• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eyeing Trump, Obama takes new action to ban Arctic drilling

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,408
Reaction score
38,968
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Eyeing Trump, Obama takes new action to ban Arctic drilling - CNNPolitics.com

(CNN)Looking to cement his environmental record, President Barack Obama took new action Tuesday barring offshore drilling in areas of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans indefinitely.
Obama relied on a 63-year-old law to make his moves, which will prevent future leasing of certain offshore areas for oil rights. His successor, Donald Trump, who has promised a policy allowing more US energy production, would face legal challenges if he attempted to reverse Obama's order.
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...l-drilling-on-millions-of-acres-of-u-s-waters

President Barack Obama banned new offshore oil and gas development in more than 100 million acres of the U.S. Arctic and undersea canyons in the Atlantic Ocean, an announcement certain to provoke a fight with the Republican-led Congress and his successor in the White House.

In a announcement coordinated between two of the world’s biggest oil producers, Canada committed to freeze new offshore leasing in its waters and review the matter every five years.

"These actions, and Canada’s parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on Earth," Obama said in a written statement. "They reflect the scientific assessment that even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region’s harsh conditions is limited."
Click to expand...
Both Canada and the US have announced this.
My opinion- the right decision
 
Mac77 said:
Libs are dreaming if they think obamas order cannot be reversed

All congress has to do is change the law
Click to expand...

Do your research. Not as easy as you think.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...l-drilling-on-millions-of-acres-of-u-s-waters
Although presidents have modified decisions made under the act from predecessors, they have never rescinded them altogether. A legal opinion from the U.S. attorney general in 1938 on similar designations under a different law said they “do not imply a power to undo.” And there have been no federal court rulings on the offshore energy statute.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
When Harper was in, I heard rumours that the fed was looking into Tuktoyaktuk being a deep-water port, with a pipeline going down the MacKenzie River. Ships could go east to Europe or west to Asia.
Click to expand...

MacKenzie Valley and that never came thru.
 
A U.S President is not delegated the power to legislate (Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.)
 
JANFU said:
Do your research. Not as easy as you think
Click to expand...

Present your case if you have one

If obama had found a loophole in the law congress can change the law
 
JANFU said:
MacKenzie Valley and that never came thru.
Click to expand...

Hope not. One thing, though, a road to Tuk and construction of, say, a container port or grain port would boost the economy in about the most depressed area of Canada. I think there's a big icebreaker being built now.
It's all depending on the ice-free shipping season continuing to grow, I guess.
 
Executive Orders are not typically subject to legal action, unless they violate a law directly.

They are instructions of policy from the Chief Executive to his subordinate agencies on how to deal with issues that are in their pervue.

Any order issued by a President can be undone by a subsequent President. Hence, the title "Chief Executive." :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Mac77 said:
Present your case if you have one

If obama had found a loophole in the law congress can change the law
Click to expand...

I did.
 
Grand Mal said:
Hope not. One thing, though, a road to Tuk and construction of, say, a container port or grain port would boost the economy in about the most depressed area of Canada. I think there's a big icebreaker being built now.
It's all depending on the ice-free shipping season continuing to grow, I guess.
Click to expand...

True enough, but Harper was a failure.
 
Renae said:
Obama moves to thwart will of the people, block incoming President from acting as the people asked.
Click to expand...

No not at all. Pls review Exxon Valdez for artic oil spills. Should help you get up to speed.
 
AllanHampton said:
A U.S President is not delegated the power to legislate (Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.)
Click to expand...


Captain Adverse said:
Executive Orders are not typically subject to legal action, unless they violate a law directly.

They are instructions of policy from the Chief Executive to his subordinate agencies on how to deal with issues that are in their pervue.

Any order issued by a President can be undone by a subsequent President. Hence, the title "Chief Executive." :coffeepap:
Click to expand...


Obama is invoking a 1953 law that already exists.


Obama expected to invoke 1953 law to block offshore drilling.html
 
Moot said:
Obama is invoking a 1953 law that already exists.


Obama expected to invoke 1953 law to block offshore drilling.html
Click to expand...

How can he do this while on his Hawaii vacation?

But seriously, GOP Senators threatened two years ago to do away with the filibuster on legislation. McConnell invented the nuclear option last decade but didn't use it. The GOP messaging machine continues to dominate DEMs.

And there are a dozen DEM Senators out of 25 up for reelection in 2018 who are at risk for this type of legislation .
 
Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

EO's are not law. However, a law does not prevent crime. The supreme Law of the land, the 1789 Constitution does not enforce itself and for that reason cannot prevent government Officials committing crime and usurpation. Federal government corruption (crime and usurpation) "continues" only with the complicity of the House in Congress (House has the power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, and the power of the purse, Article I, Section 7). House, in Congress, corruption "continues" only with the complicity of citizen Voters (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, ...)
 
NIMBY said:
How can he do this while on his Hawaii vacation?

But seriously, GOP Senators threatened two years ago to do away with the filibuster on legislation. McConnell invented the nuclear option last decade but didn't use it. The GOP messaging machine continues to dominate DEMs.

And there are a dozen DEM Senators out of 25 up for reelection in 2018 who are at risk for this type of legislation .
Click to expand...


It looks grim. I don't know what the answer is, but not doing anything to stop or slow them down doesn't seem right, either.

Perhaps it's meant to send a message to Putin. Before the sanctions, the Sec. of State nominee and Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerman, was going to help Russia drill offshore in the Arctic.
 
Last edited:
AllanHampton said:
Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

EO's are not law. However, a law does not prevent crime. The supreme Law of the land, the 1789 Constitution does not enforce itself and for that reason cannot prevent government Officials committing crime and usurpation. Federal government corruption (crime and usurpation) "continues" only with the complicity of the House in Congress (House has the power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, and the power of the purse, Article I, Section 7). House, in Congress, corruption "continues" only with the complicity of citizen Voters (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, ...)
Click to expand...

Obama is invoking a law that already exists. (see post # 14).

Obama expected to invoke 1953 law to block offshore drilling.html
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
True enough, but Harper was a failure.
Click to expand...

Yeah.
He did alright foreign policy-wise but his arrogant, cavalier attitude toward parliament and debate was impossible to justify. There were a couple other things about him that pissed me off but it was more than 20 minutes ago so I forget. Oh, yeah, his deficit budgets. He didn't even try to justify them.
Trudeau looks like being as strong a federalist as his daddy- might be interesting to see how that develops.
 
Ah, climate change deniers just want to go on spoiling environments and causing global warming. Idiots.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk
 
JANFU said:
I did.
Click to expand...

Meaning you have no case

This is just a cynical political stunt by obama

It will make the tree huggers cheeer for obama one last time and then piss them off all over again when the decree is recinded

But it could help trump too by giving trumpsters a happy moment when libs are reduced to failure
 
JANFU said:
MacKenzie Valley and that never came thru.
Click to expand...

Kiwimac said:
Ah, climate change deniers just want to go on spoiling environments and causing global warming. Idiots.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No one denies climate change

We all know that ice ages followed by global warming is natural and inevitable

It's the man-made-global-warming hoax that failed to sell
 
Mac77 said:
No one denies climate change

We all know that ice ages followed by global warming is natural and inevitable

It's the man-made-global-warming hoax that failed to sell
Click to expand...
The mere fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening as we speak means nothing to you? Or do you hold to the conspiracy theory nonsense?

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom