Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHan

(10,173 posts)
64. "since you know so much" - it's a massive agreement..
Sat Jan 21, 2017, 11:02 PM
Jan 2017

I don't know everything there is to know, but I have tried to assess it objectively.

We've never lost to a foreign company in these tribunals. Politics impacted the project because of delays and poor communication with the main stake holders - the Tribes.

When we enter agreements, we have to uphold what is expected on our end.. Clearly mistakes were made. If you're really interested in the complexities you're welcome to read this blog: : http://www.energylawprof.com/?p=691

"On November 6, the current Secretary of State, John Kerry rejected the Keystone XL pipeline after seven years of review. The official U.S. Record of Decision stuck by the State Department’s controversial previous conclusion that the pipeline would improve U.S. energy security, benefit the economy, and would be unlikely to increase greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. (It also suggested that the pipeline might even decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by moving oil transport from railroads to pipelines, making oil transport more efficient.) But the U.S. concluded that the pipeline was ultimately not in the national interest because it could undercut the nation’s leadership in climate talks because the pipeline was “perceived as enabling further [greenhouse gas] emissions globally.”



"TransCanada’s key argument is that, in the absence of any law, the President does not have unilateral authority to reject an international oil pipeline based on this kind of consideration. Although Presidents have claimed power to decide whether a pipeline is in the national interest since President Johnson in 1968, TransCanada argues that this power has never been fully tested because the President has never rejected an international pipeline.

This creates something of a puzzle: if Congress has never passed a law governing international oil pipelines and the President does not have authority to reject an oil pipeline, then who may, in fact, regulate pipeline border crossings?

One possible answer is that international oil pipelines are primarily regulated by the states, just like domestic oil pipelines. The U.S., unlike Canada, primarily relies on state-by-state regulation for interstate oil pipelines. That is, if no law has been enacted governing international oil pipelines, then the only laws that govern them are the same ones that govern domestic oil pipelines.

President Obama’s administration will raise several counterarguments. First, it will argue that the President has inherent and unilateral constitutional authority to control the nation’s borders, so he must have some kind of ability to control international border crossings. Second, if Congress has not established any criteria for the President to use in this decision, then he is free to create his own criteria. Third, President Johnson established this process almost fifty years ago and it has been frequently used to approve pipelines so Congress has, with the passage of time, acquiesced to this process. Fourth, federal district courts have upheld the President’s unilateral decision to approve international pipelines."


If the TPP had reached further, this case would have taken front and center for law makers.
It was an objective that I and Bernie wanted. retrowire Jan 2017 #1
Agreed NWCorona Jan 2017 #2
Here, here but then yuck Rural_Progressive Jan 2017 #12
Same here. tenorly Jan 2017 #19
Problem is protectionism can sometimes make things worse like it did after the cstanleytech Jan 2017 #20
Too true. nt marybourg Jan 2017 #63
stupidest move in a post WW2 history. kennetha Jan 2017 #26
I agree 100%. China will now dominate the largest consumer market of this century - Asia. Trust Buster Jan 2017 #35
This cannot be understated. They will also have all of Australia. NotThisTime Jan 2017 #42
Agreed, and the shortsighted America will see higher prices and a loss of potential American jobs Trust Buster Jan 2017 #58
Exactly. We will be sorry one day. Hoyt Jan 2017 #51
Agree. Hate to agree, but agree Freethinker65 Jan 2017 #57
agree. I feel for all the small asian pacific countries who loved the idea of their own free trade Sunlei Jan 2017 #73
We will regret this but people won't even inform themselves. yardwork Jan 2017 #75
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2017 #28
I'm certain you're about to be banned but retrowire Jan 2017 #29
I 100% agree I like Obama but I hated the TPP. I miss Obama already though :(. n/t. ZM90 Jan 2017 #30
Me too, I'm glad... Raine Jan 2017 #46
Let's now sit and see the jobs pour in Nick Otean Jan 2017 #74
Not. Squinch Jan 2017 #77
We'll see underpants Jan 2017 #3
They also want to renegotiate NAFTA... I wonder how that will play out. n/t secondwind Jan 2017 #4
Say hello to higher prices on imports Zorro Jan 2017 #5
yup... SledDriver Jan 2017 #8
Sounds like a step in the right direction. jalan48 Jan 2017 #16
No, the problem is not that they need to go away as retailers employee alot of people the problem is cstanleytech Jan 2017 #22
The bigger problem to me is that most of their products are made in Third World countries where jalan48 Jan 2017 #24
So now the can go back to rice paddys and dirt farms at much less pay. Hoyt Jan 2017 #52
Yeah-those sweat shops are so much better than what they have been doing for centuries. jalan48 Jan 2017 #55
No one made them leave the rice paddy. They choose a chance to learn Hoyt Jan 2017 #56
Actually, in Mexico workers were forced off their farms and into manufacturing centers. jalan48 Jan 2017 #59
Sure. $8 an hour at an Audi plant forced them from the 50 cent a day dirt farm. Hoyt Jan 2017 #60
Exactly, taxes on the corporations are a way to balance things out. cstanleytech Jan 2017 #83
Exactly mdbl Jan 2017 #62
That's good in many ways madville Jan 2017 #43
China happy? n/t delisen Jan 2017 #6
Great. Now China has ALL of Asia on a silver platter. Yavin4 Jan 2017 #7
thanks for a true and rational post OKNancy Jan 2017 #11
Are you being sarcastic? Yavin4 Jan 2017 #15
not at all. I agree with you OKNancy Jan 2017 #17
Okay. Sorry. Yavin4 Jan 2017 #18
I agree. This is an extremely short sighted and emotional move. Trust Buster Jan 2017 #36
Exactly tammywammy Jan 2017 #13
TPP would have made no difference. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #32
Maybe, but being able to pass our own laws and regulations Rural_Progressive Jan 2017 #14
The TPP was never going to take those things away. JHan Jan 2017 #25
How can you possibly make that statement Rural_Progressive Jan 2017 #38
Check on this link: JHan Jan 2017 #40
Not what I asked for and you didn't provide it because you can't Rural_Progressive Jan 2017 #66
Actually other stakeholders have seen it: JHan Jan 2017 #67
Do explain how and why Trans Canada is suing the US truebluegreen Jan 2017 #61
"since you know so much" - it's a massive agreement.. JHan Jan 2017 #64
Canada has lost. truebluegreen Jan 2017 #69
I get the reticence.. JHan Jan 2017 #71
Pretty much. SMH. JHan Jan 2017 #23
Yep bravenak Jan 2017 #27
I agree with you that this is a mistake.n/t MBS Jan 2017 #53
Aaaaaand there it is. Squinch Jan 2017 #78
can you say DOW 9000 elmac Jan 2017 #9
Great news! Talk Is Cheap Jan 2017 #10
Good. The guy is still a fascist, but getting out of TPP and renegotiating trade agreements PatrickforO Jan 2017 #21
So it was pointless to keep the platform ambiguous on this. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #31
That means Mexico can ask for renegotiation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. roamer65 Jan 2017 #33
It will be problematic Penn Voter Jan 2017 #34
You are correct. This will be a two way street that will increase price and cost U.S. jobs. Trust Buster Jan 2017 #37
The thing that most bothered me about Sanders kennetha Jan 2017 #39
Good post. llmart Jan 2017 #65
Many on the left refused to acknowledge what you talk about here, and contributed Squinch Jan 2017 #80
What's that they say about "broken clocks"? Hayabusa Jan 2017 #41
Exactly NWCorona Jan 2017 #45
"This reduces the wholesale price of Melania and Ivanka's cheap, tawdry crap by at least 30 percent" jmowreader Jan 2017 #44
Good! nt Quackers Jan 2017 #47
well rtracey Jan 2017 #48
Outstanding! This will piss off the establishment in both parties. nt m-lekktor Jan 2017 #49
Good, this will piss off the 1%'rs harun Jan 2017 #50
FDR established free trade as a fundamental of sound economics tirebiter Jan 2017 #54
Free Trade is a toxic issue. Has been for a while. hollowdweller Jan 2017 #68
ALL TPP countries love the extra billions in trade & China is happy to take USA Asian Pacific seat. Sunlei Jan 2017 #70
The Chinese are quivering in their boots... brooklynite Jan 2017 #72
And middle America begins blaming Obama for the resulting inflation in 3..2..1... Squinch Jan 2017 #76
I'll be curious to see if all those here extolling this move "because Bernie" will admit that Squinch Jan 2017 #79
I've admitted here before when I was wrong. NWCorona Jan 2017 #81
What we are seeing is the unravelling of progress SteamAddict Jan 2017 #82
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US announces withdrawal f...»Reply #64