these idiots hold hostage a safe way to extract oil from the ground, a safe way to transport that oil, and they stand in the way of a project that could join the oil boom of domestic oil that moves us away from buying oil from terrorism supporting countries.
And, on top of that, the pipeline would employ thousands of labor union members. . .
And, on top of that, the pipeline would employ thousands of labor union members. . .
As if jobs is a concern of the liberal left environmentalist loon.
Never mind the energy security part of the equation.
“This pipeline has been so over studied and over analyzed and we’ve looked over every single square inch of dirt that it’s going to cross over,” Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning told Fox News. “I think it’s time to build it,” he added.
The planned 1,179-mile pipeline would start in central Alberta and move south across the heartland of America into Nebraska, where it would meet up with preexisting 36-inch pipes.
The key factor in the case may be whether the pipeline is considered a “common carrier” under Nebraska law. Common carriers are “for hire” entities that are available to the public to transport goods or people. In Nebraska, the state’s Public Service Commission solely regulates common carriers.
“This pipeline has been so over studied and over analyzed and we’ve looked over every single square inch of dirt that it’s going to cross over,” Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning told Fox News. “I think it’s time to build it,” he added.
The planned 1,179-mile pipeline would start in central Alberta and move south across the heartland of America into Nebraska, where it would meet up with preexisting 36-inch pipes.
The key factor in the case may be whether the pipeline is considered a “common carrier” under Nebraska law. Common carriers are “for hire” entities that are available to the public to transport goods or people. In Nebraska, the state’s Public Service Commission solely regulates common carriers.
There's that 'regulate' word. Since when are a bunch of bureaucrats supposed to be ranked over the consent of the governed? Since when is "regulators" the ones running the country?
The State argues that a pipeline can be considered a common carrier; in this instance it isn’t because the Keystone XL Pipeline merely travels through the State rather than servicing businesses or residents solely inside Nebraska.
“I think that it’s clear that in this State, common carriers are defined as intrastate – just within the borders of our state,” an official explained. “This pipeline, because it runs through other states including ours, it’s an interstate carrier.”
There are other more technical issues in the case being argued, but in the end it is lawyer-speak for "follow the money" and "follow the power-grabbing." In the end it is, as my buddy JASmius likes to say, a battle between the right tribe and the wrong tribe, and they are coming up with all kinds of silly technicalities over an issue that simply comes down to jobs, transportation of oil, and whether or not we are willing to continue to send money to countries that support terrorism against the United States. In the end it is that simple. . . and the answer to the whole mess is obvious - build the pipeline.
The State argues that a pipeline can be considered a common carrier; in this instance it isn’t because the Keystone XL Pipeline merely travels through the State rather than servicing businesses or residents solely inside Nebraska.
“I think that it’s clear that in this State, common carriers are defined as intrastate – just within the borders of our state,” an official explained. “This pipeline, because it runs through other states including ours, it’s an interstate carrier.”
There are other more technical issues in the case being argued, but in the end it is lawyer-speak for "follow the money" and "follow the power-grabbing." In the end it is, as my buddy JASmius likes to say, a battle between the right tribe and the wrong tribe, and they are coming up with all kinds of silly technicalities over an issue that simply comes down to jobs, transportation of oil, and whether or not we are willing to continue to send money to countries that support terrorism against the United States. In the end it is that simple. . . and the answer to the whole mess is obvious - build the pipeline.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1 comment:
I have already read the transcript of that submission, and I believe it to be in error. I additionally have a problem with bureaucrats having more say than the representatives of the governed. This is a case of bureaucracy standing in its own way. Ultimately, regulators are formed by the legislatures, therefore they can be dismantled by the legislatures. In this case, we have the created claiming it has power over its creator, and then is using legal avenues to throw its weight around.
Finally, there is no way anyone can define a pipeline as a common carrier, for the ability of the public to transport goods in a common carrier the carrier must be accessible to the public, but based on the reality of the dynamics of an interstate pipeline, that access is simply not available. Therefore, it is not a "common carrier," but is instead an interstate pipeline designed to carry a specific product. It is an interstate carrier.
Post a Comment