TransCanada sues Obama administration over Keystone pipeline rejection

[Freewill]

As long as Congress agrees with Obama what is the problem?

Keystone builder TransCanada files lawsuit against Obama administration for rejecting project

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

 

[TNHarley]

This is one of the things he did that I agreed with. I don't think he did it for the right reasons, but nonetheless..
I don't see how FORCING people to give up their private land to a FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT company benefits Americans.
That is NOT what eminent domain was supposed to be about!
Other than that, I could care less. Its dirty ass oil but safer than rail cars.

 

[Freewill]

This is one of the things he did that I agreed with. I don't think he did it for the right reasons, but nonetheless..
I don't see how FORCING people to give up their private land to a FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT company benefits Americans.
That is NOT what eminent domain was supposed to be about!
Other than that, I could care less. Its dirty ass oil but safer than rail cars.

I agree about the eminent domain part but then again since all the land in the US is owned by someone I guess progress could stop. I would agree with this project if eminent domain was not an issue. But then again I do have a slight problem with people owning thousands of acres then stopping a project because of a small portion which would not effect them in the least.

 

[TNHarley]

This is one of the things he did that I agreed with. I don't think he did it for the right reasons, but nonetheless..
I don't see how FORCING people to give up their private land to a FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT company benefits Americans.
That is NOT what eminent domain was supposed to be about!
Other than that, I could care less. Its dirty ass oil but safer than rail cars.

I agree about the eminent domain part but then again since all the land in the US is owned by someone I guess progress could stop. I would agree with this project if eminent domain was not an issue. But then again I do have a slight problem with people owning thousands of acres then stopping a project because of a small portion which would not effect them in the least.

Shouldn't matter. It is SUPPOSED to be there property
When eminent domain is used for the betterment of the population at large, that's the only way to go! But this, this, is bullshit.

 

[Eaglewings]

This is one of the things he did that I agreed with. I don't think he did it for the right reasons, but nonetheless..
I don't see how FORCING people to give up their private land to a FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT company benefits Americans.
That is NOT what eminent domain was supposed to be about!
Other than that, I could care less. Its dirty ass oil but safer than rail cars.

Well said~

 

[bendog]

As long as Congress agrees with Obama what is the problem?

Keystone builder TransCanada files lawsuit against Obama administration for rejecting project

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

What's the point of the entire project, beyond allowing oil companies to use refineries and/or ports in the South to ship oil overseas? It's not like the artic pipeline, because then we really were held hostage by OPEC. But, I've never heard a real argument that this thing makes any citizens life really better.

On the other hand, and contrary to the OPs assertion, there is a policy argument against the thing. Essentially, this is no different from licensing a new coal electricity plant. Once you build infrastructure, it tends to be used .... unless it's a total boodogle like a bridge to nowhere. One can disbelieve that fossil fuels have a negative impact. But, if you want to change an administration's energy policy, the proper way to do it is to stop running clowns for president and win a freaking election.

 

[Freewill]

As long as Congress agrees with Obama what is the problem?

Keystone builder TransCanada files lawsuit against Obama administration for rejecting project

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

What's the point of the entire project, beyond allowing oil companies to use refineries and/or ports in the South to ship oil overseas? It's not like the artic pipeline, because then we really were held hostage by OPEC. But, I've never heard a real argument that this thing makes any citizens life really better.

On the other hand, and contrary to the OPs assertion, there is a policy argument against the thing. Essentially, this is no different from licensing a new coal electricity plant. Once you build infrastructure, it tends to be used .... unless it's a total boodogle like a bridge to nowhere. One can disbelieve that fossil fuels have a negative impact. But, if you want to change an administration's energy policy, the proper way to do it is to stop running clowns for president and win a freaking election.

Sigh, the old win an election BS when the democrat party has been handed their asses for the last two mid terms. So elections were run but Obama circumvents congress. I have a prediction, no matter who the Democrats nominate they will get their asses handed to them by whomever runs against them. You kind of political BS is going out the window. America has had enough and has shown you in the last two midterms. And if you want to repeat the BS about people showing up for the elections ask yourself first why your party members are so lazy or don't give a crap.

 

[Rustic]

This is one of the things he did that I agreed with. I don't think he did it for the right reasons, but nonetheless..
I don't see how FORCING people to give up their private land to a FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT company benefits Americans.
That is NOT what eminent domain was supposed to be about!
Other than that, I could care less. Its dirty ass oil but safer than rail cars.

Well said~

This is true, the taking of property rights is one of many wrong roads this country is going down.

 

[bendog]

As long as Congress agrees with Obama what is the problem?

Keystone builder TransCanada files lawsuit against Obama administration for rejecting project

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

What's the point of the entire project, beyond allowing oil companies to use refineries and/or ports in the South to ship oil overseas? It's not like the artic pipeline, because then we really were held hostage by OPEC. But, I've never heard a real argument that this thing makes any citizens life really better.

On the other hand, and contrary to the OPs assertion, there is a policy argument against the thing. Essentially, this is no different from licensing a new coal electricity plant. Once you build infrastructure, it tends to be used .... unless it's a total boodogle like a bridge to nowhere. One can disbelieve that fossil fuels have a negative impact. But, if you want to change an administration's energy policy, the proper way to do it is to stop running clowns for president and win a freaking election.

Sigh, the old win an election BS when the democrat party has been handed their asses for the last two mid terms. So elections were run but Obama circumvents congress. I have a prediction, no matter who the Democrats nominate they will get their asses handed to them by whomever runs against them. You kind of political BS is going out the window. America has had enough and has shown you in the last two midterms. And if you want to repeat the BS about people showing up for the elections ask yourself first why your party members are so lazy or don't give a crap.

You want the gop to set an energy policy, don't run another clown.

 

[Freewill]

As long as Congress agrees with Obama what is the problem?

Keystone builder TransCanada files lawsuit against Obama administration for rejecting project

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

What's the point of the entire project, beyond allowing oil companies to use refineries and/or ports in the South to ship oil overseas? It's not like the artic pipeline, because then we really were held hostage by OPEC. But, I've never heard a real argument that this thing makes any citizens life really better.

On the other hand, and contrary to the OPs assertion, there is a policy argument against the thing. Essentially, this is no different from licensing a new coal electricity plant. Once you build infrastructure, it tends to be used .... unless it's a total boodogle like a bridge to nowhere. One can disbelieve that fossil fuels have a negative impact. But, if you want to change an administration's energy policy, the proper way to do it is to stop running clowns for president and win a freaking election.

Sigh, the old win an election BS when the democrat party has been handed their asses for the last two mid terms. So elections were run but Obama circumvents congress. I have a prediction, no matter who the Democrats nominate they will get their asses handed to them by whomever runs against them. You kind of political BS is going out the window. America has had enough and has shown you in the last two midterms. And if you want to repeat the BS about people showing up for the elections ask yourself first why your party members are so lazy or don't give a crap.

You want the gop to set an energy policy, don't run another clown.

there was nothing wrong with Romney, Obama's reelection, and GWB's, shows how pathetic is the voting public.

 

[bendog]

As long as Congress agrees with Obama what is the problem?

Keystone builder TransCanada files lawsuit against Obama administration for rejecting project

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

What's the point of the entire project, beyond allowing oil companies to use refineries and/or ports in the South to ship oil overseas? It's not like the artic pipeline, because then we really were held hostage by OPEC. But, I've never heard a real argument that this thing makes any citizens life really better.

On the other hand, and contrary to the OPs assertion, there is a policy argument against the thing. Essentially, this is no different from licensing a new coal electricity plant. Once you build infrastructure, it tends to be used .... unless it's a total boodogle like a bridge to nowhere. One can disbelieve that fossil fuels have a negative impact. But, if you want to change an administration's energy policy, the proper way to do it is to stop running clowns for president and win a freaking election.

Sigh, the old win an election BS when the democrat party has been handed their asses for the last two mid terms. So elections were run but Obama circumvents congress. I have a prediction, no matter who the Democrats nominate they will get their asses handed to them by whomever runs against them. You kind of political BS is going out the window. America has had enough and has shown you in the last two midterms. And if you want to repeat the BS about people showing up for the elections ask yourself first why your party members are so lazy or don't give a crap.

You want the gop to set an energy policy, don't run another clown.

there was nothing wrong with Romney, Obama's reelection, and GWB's, shows how pathetic is the voting public.

yep. the people are just too stupid to vote right.