Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Keystone XL pipeline bill clears Senate hurdle despite veto threat

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,320
    Sounds like there's a question of Constitutionality to me. How can we allow a foreign country/corporation to have eminent domain over our own citizens? It's an issue of property rights.

    Why Nebraska’s Supreme Court Decision Might be Bad News for Keystone XL


    By Zoë Schlanger 1/9/15 at 2:00 PM


    The decision approves Transcanada's route through Nebraska, but might open a whole other can of worms for the company. Andrew Cullen/Reuters

    The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday approved a route for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline through the state, by overturning a lower court’s ruling that the law behind it was unconstitutional. But environmental groups and lawyers for the landowners in the case say this might end up benefiting the fight against Keystone XL, and hurt Transcanada, when a congressional bill about the pipeline lands on President Obama’s desk in the coming weeks.

    “Obviously we have a bloody nose this morning, but we are not down for the count. Transcanada is in a losing position because they have to defend a very tricky route,” said Jane Kleeb, the director of Bold Nebraska, an environmental group advocating against the pipeline.

    The route that is now approved for Transcanada still crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water, as well as the extremely sensitive ecosystem of the Sandhills of north-central Nebraska. Environmental advocates say that will give President Obama more of a reason to veto pro-Keystone XL legislation.

    Meanwhile, the landowners in the case just want to keep the pipeline out of their backyard.

    “It is just a ridiculous idea that a foreign corporation can have the power of eminent domain to start with—but then the idea that our legislature would grant them [that power]…to me that’s totally outrageous,” Randy Thompson, a landowner and lead plaintiff in the Nebraska case, said Friday. “I think that anyone who owns property in the United States should be outraged by that proposition. We need to address this, not only in Nebraska, but as a nation.”

    “It’s time for our president to put an end to this damn thing, and let us get back to our lives and get back to raising food for America.”

    The Nebraska law in question, LB 1161, had granted eminent domain powers to Transcanada, and gave Nebraska’s governor the authority to approve the route. In February, a district court sided with three landowners whose property would be used to make way for the pipeline, calling the law unconstitutional. Friday’s Supreme Court decision, however, overturned that ruling.

    Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts was quick to praise the decision, saying it clears the way for the “safest pipeline ever built,” reports Fred Knapp of Nebraska Public Radio.

    But the Supreme Court’s decision [PDF here] was not based on the merits of the case at all, but rather on procedural technicalities: Four out of the seven Nebraska Supreme Court judges concluded that the law was unconstitutional, but the Nebraska Constitution requires a supermajority of five judges to sway the opinion of the court. Some of the seven-judge panel chose not to participate in the vote, leaving the court deadlocked.

    "[Because] there are not five judges of this court voting on the constitutionality of [the legislation], the legislation must stand by default," the court said in its ruling. "[The] citizens cannot get a binding decision from this court."

    “No judge found the bill to be constitutional. It was allowed to stand on a technicality,” said Ken Winston, a policy advocate for Nebraska Sierra Club.

    Brian Jorde, the lawyer for the Nebraska landowners in the case, told reporters on Friday that the decision leaves room for further legal challenge against the pipeline, but that he would not discuss the details of that until Monday.

    “Essentially [today’s outcome] is a nondecision open to further review,” he said.

    With the Nebraska case out of the way, the decision will come down to Obama. The Senate energy committee voted Thursday in favor of a bill that would immediately approve Keystone XL for construction, and the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass a similar bill.

    According to the White House, Obama plans to veto the bill, regardless of the Nebraska decision.

    "If presented to the president, he will veto the bill,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement on Friday.


    http://www.newsweek.com/why-nebraska...8205?piano_t=1
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #12
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    US House Greenlights Eminent Domain for Keystone Pipeline


    by CHIP NORTHRUP on MARCH 4, 2014


    The US House has voted to block the use of eminent domain for private interests – with one huge loophole exception – the Keystone XL Pipeline. The bill is intended to block the use of eminent domain for private development – most notoriously for sports stadiums that are financed with industrial revenue bonds and built for one team who can use the power of eminent domain to condemn land for the site. But there’s a catch: the exemption for a private Canadian pipeline company. . .

