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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: US announces withdrawal from TPP [View all]JHan
(10,173 posts)64. "since you know so much" - it's a massive agreement..
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 Departments 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 nations leadership in climate talks because the pipeline was perceived as enabling further [greenhouse gas] emissions globally.
"TransCanadas 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 Obamas administration will raise several counterarguments. First, it will argue that the President has inherent and unilateral constitutional authority to control the nations 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 Presidents unilateral decision to approve international pipelines."
If the TPP had reached further, this case would have taken front and center for law makers.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
83 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Problem is protectionism can sometimes make things worse like it did after the
cstanleytech
Jan 2017
#20
I agree 100%. China will now dominate the largest consumer market of this century - Asia.
Trust Buster
Jan 2017
#35
Agreed, and the shortsighted America will see higher prices and a loss of potential American jobs
Trust Buster
Jan 2017
#58
agree. I feel for all the small asian pacific countries who loved the idea of their own free trade
Sunlei
Jan 2017
#73
I 100% agree I like Obama but I hated the TPP. I miss Obama already though :(. n/t.
ZM90
Jan 2017
#30
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
Yeah-those sweat shops are so much better than what they have been doing for centuries.
jalan48
Jan 2017
#55
Actually, in Mexico workers were forced off their farms and into manufacturing centers.
jalan48
Jan 2017
#59
Good. The guy is still a fascist, but getting out of TPP and renegotiating trade agreements
PatrickforO
Jan 2017
#21
That means Mexico can ask for renegotiation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
roamer65
Jan 2017
#33
You are correct. This will be a two way street that will increase price and cost U.S. jobs.
Trust Buster
Jan 2017
#37
Many on the left refused to acknowledge what you talk about here, and contributed
Squinch
Jan 2017
#80
"This reduces the wholesale price of Melania and Ivanka's cheap, tawdry crap by at least 30 percent"
jmowreader
Jan 2017
#44
ALL TPP countries love the extra billions in trade & China is happy to take USA Asian Pacific seat.
Sunlei
Jan 2017
#70
And middle America begins blaming Obama for the resulting inflation in 3..2..1...
Squinch
Jan 2017
#76