    Eminent Domain Authority – Passage – Vote Passed (353-65, 12 Not Voting)


    The House passed a bill Wednesday that would withhold federal economic development funds, for two fiscal years, from states and localities that seize property for private economic development using eminent domain. The bill would also allow landowners to sue if state or local governments wrongfully take their property in such situations.

    Evidently only Rep. John Conyers bothered to actually read the bill in its entirety:

    The only lawmaker to voice opposition to the legislation was Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. He said that since the Kelo decision more than 40 states have taken steps to amend their eminent domain laws to prevent abuses and “Congress should not now come charging in after seven years of work and presume to sit as a national zoning board.”


    He also noted that the bill exempts the Keystone XL pipeline from the eminent domain restrictions. That’s the project that a Canadian company wants to build from Canada to Texas. President Barack Obama has rejected the pipeline, pending further review, but congressional Republicans have pushed hard for its construction.

    So this was a backdoor way for the Republicans to enable a private Canadian pipeline company to try and use eminent domain to condemn right of way. At least two state courts – one in Nebraska and one in Texas- have blocked Keystone from condemning land in those states under eminent domain.

    If this House bill became law with that exemption, a private Canadian company would be granted eminent domain authority – as if it were a public utility. No eminent domain for private gain – especially for Cannucks with friends in Congress . . .
    Locals Discuss The Matter in Texas



    Last edited by JohnDoe2; 01-14-2015 at 01:14 AM.
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #13
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Spoken like someone who is in no danger of having land that has been in the family for generations taken through imminent domain.
    Hmmm. Spoken like someone who does. Is your opposition to the pipeline personal? Do you oppose eminent domain and all the infrastructure that relies upon it or just when it hits close to home? Eminent domain is an original Constitutional authority of government with Constitutional guarantees of fair compensation provided for in the 5th Amendment, part of our original Bill of Rights.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #14
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe2 View Post
    US House Greenlights Eminent Domain for Keystone Pipeline


    by CHIP NORTHRUP on MARCH 4, 2014


    The US House has voted to block the use of eminent domain for private interests – with one huge loophole exception – the Keystone XL Pipeline. The bill is intended to block the use of eminent domain for private development – most notoriously for sports stadiums that are financed with industrial revenue bonds and built for one team who can use the power of eminent domain to condemn land for the site. But there’s a catch: the exemption for a private Canadian pipeline company. . .

    Eminent Domain Authority – Passage – Vote Passed (353-65, 12 Not Voting)


    The House passed a bill Wednesday that would withhold federal economic development funds, for two fiscal years, from states and localities that seize property for private economic development using eminent domain. The bill would also allow landowners to sue if state or local governments wrongfully take their property in such situations.

    Evidently only Rep. John Conyers bothered to actually read the bill in its entirety:

    The only lawmaker to voice opposition to the legislation was Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. He said that since the Kelo decision more than 40 states have taken steps to amend their eminent domain laws to prevent abuses and “Congress should not now come charging in after seven years of work and presume to sit as a national zoning board.”


    He also noted that the bill exempts the Keystone XL pipeline from the eminent domain restrictions. That’s the project that a Canadian company wants to build from Canada to Texas. President Barack Obama has rejected the pipeline, pending further review, but congressional Republicans have pushed hard for its construction.

    So this was a backdoor way for the Republicans to enable a private Canadian pipeline company to try and use eminent domain to condemn right of way. At least two state courts – one in Nebraska and one in Texas- have blocked Keystone from condemning land in those states under eminent domain.

    If this House bill became law with that exemption, a private Canadian company would be granted eminent domain authority – as if it were a public utility. No eminent domain for private gain – especially for Cannucks with friends in Congress . . .
    Locals Discuss The Matter in Texas



    Do you all not realize that 3 phases of this 4 phase pipeline have already been built and are on-line except for the second part of the 3rd phase which is under construction and goes on-line this year? What they trying to do now is build and finish the 4th phase which is the section from Baker, Montana where is starts picking up American produced oil and continues to do so through South Dakota and Nebraska, where at Steele City the pipeline joins up with the existing Keystone Pipeline that's already been built and has been on-line since 2010.

    The only reason Obama opposes this section of the pipeline is because this is the section that allows American-oil producers to get their product to the refineries and off to market. Beware of the games this administration is playing on US. Obama could care less about the property owners involved in this section or the environmental or safety issues. Those are all business as usual issues with any pipeline or new infrastructure deal of any type. This is about the section that allows our companies and our oil in the upper midwest to get refined and off to market, and that is the only reason the Obama Administration opposes it and the only reason why the State Department hasn't finished its review after 6 years of studying it from a geo-political standpoint. After all, more American oil that can get to market cost-effectively puts some money in some American pockets and a tinge on Arab and foreign cartel oil prices, which is the only reason I can think of that would justify this section of the Keystone being exempt from the new law proposed by the US House of Representatives that reverses the effects of the Kelo Decision on eminent domain for private gain with the exception of this section of the Keystone Pipeline. It allows this important section for our country's upper midwest oil producers to use the pipeline to move their crude to refineries and the rest of the existing pipeline. I'm sure the Canadians could care less about this part of it, since it's not being built to move their oil but our own.
    Last edited by Judy; 01-14-2015 at 10:39 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #15
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    http://www.newsweek.com/why-nebraska...8205?piano_t=1

    Very good article, imblest. Thank you. As we know, the courts, especially with a political decision such as this, isn't alway right. Plyer vs Doe is an excellent example of that (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/artic...tend-us-public).

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #16
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Excerpt from Judy post:

    The only reason Obama opposes this section of the pipeline is because this is the section that allows American-oil producers to get their product to the refineries and off to market. Beware of the games this administration is playing on US. Obama could care less about the property owners involved in this section or the environmental or safety issues.
    Let me make one thing very clear, Obama's opposition to the pipeline has absolutely nothing to do with my position on the issue. Just thought I'd better clear that up.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #17
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,320
    I had been in favor of the pipeline, but then I started seeing lots of info on the eminent domain issue. I also started reading that the pipeline would not help American independence from foreign oil, that it would carry only Canadian oil to be refined and shipped, which is making me look twice at the issue. I've also seen that it would not create as many jobs as I had first heard. I'm no longer sure where I stand, but I do not like the idea that property is being taken from those who don't want to sell, especially for a foreign corporation where a special exception has been made.

    I know many here do not like Justin Amash, but I have to agree with him here--

    I support Keystone XL. I oppose cronyism. A bill should not specially exempt one company from laws. That's precisely what today's bill does.

    We have voted on several bills related to Keystone XL. I have supported versions that follow the Rule of Law. I have opposed versions that are materially similar to today's bill. Here's a previous vote explanation: http://facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/557041991001878.


    Justin Amash
    I voted present on H R 3, Northern Route Approval Act. The Keystone XL pipeline is a private project owned by TransCanada Corporation. This bill improperly exempts TransCanada Corporation—and no other company—from laws that require pipeline owners and operators to obtain certain government permits and approvals.

    I support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and holding it up for over four years (with no end in sight) for political reasons is wrong. It's improper, however, for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private project, while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that allowed such delays to occur. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," but the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL.

    As F.A. Hayek explained in The Constitution of Liberty: "It is because the lawgiver does not know the particular cases to which his rules will apply, and it is because the judge who applies them has no choice in drawing the conclusions that follow from the existing body of rules and the particular facts of the case, that it can be said that laws and not men rule. Because the rule is laid down in ignorance of the particular case and no man's will decides the coercion used to enforce it, the law is not arbitrary. This, however, is true only if by 'law' we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody. This generality is probably the most important aspect of that attribute of law which we have called its 'abstractness.' As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons."

    My commitment to my constituents when I took office was that I may vote present on legislation in three extremely rare circumstances (this is the 12th present vote out of nearly two thousand votes in Congress): (1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper means to achieve its ends, e.g., singling out a specific person or group for special treatment; (2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or (3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn't happened yet and I don't anticipate happening.

    H R 3 uses improper means to accomplish its laudable goal by singling out TransCanada Corporation and its Keystone XL pipeline for special treatment.

    It passed 241-175-1.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #18
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    http://www.newsweek.com/why-nebraska...8205?piano_t=1

    Very good article, imblest. Thank you. As we know, the courts, especially with a political decision such as this, isn't alway right. Plyer vs Doe is an excellent example of that (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/artic...tend-us-public).
    You're welcome, MW. I agree with you on the courts--they should not be the last word on every issue. The COnstitution was written such that the 3 branches had equal powers to check and balance one another. No one branch was intended to rule over all.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #19
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Do you all not realize that 3 phases of this 4 phase pipeline have already been built and are on-line except for the second part of the 3rd phase which is under construction and goes on-line this year? What they trying to do now is build and finish the 4th phase which is the section from Baker, Montana where is starts picking up American produced oil and continues to do so through South Dakota and Nebraska, where at Steele City the pipeline joins up with the existing Keystone Pipeline that's already been built and has been on-line since 2010.

    The only reason Obama opposes this section of the pipeline is because this is the section that allows American-oil producers to get their product to the refineries and off to market. Beware of the games this administration is playing on US. Obama could care less about the property owners involved in this section or the environmental or safety issues. Those are all business as usual issues with any pipeline or new infrastructure deal of any type. This is about the section that allows our companies and our oil in the upper midwest to get refined and off to market, and that is the only reason the Obama Administration opposes it and the only reason why the State Department hasn't finished its review after 6 years of studying it from a geo-political standpoint. After all, more American oil that can get to market cost-effectively puts some money in some American pockets and a tinge on Arab and foreign cartel oil prices, which is the only reason I can think of that would justify this section of the Keystone being exempt from the new law proposed by the US House of Representatives that reverses the effects of the Kelo Decision on eminent domain for private gain with the exception of this section of the Keystone Pipeline. It allows this important section for our country's upper midwest oil producers to use the pipeline to move their crude to refineries and the rest of the existing pipeline. I'm sure the Canadians could care less about this part of it, since it's not being built to move their oil but our own.
    Looking at the maps, it appears you are correct. There would be no reason to build that section except to pick up American oil.



    http://keystone-xl.com/keystone-xl-p...all-route-map/


    This is a good interactive map--

    http://environment.nationalgeographi...ine-route-map/

    However, all of this good still doesn't negate what this is doing to private property owners who don't want to sell. This is one of our basic rights as Americans, and though I don't own property, I'm not inclined to give it up.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #20
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Fox News Poll: Voters want Obama to sign bill approving Keystone pipeline

    By Dana Blanton
    Published January 14, 2015 FoxNews.com

    (AP)

    Most Americans of all political stripes support construction of the long-delayed Keystone XL oil pipeline, and want President Obama to sign legislation approving it, according to a new Fox News poll.
    The pipeline would transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States.

    A 65-percent majority says Obama should sign the Keystone legislation, according to the poll. That includes 82 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 52 percent of Democrats.


    Click here to view full results of the poll (pdf)


    Overall, only 22 percent of voters think the president should veto it -- which he has threatened to do.


    The U.S. House passed a bill approving the pipeline Friday. The Senate is now considering Keystone legislation, but there won’t be a final vote this week.


    Support for Keystone has held steady for years: 68 percent of voters backed it at the end of 2014, 70 percent in 2013 and 67 percent in 2012.


    Here again, support comes from more than half of Democrats, most independents and almost all Republicans.


    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,018 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from January 11-13, 2015.

    The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...tone-pipeline/

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Massive defense bill clears Senate hurdle
    By JohnDoe2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2014, 01:01 PM
  2. 'Gang of Eight' immigration bill clears Senate hurdle
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2013, 09:27 AM
  3. Immigration reform bill clears key Senate hurdle
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-24-2013, 12:11 PM
  4. $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill Clears Senate Hurdle
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 09:37 PM
  5. TX - Voter ID bill clears Texas Senate hurdle
    By FedUpinFarmersBranch in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 01:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •