Obama Enacts "Permanent" Ban on Arctic Oil Drilling

Obama and Trump
President Obama. By Official White House Photo by Pete SouzaP120612PS-0463 (direct link), Public Domain, Link. President-elect Trump. By Michael Vadon – →This file has been extracted from another file: Donald Trump August 19, 2015.jpg, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

h/t Robert from oz – President Obama has stepped up efforts to sabotage Trump’s mandate from the American people, this time by attempting to mess up Trump’s commitment to open public land to oil and gas exploration.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Obama Places Sweeping Ban on Offshore Drilling in Atlantic and Arctic Waters

by AMANDA SAKUMA

In the final stretch of his term President Barack Obama is implementing new environmental protections that stand to thwart Donald Trump’s agenda on oil and gas extraction in ways that may prove difficult for the president-elect to roll back.

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it will place an indefinite ban on offshore oil and gas drilling across large swaths of Atlantic and Arctic waters. The actions come in conjunction with news that Canada will implement a sweeping ban of its own, launching a set of actions to be reviewed every five years.

“President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau are proud to launch actions ensuring a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy and ecosystem, with low-impact shipping, science based management of marine resources, and free from the future risks of offshore oil and gas activity,” the White House said in a joint statement with the Canadian leader.

The latest action hinges on a provision of the 1953 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a law designed to protect coral reefs and marine sanctuaries. The seldom used measure allows the executive to permanently freeze offshore drilling in specified regions. Senior Obama administration officials stress that there is no provision in the law providing the president authority draw those actions back.

Environmental groups hailed the announcement as a major victory and symbolic milestone in ending offshore drilling in a region where it is exceedingly difficult to prevent and respond to potential oil spills.

“We are confident that this is an announcement that will stick. We have both the law and public opinion on our side,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said.

There is currently no precedent for a president to hit rewind on bans against offshore drilling in the name of environmental protections. And because the actions are not up for review for another five years, advocacy groups say they are optimistic Trump will not be able to reverse the tide.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-places-sweeping-ban-offshore-drilling-n698461

I’ve never heard of such a graceless act of contempt for the will of the American people. Opening public land to oil and gas was a central promise of President-elect Trump’s campaign manifesto. Trump won the electoral college, by a wide margin.

But President Obama doesn’t care about the will of the American people – all he seems to care about is hurting the voters who rejected his legacy.

Trump will be able to overturn this nonsense, but the effort required to undo this senseless regulatory vandalism will waste Trump’s time – precious time Trump could have used to fix the US tax code, cut the Federal deficit, drain the climate research swamp, sort out Common Core, fix Obamacare, or sort out the shambolic Department of Veterans Affairs.

Ordinary people will suffer because of Obama’s spiteful attempt to thwart the will of the American people.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
309 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 20, 2016 10:18 pm

Gee why did I leave the Leftist party 25 years ago?

John Morrison
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 21, 2016 4:25 am

While I’m not a hard core birther. It may be time to look into whether he really could be president. If he was smart, he would have had Joe Biden sign duplicate orders, just in case the truth is not on Obama’s side.

Eric
Reply to  John Morrison
December 21, 2016 7:48 pm

Go for it. The AGW crowd has moved heaven and earth to misrepresent the climate situation, so it’s conceivable that Obama’s crowd is doing the same. In both cases the stakes amount to Trillions of dollars.
Most people don’t know that the birther issue hinges on the fact that Hawaii used to issue birth certificates for children born to Hawaiian residents, who were not in Hawaii at the time of birth. I believe this was because of the large number of US military on tour in Asia. The only way to know for sure is to examine the original, paper, long form certificate.
Sheriff Arpaio’s recent birther update is timed perfectly to segue into a Trump supported Justice Dept investigation.

Ilfpm
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 21, 2016 7:10 am

(C) such States, and through such States, affected local governments, are entitled to an opportunity to participate, to the extent consistent with the national interest, in the policy and planning decisions made by the Federal Government relating to exploration for, and development and production of, minerals of the outer Continental Shelf.
If Obama denied Alaska an adequate opportunity to participate in policy and planning decisions, his puerile “pen and phone” stunt should be vulnerable to legal challenge, and court recession..

rocketscientist
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 9:32 am

The mere existence of a “law that cannot be challenged” flies in the face of our constitutional construction and original intent. No laws, including the constitution, are immutable. To enact such a law invites SCOTUS intervention. We will and can make some laws intentionally difficult to circumvent, but none are without the capability of change.
It may require an rewrite of the law to insert provisions to permit it to be amended.
But, that’s what congress is for.

Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 2:50 pm

The governor of Alaska just said he did deny Alaskan input.

Tom O
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 22, 2016 10:21 am

The idea that the president can write an EO that is not subject to being undone by another EO is, well, “Unprecedented,” as the climate crisis crew likes to say.
What is said to be law, that is, an Executive Order, rather flies in the face of the Constitution anyway. It does not, and no act of congress can give, the executive branch the authority to create law. The Constitution requires law to be created in the House, as in House of Representatives, not the White House, be presented to and pass the Senate, and move on to be signed into law by the executive branch. The only way congress could give the executive branch that authority is through Constitutional amendment, and only the people can make that happen. There is no amendment that authorizes the president to create law.
Also, since this is involves cooperation with a foreign nation, this would have to be ratified by the Senate. Obama has played fast and easy with the rules, but that doesn’t mean they still aren’t enforceable. It will depend, instead, on what the “agenda” of the Senate is going to be – to support the outgoing democrat or the incoming Republican. It is time that the party supports its President.

Bryan A
December 20, 2016 10:24 pm

So does the OCSLA cover the area up to 3 miles offshore or only beyond 3 miles?
Seems to be a possible loophole either way…a loophole large enough to do some (horizontal) directional drilling through

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Bryan A
December 20, 2016 11:36 pm

Surely to be binding, such a piece of legislation will need congressional approval?
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Rhoda R
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 21, 2016 1:21 am

No, it is already a law. However, Congressional action can repeal or modify the law and free up the drilling in these areas.

SMC
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 21, 2016 4:49 am
TA
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 21, 2016 6:51 am

“Congressional action can repeal or modify the law and free up the drilling in these areas.”
That is the key. The Left thinks it is clever, but there will be a Republican president and a majority Republican House and Senate in 31 days, and between them they can undo anything Obama has done.
The changes they are a comin’.

Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2016 4:39 am

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it will place an indefinite ban on offshore oil and gas drilling across large swaths of Atlantic and Arctic waters

Obama ignored Immigration and Border Protection Laws of the US when he ignored the actions of “sanctuary cities” in their protection of illegal aliens …….. so all that President Trump has to do is tell his Secretaries and/or Agency/Department Directors to ignore Obummers “ban” on offshore oil and gas drilling in US Coastal waters.

Rod Everson
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 21, 2016 7:05 am

Liberals are relying on the Senate filibuster to prevent Congress from re-writing laws to upend these last minute actions. To the extent that they do so, they add weight to the argument that the Senate filibuster rule (already seriously modified by the Democrats when they deemed it necessary) should be done away with in its present form. Then only 50 votes, plus a tie-breaker by the Senate President, VP Pence, will enable the GOP to write whatever laws, and changes in law, that they desire, subject only to rejection by the Supreme Court for unconstitutionality.
I say, keep pushing libs, keep pushing. There’s a straw somewhere in your quiver that will break the camel’s back.

TL
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 21, 2016 9:14 am

Good thing Obama normalized the selective enforcement of the law.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2016 6:01 am

Under section 1341, it says:

The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.

It does NOT say he can’t rescind the withdrawal. “Everything not forbidden is permitted.”

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 6:27 am

Everything not forbidden is permitted.
=================
exactly. Obama must have signed something to invoke the section 1341 clause. Trump need only rescind the document Obama signed.
What the Press has ignored is that the important thing is not the law itself, but rather the document that allowed Obama to turn the law “on”. Which is likely an Executive Order of some kind. Which Trump can cancel at his pleasure. Once the order is cancelled, the land is no longer removed, because there is no longer any document signed by the President enabling the land to be removed.
Once the order is rescinded, there is no document saying that the land has been withdrawn. So if an official says “the President withdrew the Land”, any company wishing to drill can simply say “show us the order”, and the official will not be able to produce the order because it was rescinded. The courts would laugh at any official that tried to use a rescinded Presidential Order as justification for anything.

Tom in Denver
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 7:31 am

Obama doesn’t care if this sticks. He is building credibility for his next position. He want’s to be Secretary-General of the United Nations. His goal all along has been to diminish the power of the US and position the UN as the world governing power

MarkW
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 8:08 am

If Trump is smart, he’ll already have a team reviewing every one of Obama’s presidential orders and preparing a single presidential order to rescind all of the bad ones.

MarkW
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 8:10 am

Citizens from countries with a permanent seat on the security council are not permitted to be Secretary General.
Of course, leftists are big on just ignoring any law that is inconvenient, or Obama can give up his US citizenship.

Bob boder
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 8:44 am

Mark W
I wonder how long it would take Obama to prove his birth certificate was a fake so he could prove he isn’t really a citizen and can then run for Secretary General?
Ha wouldn’t that be a joke!

karl
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 12:01 pm

@ ferdberple
“Everything not forbidden is permitted”
Not hardly.
It is actually the converse WRT the powers of the federal govt., to undo something it has done.
“everything not permitted is impossible” is about the long and short of it.
If there is no process under current law to “re-instate” leasable land that has been withdrawn — it is literally impossible under current law.
Can Congress remedy the deficiency? Certainly.

karl
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 12:18 pm

@ DJH
completely WRONG
Here is an example — Virginia Law provides a formula for restitution for wrongful imprisonment. The formula provides for about $800,000 in restitution for a particular person (Mr. Haynesworth).
Virginia lawmakers believe he should get more, but in order to pay him more than statute they have to enact a piece of special legislation.
FYI — nowhere in the VA statute that provides the formula is there any verbiage that prohibits the State from paying more — the fact is that the State can only do what the law compels or permits.
https://vacode.org/2016/8.01/3/18.2/8.01-195.11/

karl
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 21, 2016 12:19 pm
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 22, 2016 5:43 am

@ Bob boder – December 21, 2016 at 8:44 am

I wonder how long it would take Obama to prove his birth certificate was a fake so he could prove he isn’t really a citizen and can then run for Secretary General?

My guess is, bout two (2) hours, maybe three (3).
All Obummer would have to do is “authorize” the release of his Harvard University records, specifically his …… Application for “Special Needs” Student Enrollment …… or is it Enrollment Application for “Special Needs” Student.

Ilfpm
Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2016 7:13 am

All waters from shoreline up to the territorial limit. The text mentions the Department of Energy (est. 1977), so that limit would be 200 miles, not 1953’s 3 miles..

Ilfpm
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 8:00 am

(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President: The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
There is no specification that withdrawn lands may not be reinstated as leasable by a President without approval from Congress. The Secretary of the Interior has primary power to issue and regulate leases.
This may imply that President Trump can reinstate leasable territory solely through administrative action upon finding that it serves the national interest.

karl
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 11:53 am

@ilfpm
If the law does not provide for reinstatement of lands — they cannot be.
That’s how laws work.
The law may be amended to allow for re-instatement (unless it was passed with a clause that precludes amendment, and only allows repeal), or repealed.
A new law may be enacted that is at odds with the current law — meaning almost certainly an injunction until SCOTUS sorts out the mess.
What is not in question: POTUS Trump cannot use an Executive Order, because POTUS Obama executed a statutory clause, not an executive order.

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 12:01 pm

karl==> the law is silent on reinstatement of leasing for drilling. Arguing that as there is no explicit procedure for reversal, it cannot be done will probably be the positon in court of Greenpeace, NRDC, et al. However, the greens will be the ones suing to overcome an action they cannot block in advance.

karl
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 12:20 pm

@ tom
Which means the government is not allowed to act upon anything it is silent about DUH!

karl
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 12:21 pm

@ Tom
What law allows for re-instatement?
If there is no legal basis for a governmental act, the govt. can’t act. And you can’t use EO to overrule statute.

Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 2:53 pm

Karl, your legal analysis is very shallow and faulty. See why in comments below.

ATheoK
Reply to  Ilfpm
December 21, 2016 8:01 pm

The article in question uses the limit Bill Clinton signed into effect, 24 nautical miles.

dickon66
Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2016 8:12 am

You need to cross-reference this with the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea to determine how far out it runs. Territorial waters only covers about 12-24 nm, but if there is a continental shelf extending out from US territory, it can potentially extend that up to about 200 nm. I believe this is what this law refers to as the outer shelf. Drilling outside of this area and outside of US territorial waters would be subject to international maritime law.

SMC
Reply to  dickon66
December 21, 2016 8:46 am

200nm is the exclusive economic zone. 12nm is the territorial limit.

Dale Muncie
Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2016 12:09 pm

By the Russians?

Mike H
December 20, 2016 10:24 pm

Trump’s going to get severe writer’s cramp from rescinding all those Exec. Orders. Invest in BIC.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike H
December 21, 2016 8:11 am

You can do a single EO that lists all the existing EOs that are being rescinded.

karl
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2016 12:27 pm

You can’t use an EO to rescind executive action under statute. That is what this is, execution of Presidential Power granted by the ACT.
The ACT includes no language to reverse the withdrawal of withdrawn lands by POTUS, accordingly, there is no lawful, legal process to do so.
Unless and until an amendment is made, they are withdrawn permanently.
It is of note that the Secretary can exclude lands that are up for disposition from being leased, but Congress explicitly provided that POTUS could withdraw lands from even being up for disposition.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2016 8:11 pm

You are relying upon the actions on President “constitutional lawyer expert”.
What can be accomplished in a fit of spite can be undone through multiple methods.
A) Guaranteed is that Congress will view this latest abuse of Presidential power as a challenge to be deflated. Look for any “Presidential invoked” clauses outside of the Constitution to be revoked.
B) The basis for the law is proper remunerations and fees to States for mineral/oil leases.
a) Unilateral executive action without due process and involving the impacted states. Sue for illegal actions without due process and no intention to repair the States for their losses in revenues.
b) Sue for improper due process procedures.
President Obama is going to get a rude awakening. I’d like to think there will FOI for communications between the Chicago kid, activists, Secretary of the Interior.

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2016 10:31 pm

karl, I believe the argument is the original intent of the statute

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2016 4:54 am

“Karl: December 21, 2016 at 12:27 pm
You can’t use an EO to rescind executive action under statute. That is what this is, execution of Presidential Power granted by the ACT.
The ACT includes no language to reverse the withdrawal of withdrawn lands by POTUS, accordingly, there is no lawful, legal process to do so.

As usual, the eco-looney are off in lala land.
If the lands had allegedly been truly withdrawn, I wondered by the oil markets were not concerned?
These characters whose income depends on explicitly knowing legal details are the real experts on what the OCSLA law is and what can be done.
It turns out that not only can the President withdraw lands, but that there is existing precedent for re-instating lands withdrawn from availability and prospecting.

“Mr. Obama’s “creative” interpretation of a “rarely used” provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Ocsla allows that the President “may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.” Because the law does not explicitly give the President the power to un-withdraw lands, the White House touts the rule as a forever condition. In other words, this is Mr. Obama’s typically illegal M.O.
Congress passed Ocsla, as the law’s preamble states, in order to make the “vital national resource reserve” that is the continental shelf “available for expeditious and orderly development.” The power to lock is also the power to unlock. Bill Clinton used Ocsla to withdraw 300 million offshore acres from an area that was already a designated marine sanctuary, but George W. Bush reinstated about 50 million.
So typical of the truly lame duck President Obama to not actually research the law, along with existing precedent. Especially a precedent that put lands in a marine sanctuary back into the oil market.
That said, Congress may still remove such wording from laws to prevent Presidential abuse. A good idea from this standpoint.
Especially as:

“Russia is also aggressively expanding exploration wells in the Arctic’s Kara and Pechora seas and adding to its polar navy.”

It’s a lot easier to keep lands once tapped, than to reclaim them from claim jumpers who have their own personal idea of world economics.

Donald Hanson
December 20, 2016 10:28 pm

Oh don’t worry. There might not be a precedent for a lot of things that Trump is planning to do. My guess, he is going to chuckle as he changes this.

RH
Reply to  Donald Hanson
December 21, 2016 5:13 am

All Trump has to do is rescind the executive action and let them sue him if they want.

karl
Reply to  RH
December 21, 2016 12:28 pm

It wasn’t an EO — do you guys even pay attention before your Trumpfetish kicks in?

Greg
December 20, 2016 10:28 pm

I doubt it will take much effort for Trump to undo it.
But it does demonstrate for posterity just what kind of a person Obama is.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Greg
December 21, 2016 4:23 am

my thoughts exactly as I heard it on the radio today in Aus!
not that many of us had any doubt how devious n twofaced the bummer was
just confirmation of that
really spoilt bratty behaviour

Alba
Reply to  Greg
December 21, 2016 4:39 am

Are there any examples of other Presidents making large-scale changes in government policy within the last month of being in office? Or is this kind of action something which only Obama has ever done?

Reply to  Alba
December 21, 2016 4:55 am

Alba==> Bill Clinton lowered the allowable arsenic in drinking water levels at the end of his eight years. I do not know if that counts as “large scale”.

J. Camp
Reply to  Alba
December 21, 2016 6:43 am

Obama is the only president in the modern era that believes he is a god…master of all things. Kind of humorous that he thinks he is relevant in the era of Trump. Such a pechilant little man.

J. Camp
Reply to  Alba
December 21, 2016 6:48 am

Opps…petulant…got to proof read

gnomish
Reply to  Alba
December 22, 2016 6:12 am

it’s not about proofreading.
such errors are the domain of those who don’t read at all and acquiire vocabulary simply by mimicry from hearing other people speak – the lazy, ineffective way.
so read more in the first place and use a dictionary often.

Reply to  Greg
December 21, 2016 8:47 am

My opinion of the motive is: not that the prohibition will be difficult to undo but the green outrage that the undoing will do (cause). It seems a bit of scorched earth policy.

DonM
Reply to  taz1999
December 21, 2016 4:37 pm

exactly…

Reply to  taz1999
December 21, 2016 4:55 pm

The more pain for the greens the better.

Reply to  taz1999
December 22, 2016 1:35 am

Which will only strengthen the resolve of the current ruling party.

Dale Muncie
Reply to  Greg
December 21, 2016 12:10 pm

A vindictive S.O.B.

December 20, 2016 10:28 pm

POTUS Trump will have adifficult time leglally circumventing this action by POTUS Obama.
GOP Congress + POTUS Trump … easy peasy to overrule The Petulent Obama.

Reply to  joelobryan
December 20, 2016 10:57 pm

He will have zero effort to rescind the order. And if Greenpeace sues, he can countersue and drain their bank account. Or declare them a terrorist organization and close their bank accounts.

CodeTech
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 20, 2016 11:55 pm

That should probably be done anyway.

AndyG55
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 21, 2016 2:43 am

Remove their charity based tax free status, and make it retrospective.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 21, 2016 4:45 am

Right you are, Donald K, ….. as my ole papa said, ….. “There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

karl
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 21, 2016 12:30 pm

It’s not an Executive Order — it is statutorily granted POTUS action under the Continental Shelf … ACT.
With no process or mechanism under the law to reverse the decision.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 21, 2016 2:58 pm

Karl, before you spout off again do two things. Bone up on statutory interpretation case law. AND the 2008 Bush eastern Gulf of Mexico precedent. You are wrong and keep digging your hole deeper. The WaPo, as in so many things, does notnk ow what it is talking about and got it wrong. Explained already twice in comments below.

mike
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 21, 2016 11:30 pm

I would think if Obama were identified as an enemy agent or a series of treasons, his acts would become reviewable or overturnable beyond some point in his administration…
We all know O is guilty of many things, just that he has been protected by DoJ from blowback.

Alan Robertson
December 20, 2016 10:38 pm

I thought the guy might finally show a little grace, but he can’t get past himself.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 21, 2016 3:56 pm

“I thought the guy might finally show a little grace”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, wait – you were serious?

Horace Jason Oxboggle
December 20, 2016 10:42 pm

When you haven’t got a legacy worth anything, why not throw a hissy fit?

December 20, 2016 10:56 pm

The claim the rescinding the orders will be tied up in court is false. A future president can rescind any previous executive order with a signature.

commieBob
Reply to  Donald Kasper
December 20, 2016 11:09 pm

Apparently Obama is relying on a 1953 law.

The law allows a president to withdraw any currently unleased lands in the Outer Continental Shelf from future lease sales. There is no provision in the law that allows the executive’s successor to repeal the decision, so President-elect Donald Trump would not be able to easily brush aside the action. link

It will take Congress to undo the law.

RockyRoad
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2016 11:19 pm

…which they most likely will.
Maybe Trump can sequester Obama on an island where his only entertainment will be golf?

Paul Lassiter
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2016 11:33 pm

It’s their legal opinion that the law does not contain a provision for repeal.. Just another example of lazy reporting (fake news?) where NBC takes the Obama administration’s, and the Serira Club’s, word for it and publishes it as fact without seeking any independent legal opinion.

AP
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 3:31 am

Yep, journalists have such valid legal opinions. I believe everything a journalist tells me.

Silversurfer
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 3:40 am

@RockyRoad More fitting would be for Obama to live off-grid and 100% ecological farming on an island.

Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 5:01 am

Excerpted from — commieBob – December 20, 2016 at 11:09 pm

There is no provision in the law that allows the executive’s successor to repeal the decision, so President-elect Donald Trump

Well “DUH”, unless the above noted Law SPECIFICALLY states that ONLY a Congressional action can change or repeal said Law …….. then POTUS Trump can do whatever the hell he wants to about it or with it.

Bryan A
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 6:06 am

I understand Kiribati (Gilberts) will be vacated soon due to those massively rising tides, perhaps they could be renamed the Obummers

Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 6:38 am

See comments above concerning the law.

CraigAustin
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 6:47 am

Barry has completely forgotten that Congress exists.

Jeff
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 8:31 am

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a President to bind future Presidents. Only laws passed by both houses and are signed into law, which these specific actions do not qualify. Even if the law explicitly stated that following Presidents can not reverse such actions (which it doesnt), it would fail muster as it would then be rewriting how laws are passed, and thus nullify the constitution. A law, let alone a interpretation of a law, can create a situation where the president alone can write forever binding laws.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 8:35 am

“Maybe Trump can sequester Obama on an island where his only entertainment will be golf?
With a really BIG cluster of offshore turbines to sunward.

Jeffrey Mitchell
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 10:09 am

Does the law forbid rescinding such an order? If it does not, then President Trump is free to change it at his discretion. Just because there is no provision allowing a president to rescind an order means nothing. There has to be a provision prohibiting him from rescinding the order. If so, only then would congress need to act.
Be careful as such a prohibition may be somewhere else in the code.
It is really time to quit paying attention to any media or people that puts out this nonsense. They want us to believe it, just like they wanted us to believe Hillary had a lock on the presidency. It is best to look at the legal authority rather than the pundits with an agenda. They need to cite chapter and verse. Otherwise it is nothing more than a bluff.
They-the media-are patting themselves on the back for having such a clever president. And they were patting themselves on the back the day before the election. Now we ourselves would be wise to not engage in the hubris they did. The future is always up for grabs. As Benjamin Franklin is alleged to have said “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

karl
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 12:45 pm

@ Sam
Umm — NO
POTUS can’t change ANY LAW – ever, period zip zero nada.
Did you pay attention in civics class??
POTUS can only sign or veto legislation passed to him.
He can’t veto part — that is a line item veto and the Supreme Court said that’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And Executive Orders are powerless against acts performed under statute.

karl
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 12:47 pm

@ Jeff
For EO — true
For statutory acts — FALSE
POTUS Trump is bound by every single LAW that POTUS Obama signed into law. He is powerless before them.
Only Congress can change the law, or repeal the law.

Reply to  commieBob
December 22, 2016 5:14 am

karl – December 21, 2016 at 12:45 pm

@ Sam
Umm — NO
POTUS can’t change ANY LAW – ever, period zip zero nada.
Did you pay attention in civics class??

@ karl
Well “DUH”, karl, …… my knowledge of civics is just fine, ……. it is your reading comprehension skills that are FUBAR,
In my comment I SPECIFICALLY stated that …… “unless the above noted Law”, …. which isn’t, wasn’t and never will be a duly enacted Congressional legal Statute or Law of the US of A.
That is what this entire discussion is all about, ….. people like you who truly believe that the POTUS, the EPA, the DoE, county, state & federal Public Health Departments, etc., etc., all have the power to “write Laws” that are enforceable by Officers of the Courts.
And the travesty of it is, they get by with the enforcement of said “pseudo Laws” simply because the Courts and its Officers turn a “blind eye” to it ……. and 99% of the Defendants that are charged with violating said “pseudo Laws” …….. do not have sufficient time n’ energy, or funds to pay for Lawyer and Legal fees.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  commieBob
December 22, 2016 3:53 pm

there is no “law” that allows for Presidential EO’s … yet they issue them …

Bob Grise
December 20, 2016 10:58 pm

So let it be written, so let it be done – King Barry Soetoro, 2016

commieBob
December 20, 2016 11:01 pm

Obama is gambling that Donald is going to be a one term president. Do we really need offshore drilling in the next four years? The thing currently controlling drilling in America is the price of foreign oil.

However, if shale production accelerates, thanks in part to more rapid technological improvements, the EIA projects the U.S. would become a “net petroleum exporter by 2024.” If oil prices rise sharply, surpassing $100 a barrel in the next few years, the EIA thinks the U.S. could achieve complete energy independence by 2022. link

Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 8:06 pm

CB,
While your comment is OK from a theory POV, it is the practical effect that matters.
Large investors in resource developments place certainty of acts and regs quite high on their wanted lists. Sovereign risk and all that.
There is already far too much stupid interference in the affairs of corporations by bureaucratic meddlers. Muzzle the corporations at your peril. Depression is never far behind.
Geoff.

Michael Burns
Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2016 11:01 pm

What about Labour…generally oil companies have had a need of 80 dollars a barrel to pay the bills. What if Trump’s need to bring back jobs inspires a lower drilling price. Tax incentives; Royalty fees; Lower wages; here in Canada, guys will jump at 75% of what they use to get to get back out there, it’s been a long halt. Most lost everything.
Obama is doing his best to protect his Clean air/Clean fuel act which protects whom, Soros and all his American coal he now owns, and that new fangled Methanol process for clean fuel enabling him to drink deeply from that government trough. And arn’t the auto manufacturers with Flexifuel 20 on board withit.
All that captured CO2, and Trump is promising to end the free money.

Chris in Hervey Bay
December 20, 2016 11:06 pm

“Trump will be able to overturn this nonsense, but the effort required to undo this senseless regulatory vandalism will waste Trump’s time – precious time Trump could have used to fix the US tax code, cut the Federal deficit, drain the climate research swamp, sort out Common Core, fix Obamacare, or sort out the shambolic Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Trump worked in the real world where he had teams to do the work. He never had to do the work himself but rather had teams to pour concrete, lay bricks, erect steel. He will do the same when in office, assemble demolition teams to take apart all Obama’s destructive legislation. Just have the teams report back when it is done.
Easy Peasy !

MarkW
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
December 21, 2016 8:16 am

A smart man would have these teams already at work reviewing all of Obama’s EO’s and listing the ones to rescind.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2016 4:00 pm

And Trump is obviously a smart man.

Robert from oz
December 20, 2016 11:08 pm

Must admit when I heard this early today (oz time) I thought it was a spoilt brat / sore loser type action and I hope Donald can Trump the order .

Peter Miller
December 20, 2016 11:12 pm

Although a petty, spiteful action by arch-ecoloon Obama, the rise of shale oil and gas largely makes this an empty gesture.

karl
Reply to  Peter Miller
December 21, 2016 1:11 pm

You mean the 950 Billion worth of oil that will cost 1.4 Trillion to get out of the ground?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurberman/2016/11/20/permian-giant-oil-field-would-lose-500-billion-at-todays-prices/#171954789dbc
That Oil?

clipe
Reply to  karl
December 22, 2016 4:16 pm

Cherrypicker

Robert from oz
December 20, 2016 11:15 pm

Also love the quote from the sierra club saying “they have public opinion on their side” , who won the election ? And by promising to do what with oil,gas and coal !

AP
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 21, 2016 3:33 am

I bet they don’t know anyone in their circle of friends who voted for Trump either.

karl
Reply to  Robert from oz
December 21, 2016 1:15 pm

You mean lying — right?
Every campaign promise he made he has walked back. Drain the Swamp — no not really
“I’m told he now just disclaims that,” Gingrich said on “Morning Edition.” “He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/21/newt-gingrich-says-trump-is-done-with-drain-the-swamp/?utm_term=.85010e88e30b
No Jail for HRC
No coal jobs for WVA — even if we increase coal production — those jobs are gone, automation will continue
The wall — ROTFLMAO
You guys got suckered by a demagogue out to enrich his family.

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 3:09 pm

So,why are you here?Maybe to push”Misinformation”perhaps

Ken
Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 10:38 pm

And you got suckered by a “Constitutional scholar” who has and is using his knowledge to dismember the Constitution. In other words you put the fox in charge of the henhouse. Obama’s only governing philosophy is “the end justifies the means”. Corruption personified.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  karl
December 22, 2016 3:55 pm

wow you really think he is Hitler … sad really how ignorant you have to be to believe that … grow up …

clipe
Reply to  karl
December 22, 2016 4:23 pm

“ROTFLMAO”?
More like LOTFITFP (Lying On The Floor In The Fetal Position)

December 20, 2016 11:20 pm

No arctic drilling, except for Russia… he can’t stop that.

Amber
December 20, 2016 11:22 pm

Obama is right to give up hope of collecting money the way the Clintons did . Pay for play
and green wash have been done .

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Amber
December 20, 2016 11:53 pm

Now I see why Michelle was talking about having ‘no hope’ !

DonM
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
December 21, 2016 4:45 pm

She was hoping that people would be sad to see her and the big con leave power. Reality is hitting and she is losing that hope.

December 20, 2016 11:28 pm

The mind boggles. What next? An Executive Order closing all oil wells in the USA?

phaedo
Reply to  dudleyhorscroft
December 21, 2016 5:12 am

“The mind boggles. What next? An Executive Order closing all oil wells in the USA?”
Please don’t give the man ideas.

Reply to  phaedo
December 21, 2016 6:41 am

Executive orders are easy to overturn. Even Obama admitted using executive orders rather than laws means anything you did can be wiped out by the next president.

mairon62
December 20, 2016 11:31 pm

Lower energy prices, largely due to an exploration and development boom that started under George Bush, saved Obama’s presidency.

Non Nomen
December 20, 2016 11:55 pm

Obama is worse than I thought. A Scorched earth president

JJM Gommers
Reply to  Non Nomen
December 21, 2016 1:00 am

Early december Obama grants waiver for military support of foreign fighters in Syria.

michael hart
Reply to  Non Nomen
December 21, 2016 7:28 pm

Obama is worse than I thought. A Scorched earth president

I think he’s aiming for scorched oceans before the bell rings.

Gabriel
December 21, 2016 12:00 am

Jihadi Obama is a criminal devoted to the cause of destroying the United States of America…

JPeden
Reply to  Gabriel
December 21, 2016 8:42 am

Gabriel
December 21, 2016 at 12:00 am
Jihadi Obama is a criminal devoted to the cause of destroying the United States of America…
Yes, and it became easy to prove that ideologically, Obama was either a Communist or a dhimmi, or both, well before his first Election. David Yeagley also made the “Communist” call. But this was still an hypothesis about his future acts, so I gave Obama about 6-8 months in office to start to prove me wrong by just one of his actions as President. He didn’t and hasn’t. Meanwhile, Limbaugh had said right off, “I hope he fails,” and anyone viewing Obama from the point of view of an empirical skepticism based upon Obama’s past knew exactly what he meant.

December 21, 2016 12:28 am

People who don’t act in the best interest of others and themselves are generally considered mentally ill…. There has to be a way around it. If there is, Trump will find it.

December 21, 2016 12:32 am

This is a pointless gesture. Offshore exploration and development is expensive and unlikely to be profitable for quite a while. It should be reversed but it’s actually in the interest of current lease holders that it remain.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Bartleby
December 21, 2016 1:25 am

Unfortunately, Stephan, slightly less than half of America still thinks this jerk is a good President.

Reply to  Rhoda R
December 21, 2016 1:42 am

Sorry, I didn’t understand that. Did you reply to the wrong post?

Rhoda R
Reply to  Rhoda R
December 21, 2016 8:23 am

Yes – for some reason the post seems to have jumped – this is the second time it happened.

JoAnn Leichliter
December 21, 2016 12:38 am

If Congress enacts a law, Congress can repeal the law. If Congress authorizes an agency to do certain things, it can rescind its authorization. If Congress creates an agency or department, it can abolish it. However, Congress prefers to complain loudly when its creations take outrageous actions or when they consistently abuse their power–blame it on the creations–but then take none of the remedial action that is within its power–the creator consents by its inaction. So we will hear moans and groans from “conservative” members of the House and Senate, who will then (being their usual indolent selves) do nothing. It took years, but I finally figured it out–say something, do nothing, betray my constituents but sound good while doing it.

Reply to  JoAnn Leichliter
December 21, 2016 3:40 am

In Europe, the politicians invented something called the “EU” to do pretty much the same. Any policy they knew would never get through the electorate at home (from immigration to massive cost rises for “climate”) they just got the EU to pass it for them and then when they had their arm “twisted” to have open borders, massive fuel rises – they just blamed the EU Eurocrats.
But we in the UK, come from a centuries old culture where our leaders do what they are told to do, not what they would like us to do.

bazzer1959
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 21, 2016 5:41 am

But soon (here in England, at least!) they won’t be able to do that. Scotland? Well, that’s another story – if little Krankie gets her own way. Scottish Sceptic, I wish you all the luck in the world…you’re going to need it. Who knows what the future holds for your part of the UK?

TA
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 21, 2016 7:03 am

“But we in the UK, come from a centuries old culture where our leaders do what they are told to do, not what they would like us to do.”
May it ever be so.
But you guys in the UK have a lot of politicians who look a lot like Obama and the Left in the U.S., in other words, clueless undesirables, and you need to get these people out of power fast.

AP
Reply to  JoAnn Leichliter
December 21, 2016 3:44 am

Yep. Same all over the world.

Reply to  JoAnn Leichliter
December 21, 2016 3:46 am

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives.
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” –
GK Chesterton ILN, 4/19/24

MarkG
Reply to  mikerestin
December 21, 2016 6:27 am

Yes. For the best part of a hundred years, ‘conservatives’ have spent most of their time trying to maintain the things ‘progressives’ did twenty years earlier.
That’s now changing fast, because it’s no longer sustainable. We either roll back a century of ‘progressivism’ or Western civilization collapses.

TA
Reply to  mikerestin
December 21, 2016 7:12 am

“That’s now changing fast, because it’s no longer sustainable. We either roll back a century of ‘progressivism’ or Western civilization collapses.”
Yes. Clueless ‘progressivism’ has western Europe in a precarious position now, and would put us all there eventually if given enough time. It looks like enough people may be waking up now to stop ‘progressivism’ from continuing to take us down this ruinous path.

Reply to  JoAnn Leichliter
December 21, 2016 9:42 am

JoAnn—congress has no desire nor incentive to reduce the size of government, hence loud noises only. Both parties have only one aim–increase the size and power of the central government. Previous GOP majorities have proved that.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
December 21, 2016 12:40 am

Cannot exclude Obama’s retropurge of thought criminals lost Democrats the 2016 presidential election. He shocked at least those with intelligentsia blood in their veins, irrespective of their political preferences otherwise.
Similarly it’s possible Obama’s latest offers Trump not only a precedent for removing these bans, but also an opportunity for gaining more public support while at it.

December 21, 2016 12:53 am

4TimesAYaer says:
“People who don’t act in the best interest of others and themselves are generally considered mentally ill…”
I agree. Much more than half of the Earth’s population are hysterical lunatics.

son of mulder
December 21, 2016 1:16 am

Plenty of scope in Russian Arctic. It’s all part of the plan.

Stephen.
December 21, 2016 1:20 am

I am so sorry that it took America 8 years to find out That Obama was not on your side but on the side of a world governance, good luck to the new president Trump.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Stephen.
December 21, 2016 8:24 am

Unfortunately, Stephan, slightly less than half of America still thinks this jerk is a good President.

stas peterson BSME MBA MSMa
Reply to  Rhoda R
December 21, 2016 9:46 am

The only way that Obama is more highly rated than his policies is the “Trump damning effect”. People don’t want to admit they don’t like the Black President lest they be accused of “Racism” by true racist LibTards. Trump supporters didn’t want to reveal their true leanings for the same reason, making Polls useless and wrong.

karl
Reply to  Rhoda R
December 21, 2016 2:00 pm

Umm — His current approval rating of 57% (it was 59% a week ago or so) is better than all modern presidents than Reagan, Clinton (both with 63%), and Ike (59%) in the December of their final term in office.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Rhoda R
December 21, 2016 2:34 pm

Karl, “polls” aren’t votes.
I thing this last election proved that.
I’d hazard a guess that most of those who voted for Trump don’t bother answering “polls”.
I know I don’t and Trump was not my first choice in our primary.
I view polls as just the wind that keeps the spin going.

December 21, 2016 1:54 am

Despite of everything Obama cannot be criticised for lack of coherence, effort and relative kindness. It was a different story in the 1930’s when intelligentsia lost their lives for un-Marxist research e.g. sunspot development.

CheshireRed
December 21, 2016 1:56 am

Does this actually matter? By opening up onshore exploration the US is likely to be awash with fuel for the next few decades never mind the 8 years Trump could serve. Just another hollow and vindictive gesture from Obama.

Reply to  CheshireRed
December 21, 2016 8:18 am

That is essentially correct on both counts.

December 21, 2016 2:09 am

The next Congress and President Trump should immediately pass a law that relieves former Presidents from paying taxes on cigarettes.

Rhoda R
Reply to  stormy223
December 21, 2016 8:29 am

Why? I’d pass an EO that doubles taxes on former Presidents who smoke.

December 21, 2016 2:17 am

Under Obama’s watch 12,000 miles of oil and gas pipeline have been laid across the US.
Not bad for a guy who is trying to stop fossil fuels.

LarryFine
Reply to  englandrichard
December 21, 2016 5:00 am

On private lands?

MarkW
Reply to  englandrichard
December 21, 2016 8:24 am

It really amazes me the number of people who view presidents as nothing short of gods.
The fact that there was nothing Obama could do to prevent pipelines from being built on private lands proves that he is pro-pipeline? Sheesh.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  englandrichard
December 22, 2016 3:58 pm

yes, imagine how much more could have been done if he wasn’t fighting it tooth and nail 🙂

Keith
December 21, 2016 2:27 am

On the same day Mr Obama withdraws land for drilling (despite losing the election to a promised policy of allowing drilling), Mrs Obama claims on CNN that she and her husband are helping Mr Trump.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/20/politics/michelle-obama-oprah-trump-transition/index.html
No shame.

Robert of Ottawa
December 21, 2016 2:40 am

Canadian selfie says “me too”.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/12/20/federal-government-to-ban-offshore-oil-and-gas-licences-in-arctic-waters-2/#.WFpbQ30kzZ5
This is the work of Butts, the man behind the selfi.

Barbara
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 21, 2016 10:34 am

Don’t lay all the blame on Butts. There are others involved.

mountainape5
December 21, 2016 2:47 am

Will anyone in American politics ever get accountable for something? It seems to me like politicians can do whatever they want and the worst case for them is to change office. That’s how small corrupted banana republic countries work.

hunter
Reply to  mountainape5
December 21, 2016 3:43 am

Only Republican politicians are held to high standards of accountability.

Harry Passfield
December 21, 2016 2:49 am

President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau are proud to launch actions ensuring a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy and ecosystem, with […] science based management of marine resources

If the ‘science’ they intend to use for ‘management’ is anything like the science used for AGW, then Lord help the marine resources.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 21, 2016 4:53 am
Joe Crawford
Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 21, 2016 8:33 am

Guess that’s part of the reason Gov. Perry wanted to get rid of the DOE. At a minimum I would think a good house cleaning is in order. I believe it was Glenn Back that pointed out all the radicals and ‘true believers’ that Obama appointed at the beginning of his first term, starting with his 34 (according to Bloomberg) czars.

Barbara
Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 21, 2016 10:49 am

What if Mr. Trump began a cost benefit analysis of renewable energy and energy storage?

Barbara
Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 21, 2016 1:05 pm

The Energy Collective, Dec.21, 2016
Article by: ACEEE/American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
‘The US will save Trillions of Dollars if Obama’s Energy Efficiency Legacy Stands’
“The Obama administration’s energy efficiency efforts are saving billions of dollars each year and could save trillions by 2014.”
Read at:
http://www.theenergycollective.com/category/energy_and_economy/efficiency

thingodonta
December 21, 2016 2:54 am

For what its worth, I think in 500 years people will look back and laugh about all the fuss people were making about such things as putting an exploratory drillhole in vast ocean waters, just like people now look back and scratch their head at people fighting over various versions and interpretations of the ‘holy’ texts 500 years ago, during all the religious wars. It’s a completely irrational non issue.
Such religious-style wars area non issue, in the west at least, now, and I think most ‘environmental’ issues will similarly be a non issue in the distant future. But it will take some time.
But just like in the religious wars, we have to first re-organise, separate and nullify those self-promoting religious-style clerics and officials from state influence and power, who use the same old methods of fear and ‘protection’ to exploit people’s ignorance for their own deluded and self-interested beliefs.

Rhoda R
Reply to  thingodonta
December 21, 2016 8:34 am

In a very real sense we ARE in a religious war right now.

December 21, 2016 3:04 am

Trump could just use the same technique as Obama: “It may be against the law – but as I control the law officers – you guys can just go ahead and do it all the same”.

jim
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 21, 2016 3:35 am

That is called a King. We don’t want one of those here.
Thanks
JK

MarkG
Reply to  jim
December 21, 2016 6:33 am

You’re about a hundred years too late for that. If Congress had impeached past Presidents for claiming powers they never legally had, it might have been stopped. But they never had the balls.
I’m waiting for meltdown when Democrats remember that Obama gave Trump the right to drone anyone he feels like at any time, for any reason, even if they’re a US citizen.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  jim
December 21, 2016 8:44 am

Mark, I think you may have it wrong. The story I got was that Congress has been slowly giving up its powers to both the Executive branch and the K-street lobbyists so they won’t have to be on-the-record as voting for/against any particular bill. As professional politicians they are much more interested in their own reelection than than they are is governing.

SMC
December 21, 2016 3:20 am

Here is the law.
https://www.boem.gov/Outer-Continental-Shelf-Lands-Act/
“The latest action hinges on a provision of the 1953 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act…”
I couldn’t find the provision. Somebody with skill at legal interpretation should take a look at this. This sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me.

snopercod
Reply to  SMC
December 21, 2016 4:55 am

How about this?

1341. Reservation of lands and rights
(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President: The President of the United States may, from time to
time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.

rbdwiggins
Reply to  SMC
December 21, 2016 5:30 am

It appears that the administration is relying on this provision…
1341. Reservation of lands and rights
(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President: The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
That said, there appears to be no provision which provides for the permanent withdrawal or prohibits the reinstatement of said lands for disposition by President of the United States.

SMC
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 6:00 am

I saw that. But that doesn’t mean Obama’s order is permanent. Nor does it mean his order is difficult to reverse. Trump could reverse this, if he desires, no fuss, no muss… that’s my interpretation anyway. No need to get Congress involved or change laws.
Just a bunch of smoke and mirrors by the Watermelons.

Mark T
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 6:53 am

“From time to time” pretty much states that it can be withdrawn or implemented at the pleasure of the President. They’re kinda missing the boat on their proclamation that Trump can’t undo this.

DMA
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 7:45 am

“The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it will place an indefinite ban on offshore oil and gas drilling”
If this action is indefinite I would think Trump could just end it. It would not have to be withdrawn or expunged or whatever just shortened to the timeline Trump chooses. Its like any other indefinite moratorium.

Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 8:31 am

Just read the entire law. Its purpose is to encourage resource development in an orderly, fair, environmentally responsible way. The Interior Secretary is instructed to prepare from time to time possible leases to be bid out. 1341(a) simple says the president can withdraw unleased seafloor from consideration by Interior for leasing. WaPo is simply legally wrong about that action being permanent and indelible. It can be undone also by a President, as a matter of long established statutory construction of congressional intent given the laws explicit written purpose in its first section. Greenies try to challenge the undoing would fail at SCOTUS. Low priority, since the expensive Arctic won’t be in play for decades.

TA
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 9:59 am

“The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it will place an indefinite ban on offshore oil and gas drilling”
I heard a radio news reporter say exactly the same thing a few minutes ago and I thought to myself: Yeah, in this case, indefinite equals about 31 more days.

karl
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 12:50 pm

It’s not an order, it’s a statutory exercise of powers granted under the statute to POTUS and ONLY POTUS. Congress did not provide a means to un-withdraw lands that have been withdrawn from disposition.
Without a legal (meaning defined by law) way to re-instate withdrawn land — it is something the govt. cannot currently do.
Congress must amend the law or pass legislation that addresses the issue.

karl
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 12:54 pm

@ SMC — actually it does mean that. Congress provided no means for withdrawn lands to be re-instated.
@ Marc T. — it only states withdrawn. Yeah — it seems absurd, but Congress actually made it permanent by not providing a way to reverse it.
@DMA — yeah no! Laws don’t work that way. IF it was an EO — DJT could rescind it no problem. However, it was an action performed by STATUTE.

Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 3:04 pm

Karl, you show up again spouting nomsense after I explained themissuemof statutory interpretation. I doubt you are a lawyer. I am. If not, stop dispensing wrong legal advice.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  rbdwiggins
December 21, 2016 3:17 pm

Ristvan, as a lawyer you should know the difference between “legal advice” and “legal opinion.” Karl is not offering advice, so shame on you.

Robertvd
December 21, 2016 3:27 am

Is Obama a dictator? The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate (and control of both houses of Congress) for the first time since the 109th Congress. Have they become useless eaters ? It seems to me that republicans are Trump’s biggest problem.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/obama-the-dictator-jpg.66955/
Will Trump have these same dictatorial powers?

Mike G
Reply to  Robertvd
December 21, 2016 5:48 am

Congress has been unwilling to challenge Obama’s willingness to shut the government down if he doesn’t get what he wants. They have calculated there is no choice against a man who would gladly come to the rescue of a collapsed society with the necessary imposition of marshal law.
Contrast this with the president we will have shortly who will shut the government down if congress doesn’t do what they’ve been saying they want to do. Things are really looking up.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Mike G
December 21, 2016 8:32 am

I know I’m not going to make many friends this way, but… it’s martial law, not “marshal”.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Mike G
December 21, 2016 12:42 pm

Eustace,
“There’s a new sheriff in town”

cedarhill
December 21, 2016 3:39 am

Actually, Obama’s act, actions to date and his final 29 days will be a constant reminder all the Trump voters why they voted against the Left’s agenda. Speculation has it he and his community are going to use the courts to block any and all actions which is possible, given the 3000 judges he’s appointed and the time the Federal system requires to get to SCOTUS. Waging war in the courts and what will likely be an accompanying wave(s) of protest and violence may be a fatal flaw for the Left since there are other ways to implement the will of the people.
Few realize it but only 6 more States are needed to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention. The heads-exploding segment always shouts out that they could do anything. However, there would still need to have 38 States pass any amendment(s) a Convention would recommend. It could be the end of the world for the totalitarian Left since any Amendments would certainly restrict Federal powers. The demonstration the Left is and will put on may be just the impetus. Remember, “everyone” thought Trump would lose.
Interesting times indeed.

hunter
Reply to  cedarhill
December 21, 2016 3:45 am

Yep. Obama is pulling out the stops to impose his Allinsky dystopia on us.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  cedarhill
December 21, 2016 6:11 am

Just to be correct, it is not a Constitutional Convention, it is a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments. Those in opposition to this method as outlined in Article V use the scare words “constitutional convention” and perpetuate the myth that doing this would mean the Constitution can be voided and rewritten. That is why it is important to use the correct terminology. I have been following this for a while now and have filled out a survey for my opinion on what amendments should be proposed. My biggest concern is that there is division among those proposing amendments about what should be passed. In my opinion the amendment that would have the best impact on the U.S. is to impose term limits on those in Congress. I fear that too many others are backing a balanced budget amendment which can have its own bad consequences if not written properly.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 8:42 am

While I support term limits, I ‘d rather see an amendment that requires Congress members – and the rest of Government – to live by the laws they pass for every one else and another amendment that requires laws to address one subject only – no omnibus bills.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 9:15 am

Tom, I share our concern about a balanced budget amendment, but I do think one with proper exceptions could be worked out. However, to really get the Constitution back to what was envisioned by our forefathers would require three things: term limits, a balanced budget amendment and gross restrictions on the Interstate Commerce clause. We have to eliminate the career politicians, interested only in their own reelection, and get back to the citizen legislator that goes to Washington a few day a year to decide and vote on what is best for the country. Requiring a balanced budget under all but extreme conditions would eliminate the ‘bring home the bacon’ method of buying votes. And, I don’t know how to implement it but we have to place limits on the Interstate Commerce clause. Probably 95% or more of the over expansion of the federal government has been driven through that one clause.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 9:22 am

Roda, I agree. Allowing Congress to except themselves from the laws they pass just leads to their arrogance and self-importance.

TA
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 10:06 am

I don’t support term limits. Term limits, limit my personal freedom to choose who I want to represent me.
The people who are represented should have the final say on how long their representative stays in office. Term limits is throwing the good and the bad out without regard to who is who.
The people represented are the best judges of their representative.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  cedarhill
December 21, 2016 6:14 am

For those that are not familiar with Article V, any amendments passed in this manner do not go through Congress and they have no say in the matter.

December 21, 2016 3:52 am

Obama seems to be dedicated to leaving nasty presents for the new administration. The EPA puts out a tendentious “study” on fracking, and now this restriction on drilling. Both can be undone, but they are distractions.

nigelf
December 21, 2016 3:59 am

This is why most powers should be stripped from a sitting president after every election. Let the new guy make the rules once he’s sworn in.

Hivemind
Reply to  nigelf
December 21, 2016 4:28 am

In Australia, the caretaker convention prevents outgoing governments from making major decisions without the approval of the opposition. Even though it may not apply in America, it is certainly an act of bad faith.

Rhoda R
Reply to  nigelf
December 21, 2016 8:43 am

YES!

LarryFine
December 21, 2016 4:58 am

I’ve got the perfect solution to Obama’s closing off these areas, and one that’ll make Democrats in Congress beg to repeal the law that gives presidents such powers, and reverse Obama’s actions.
Vastly expand oil, gas and mineral exploration leases both on- and off-shore in California. And for good measure grant rights to build new refineries in the state. Then when the left go nuts, blame Obama for closing off alternatives.
“Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.”

John Endicott
Reply to  LarryFine
December 21, 2016 11:27 am

+1, Larry that is an excellent suggestion

Ack
December 21, 2016 5:28 am

So basically, oblunder has given russia and china free reign over arctic mineral wealth.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Ack
December 21, 2016 8:01 am

This.

Alba
December 21, 2016 5:31 am

It is quite likely that Mr Obama is suffering from President Is Supreme Syndrome. Within five minutes of taking office, President Trump should declare, “I wish to restore sanity to US government. I hereby declare that all orders, diktats, decrees, etc which my unfortunate predecessor issued without seeking Congressional approval are hereby rescinded.”

Ed zuiderwijk
December 21, 2016 5:34 am

The president is been ill advised. It demeans him.

TA
Reply to  Ed zuiderwijk
December 21, 2016 10:14 am

“The president is been ill advised.”
If you are talking about Obama, he doesn’t take advise. Obama thinks he is the smartest guy on the planet. Whatever you see him doing is something *he* wants to do, not something someone else wants him to do. Obama is the misleader of this show.

Richard Baguley
Reply to  TA
December 21, 2016 10:20 am

TA, you are correct, Obama doesn’t take advise, but he does take advice.

chris moffatt
December 21, 2016 5:41 am

“President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau are proud to launch actions ensuring a strong, sustainable and viable Arctic economy….”
Without oil and gas the Arctic economy consists of tourists coming to watch the polar bears at the town dump, shooting the odd bear for an outrageous fee and government welfare checks. Since I don’t see any attempt by Obama or that little scrote (i’m canadian I can say that!) Trudeau to provide any kind of development plan for the Arctic regions and peoples we can assume that this is what the future will be indefinitely with no respite from alcoholism, substance abuse and suicide. Way to go caring “liberals”.

Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 5:43 am

Here is the provision that Obama is using:
“1341. Reservation of lands and rights
(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President:
The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf. ”
It does not address what any following President can do nor does it allow for a “banning” of leasing. This would be one for the Courts to decide.
However, Congress can simply amend that provision to bring it in line with the overall purpose of the legislation which is to develop off shore resources for the betterment of the U.S.

SMC
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 6:11 am

Why would the Courts have to get involved? It seems pretty simple and clear to me, anyway. President Obama can institute a ban on unleased areas, if he desires and as he has done. President Trump can undo the ban, if he desires. Congress wouldn’t even have to get involved, unless they wanted to change the law for some reason… which probably wouldn’t be a bad idea if it prevented some future President from abusing the provision as Obama seems to have tried to do.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 8:41 am

Tom in Florida, see my comment upthread. As a matter of clear statutory construction, the provision is the President overriding his Sec. Interior. But given the laws express purposes in its first section, that cannot be construed as permanent. The WaPo legal assumption is wrong as a matter of statutory interpretation about congressional intent. The case law on this is well established, with lots of Scotus precedent. Even the late Justice Scalia’s lengthly book on strict statutory construction supports the conclusion that WaPo is just wrong.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2016 9:20 am

I would think the pertinent phrase is “The President of the United States may, from time to time,” it give the POTUS authority to from a given time to until another given time, as the POTUS sees fit the permission to withdraw unleased lands.

Reply to  Paul Jackson
December 21, 2016 11:18 am

Correct. And there is, I just learned from the American Petroleum Institute, precedent. In 2008 in response to $4/gallon gas, G. W. Bush removed from ‘off limits for leasing’ coastal blocks in the Eastern Gulf that had previously been so designated by G.H.W. Bush in 2000 to curry favor in Florida in the election he lost to Clinton. Florida sued and lost.

karl
Reply to  Paul Jackson
December 21, 2016 2:54 pm

@ristvan
And you would be wrong — It was an Executive Order — not the Continental Shelf Act
“In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued an executive moratorium restricting federal offshore leasing to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Alaska. The moratorium banned federal leasing through the year 2000 off the East Coast, West Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico (offshore Florida Gulf Coast), and the Northern Aleutian Basin of Alaska. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012. In July 2008, President George W. Bush rescinded the executive order.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_the_United_States

Reply to  Paul Jackson
December 21, 2016 3:44 pm

Karl, wikipedia is not your friend. I just spent 20 minutes researching the history of G.H.W. Bush’s 1990 ‘executive order’. It wasn’t. It was a Presidential Directive (same as the just issued Obama directive) under the 1953 Act, withdrawing most OCS acreage not yet leased, under 1341(a). It was reversed by his son in 2008. You can get the legal details at bdlaw.com in their law firms commentary on the controversy, which involved congressional as well as Presidential moritoriums.
Being loud and persistently insistant does not make you right. Typical warmunist behavior, though.

Reply to  Paul Jackson
December 21, 2016 5:01 pm

And I forgot in dinner prep rush to add the constitutiinal legal clincher to this killer argument. The express executive powers are enumerated by the Constitution in Article 2. There are some (Commander in Chief, recognition of foreign states) but very few. All others derive from Article 1 Congressional laws delegating implementation details to the executive branch. In the case of offshore mineral exploitation leasing, the OCS Act of 1953, which delegated leasing powers with many state consultation restrictions to the Dept. Interior, with a single 1341(a) presidential override exception. So the original 1990 Bush Presidential moratorium Directive had no force of law except via OCS 1953 passed by Congress. Your interpretation is not just a little bit wrong. It is statutory construction wrong. It is fact precedent wrong. You rely on WaPo and Wikimedia. I rely on settled case law precedent and legal facts. Please do shout on, making an ever bigger fool of yourself.

T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 6:10 am

“Robert from Oz” (as in the fantasy story you’re telling, Oz) says this: “President Obama has stepped up efforts to sabotage Trump’s mandate from the American people”.
Are you referencing the same election that the rest of the country has endured? What mandate?! HRC won the popular vote by almost 3M votes and still counting! The only thing Trump has to look forward to come January 21 is a divided country and the only mandate he has is to gracefully exit now, saving himself the humiliation of a long and embarrassing impeachment process and, more importantly, saving this country and rest of the world from untold blunders the magnitude and scope of which can only be imagined.

SMC
Reply to  T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 6:19 am

“HRC won the popular vote by almost 3M votes and still counting!”
I wonder how the popular vote would change if you discounted the illegal alien and zombie votes.
“…saving this country and rest of the world from untold blunders the magnitude and scope of which can only be imagined.”
How dramatic. Maybe you should become a Hollywood writer.

Gareth Phillips
Reply to  SMC
December 21, 2016 7:14 am

I just love conspiracy theories. However can you give us some valid references for your beliefs? I bet you don’t believe Russia interfered in the electoral process. 🙂

SMC
Reply to  SMC
December 21, 2016 7:59 am

Heh. When it comes to Russia, the question in my mind is, did they actually affect the vote totals by hacking voting machines or stuffing ballot boxes? Did they add a few votes here, a few votes there… If we’re talking about trying to influence the election, who cares. Darn near every country in the world tried to influence the election. Personally, I couldn’t care less about what Vladimir Putin, or Benjamin Netanyahu, or Bashir al Assad, or Queen Elizabeth, or Jane and Joe Public (that isn’t a US Citizen) thought about our presidential candidates and the election. The Electoral College has now voted and confirmed Trump will be the next POTUS. The vote will be certified by Congress on 6 Jan and Trump will be inaugurated on 20 Jan.

Gareth Phillips
Reply to  SMC
December 21, 2016 8:26 am

Ah, I thought so.

Mark T
Reply to  T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 6:58 am

a) You can’t “win” something that was not contested.
b) Majorities in the House, the Senate, state legislatures, state governorships, and at least one SCOTUS pick most certainly constitute a mandate.
c) Give it up, your kind, and flawed ideas, lost.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 8:03 am

Hillary’s mandate was from California, which will soon secede, or be expelled from the United States. The rest of the country voted for Trump.

SMC
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 21, 2016 9:10 am

I wonder when Moonbeam will build his wall.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 21, 2016 9:32 am

In his case it is to prevent or limit exfiltration not immigration. But, from what I have seen e.g., in both Colorado and Texas, something about ‘closing the barn door’ comes to mind.

Reply to  T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 10:04 am

Trump won the majority of counties (2,623 v. 489), states (30 v.20), and without California Trump won the popular vote too. California is trying to secede, so I say, let them go and Trump is the man hands down.

T. Madigan
Reply to  jvcstone
December 21, 2016 2:20 pm

3 million more people voted for HRC; that is hardly a mandate for either side. In a number of those states, his majority was razor thin, closer to a statistical tie really, so I would hardly say he “won” those states. I’ve seen the term “mandate” used more than a few times on this blog; he has no mandate at all, more like a divided country.
So, climate change notwithstanding, you’re ok with an uneducated, misogynistic troll for president who insults and denigrates handicapped individuals on national television and who thinks its ok to lie and cheat as long as you don’t get caught, who has no class and the self-control of an 8-year old. The office of the President is the highest office in the country and, in theory, should always represent the best we have to offer. It White House will now be occupied by the worst we have to offer and the prince of the swamp dwellers.

Reply to  T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 2:35 pm

T. It is remarkable how partisan politcs correlates with opinions on climate change. IMO your opinions on the recent US elections are every bit as shallow as your views on climate change.

MarkG
Reply to  jvcstone
December 21, 2016 5:21 pm

“3 million more people voted for HRC”
But they were either illegal or dead. As we know, 99% of corpses polled vote Democrat.

Reply to  T. Madigan
December 21, 2016 4:01 pm

Final vote count–Final #Election2016 numbers
#Popular Vote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750
#Electoral College vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232

Reply to  Clive Hoskin
December 21, 2016 4:07 pm

Ckuve: correction Clinton: 65,844,954
.
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

T. Madigan
Reply to  Clive Hoskin
December 21, 2016 9:24 pm

Umm, facts matter and it would serve you well to get them straight: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote
http://www.cnn.com/election/results
HRC: 65,844,954
– Trump: 62,979,879
= 2865075
HRC won the election but Trump will be president.

Reply to  Clive Hoskin
December 21, 2016 10:50 pm

Trump won 84.5% of all us counties, 33% more Electoral votes and lost the popular vote by 2,800K.

December 21, 2016 6:13 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-to-advance-climate-change-plans.html
Congress: Obama admin fired top scientist to advance climate change plans
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-19-Final-Staff-Report-LDRR.pdf
The Committee concludes that the DOE placed its own priorities to further the President’s Climate Action Plan before its Constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress. The DOE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The Committee further concludes that DOE’s disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress.

SMC
Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2016 6:33 am

“The Committee concludes that the DOE placed its own priorities … before its Constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress.”
Sounds like ample justification to hand out a bunch of pink slips.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2016 9:37 am

As I stated above, that probably is one of the reasons Gov. Perry wanted to eliminate the DOE. Don’t know if he still does, but it might get interesting around there come January/February.

dave
December 21, 2016 6:27 am

Just how much has Obama cost the USA and its ordinary people?

Gamecock
December 21, 2016 6:40 am

‘President Obama has stepped up efforts to sabotage Trump’s mandate from the American people, this time by attempting to mess up Trump’s commitment to open public land to oil and gas exploration.’
Amen. Obama isn’t acting alone, either.
‘Most Read from The Washington Post: Congratulations, Trump. Welcome to hell.’

Gareth Phillips
December 21, 2016 7:13 am

I was under the impression that due to fracking, you guys in the US were self sufficient in oil for the foreseeable future? If that is the case, why drill in places which are difficult to extract oil, expensive to transport the product and hard to sell in a time of an oil glut? It’s a bit like re-opening coal mines in difficult to extract areas when there is almost no market.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
December 21, 2016 7:24 am
Gareth Phillips
Reply to  ptolemy2
December 21, 2016 8:25 am

Thanks ptolemy.

Runawayyyy
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
December 21, 2016 2:33 pm

How about you let us deal with it. Oh, and you’re welcome for the low gas prices.
I’ll do mine, you do yours. M’kay?

Caligula Jones
December 21, 2016 7:17 am

Well, as someone has said, the Democrats have spend 8 years weaponizing the government…and now they have to turn it over to Trump.
Eventually, they’ll get why some of us are “smaller government” folks.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Caligula Jones
December 21, 2016 9:39 am

+1 :<)

Reply to  Caligula Jones
December 21, 2016 12:30 pm

It’s been a lot longer than eight years, these shenanigans started back during the LBJ administration with the start of the “War on Poverty”, when the leftists started infiltrating the bureaucracies and the schools. The overarching goal was the indoctrination of the school kids into the generation of snowflakes we see now. The Clintons brought it to a real art-form, deep down I believe that the real reason Obama got to be President was to test the waters for Hillary so she’d know how far she could push things. Losing the election was the defeat of a multi-decade plan IMHO.

cwon14
December 21, 2016 7:23 am

It’s just another long-term political investment in the Green movement.
Even repealed the process mobilizes the Green base for years to come.
It shouldn’t be forgotten in the current land of Obama regulatory excesses the Greens scored numerous victories in the 70’s and 80’s which in part created the pandering Climate junk science alliances that formed the IPCC/academia/youth culture. The common culture hatred of “big oil”, “corporations” etc. will remain at some base level and every oil spill, hurricane, heat wave, coastal flood an opportunity to remarket “climate change” and “clean energy” Utopianism.
Out of power the hope for movement greens their value system can grow again in the retreated enclaves of primary schools and universities. It will remain a mainstay talking point in the MSM and even expand.
Obama has set out a long term converging plan to mix Marxist and Green values with race, age and class elements. AGW authority was simply a useful tool that will be revived or simply replaced.

RBom
December 21, 2016 7:41 am

“a provision of the 1953 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act”
The act has been amended by Congress, as example in 1978.
An avenue is to have Congress amend the act again, limiting the President to obtain prior approval and consent by Congress for “actions” the President that he may be inclined to make regarding provisions of the law.

December 21, 2016 7:46 am

If impact assessments and cost-benefit analyses determine that such drilling is more beneficial to the planet than detrimental, then I could not bad mouth it. But I will not bad mouth every hint of an effort to be conscientious users of Earth’s resources, just because I believe that the current C02-global warming scare is total crap.
I will bad mouth the hypocrisy of disabling American coal, while shipping it off to, say, China, who burns it anyway. Oh, you Americans can’t use the stuff, but we Americans can still make money off the stuff by shipping it out of sight/out of mind for somebody else to burn.

MarkW
December 21, 2016 8:03 am

How much time does it take to sign a presidential order stating, all of Obama’s presidential orders are rescinded?

Walter Sobchak
December 21, 2016 8:07 am

Like most of what BimBam does, it is a meaningless middle finger raised to the people of the United States, and an act of observance to his true love, the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Because, for so long as oil remains around its current price ($52/bbl.), no drilling will be done in Alaska.

December 21, 2016 8:13 am

If I were President Trump, on January 21, I would nominate five new conservative constitutionalist Justices to the Supreme Court, raising the number of Justices to 13.

Reply to  Chuck Peebles (@bigpeepz)
December 21, 2016 8:41 am

Really, the Roosevelt approach, it didn’t work too well when he tried it!
If I were Obama I’d make a recess appointment of Merrick Garland.

karl
Reply to  Phil.
December 21, 2016 2:55 pm

@ Phil
+1

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Phil.
December 21, 2016 3:09 pm

Phil. doesn’t a recess appointment end when the next Congress is sworn in? If that is the case, (and I believe it is) Garland would be sitting on the Court for more than 30 days.

Reply to  Phil.
December 21, 2016 6:39 pm

No, a recess appointment would last until the end of the next senate session, December 2017.

karl
Reply to  Chuck Peebles (@bigpeepz)
December 21, 2016 1:09 pm

Umm – he can’t
Did everybody here FAIL CIVICS class?????
28 U.S. Code § 1 – Number of justices; quorum
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
It would take an ACT of Congress to change the number of justices.
I doubt that McCain, Graham, and Collins would vote for it.

Mark from the Midwest
December 21, 2016 8:15 am

The statute says:
“The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”
It’s pretty clear this is a P.R. stunt by Obummer, there is nothing else in the act that makes it irreversible. It would be at the discretion of the Secretary of Interior and the President to simply change the disposition of the lands from protected to unprotected.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 21, 2016 8:43 am

Correct.

karl
Reply to  ristvan
December 21, 2016 12:39 pm

@ ristvan
Wrong!
The government can only act as it is allowed.
https://capitalnews.vcu.edu/2012/05/15/virginia-makes-amends-for-wrongful-imprisonment/
Virginia lawmakers have to enact a special law to pay an inmate more than the formula provides for wrongful conviction.
The State is not prohibited from paying more than the amount provided by Statute, but they have no mechanism to pay any amount other than what statute compels them to.
https://vacode.org/2016/8.01/3/18.2/8.01-195.11/
note: there is no verbiage of “not more than” in the statute that provides the formula

Reply to  ristvan
December 21, 2016 3:10 pm

Karl, you are tiresome. virginia has nothingntomdo with the continental shelf act of 1953. And themwithdrawal provision must be read in light of congressional intent, whichnis a long historymof case law precedents from SCOTUS. Unlike many laws, this one has a long and specific intent preamble making statutory interpretation much easier than in most cases.

December 21, 2016 8:22 am

I’ve never heard of such a graceless act of contempt for the will of the American people. Opening public land to oil and gas was a central promise of President-elect Trump’s campaign manifesto. Trump won the electoral college, by a wide margin.
Not that wide, President Obama won by bigger margins in both of his elections, and as far as ‘the will of the American people’ is concerned, more voted for Hillary Clinton than for Trump. Just a reminder that Obama is still the president and is not bound by Trump’s promises, Trump can live up to those promises (or not) once he is inaugurated. I take it you were similarly outraged when the outgoing G W Bush administration enacted a record number of such ‘Midnight Regulations’ in an attempt to thwart the incoming president? This was done at the instigation of the Bush chief of stall, Joshua Bolten.

JohnS
December 21, 2016 8:37 am

if I was Trump I would send a letter to Obama that says, “I want to grant waivers to some oil companies that have particular offshore tracts that they want to develop. Is there some super-special legal language that you used when you granted waivers to all your union friends for the Affordable Care (snicker) Act? Thanks in advance for the friendly help.”

F. Ross
December 21, 2016 8:47 am

…administration officials stress that there is no provision in the law providing the president authority draw those actions back.

An irrrevocable regulation?
Gee, I wonder what the un-intended consquences of this action might be?

Jeffrey Mitchell
Reply to  F. Ross
December 21, 2016 10:39 am

This would be pure bluff. Unless the law prohibits rescission, Trump can do whatever he wants. As someone else in this thread mentioned, unless something is expressly prohibited, it is permitted. There is also likely no provision prohibiting the new president from rescinding this order.

karl
Reply to  Jeffrey Mitchell
December 21, 2016 12:41 pm

That’s not how LAW actually works.
Not forbidden is permitted is how lows PROHIBITING BEHAVIOR work.
The converse is true for LAWS ALLOWING BEHAVIOR. If it is not provided or ALLOWED, the government has no way to act.

G. Karst
December 21, 2016 8:55 am

Canada’s Justine Trudeau is complicit by helping Obama thwart the incoming Trump. How can Canada hope to have good relations with it’s largest trading partner after such blatant stupidity. J.T. must modify his International support of the Liberal agenda/conspiracy. He does not speak for ALL Canadians and his prospects are tanking. GK

Gandhi
December 21, 2016 9:01 am

Obama’s legacy is “Loser.” He’s by far the worst U.S. president ever.

Reply to  Gandhi
December 21, 2016 10:12 am

Aye–tis very true. He has lowered his golf handicap considerably though, perhaps thinking of a place in the seniors tour.

Reply to  Gandhi
December 21, 2016 10:49 am

Gandhi==> I think you lack perspective, and I could argue that Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, and Carter were worse than Barry.

Gareth Phillips
Reply to  Gandhi
December 21, 2016 2:22 pm

Strange how he remains remarkably popular . If the US constitution allowed him a third term judging by his approval rating he would walk it. But there we are, it will take a few years of Donny Tramp and his exciting adventures to put things into perspective.

karl
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
December 21, 2016 2:57 pm

Just in time for the 2018 midterm elections.

Salient Truth
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
December 21, 2016 10:43 pm

Yep- recent midterms have been so fruitful for the LW wackos and their nonsensical constructs- from local seats to Congress.

Terry
December 21, 2016 9:10 am

I have a hard time believing that the actions of a President alone can’t be easily undone by another President with the House and Senate.

TomRude
December 21, 2016 9:56 am

And the Canadian Parrot has followed his mentor…

Danny V
December 21, 2016 9:56 am

G. Karst
The only way jt will be relegated to the side lines is when Canada goes through the same swamp cleansing that the US just went through.
Premiers notely and wynn are more key players to be flushed. Quebec is and always will be a lost cause. Not sure if Canadian voters will ever wake up.
The irony was thick on yesterday’s local CTV news channel when they ran a story on an Ontario fastener company expanding in the US due to high electricity rates in Ontario, and the next story was on the need for donations to food banks.
The left press likes both stories – high electricity prices are a direct outcome of (failed) green energy policies (contracting to pay 81 cents per kWh for solar power), and food banks feed all those without jobs (a feel good story i think)
Looks like a major cluster fark or another analogy is the circular firing squad.

G. Karst
Reply to  Danny V
December 21, 2016 2:23 pm

I hope, your reply, wasn’t meant to cheer me up. 🙂 GK

December 21, 2016 10:43 am

Unlike those rights bestowed by our creator, what the government gives, the government can take away. History will record Obama’s legacy in asterisks, footnotes and parentheses.

James Wood
December 21, 2016 10:50 am

War is coming though it may be a bureaucratic war rather than a hot one, at least for now. It may not be clear yet to most but the battle lines are being drawn. If Obama can act with cynical abuse of law then so can Trump. In all the draconian emergency legislation of recent years there must be a provision for declaring a National Emergency and authority to override any of the executive orders of Obama or laws passed by Congress.
In the end law will likely mean nothing. Sufficient disturbance and Trump may have the opportunity to go before Congress and ask for a law allowing him to rule by decree and a fearful Congress will give it to him. The country has lost all respect for the ballot box. All that remains is the apparent lack of sufficient organization for one party or another to present large scale defiance. Sooner or later someone will find the will, determination and capability to do something unforgivable and the mood of the country will shift.
One should fear dictatorship because the various factions will soon stop at nothing to secure their position. Ruthlessness will soon be a necessity of survival in an increasingly chaotic government.
Most people seem to be seeing the current follies of government to be a joke. It will likely be as much of a joke as the picnickers found who came out from Washington at the start of the Civil War to watch the First Battle of Bull Run, a number of whom got caught up in the struggle with the retreating Union troops as an expected short and comical rebellion turned into a four year bloodbath.

Neil
December 21, 2016 10:51 am

I’ve never heard of such a graceless act of contempt for the will of the American people.

In Australia we had Paul Keating’s gift to Australia as the door hit his backside on the way out: the “Bringing them home” report.

Reply to  Neil
December 21, 2016 11:26 am

The outgoing North Carolina governor gave it a good try, after disputing the result of an election he’d clearly lost and refusing to concede. When finally forced to concede he hatched a coup attempt with the republican controlled house to strip the incoming governor’s powers. This was achieved by using a special meeting, called to vote on emergency provisions following the hurricane, to pass legislation to strip gubernatorial powers which the out-going governor then signed. Now that’s ‘an act of contempt for the will of the people’!

Jeffrey Mitchell
December 21, 2016 11:03 am

“There is currently no precedent for a president to hit rewind on bans against offshore drilling in the name of environmental protections.”
This is false. In the linked article below, it tells how President Bush rescinded an executive order banning drilling. CNN also said that some other law that needed modification by congress in order to be effective. The point here is that a president has rescinded such an order in the past.
It also makes me wonder that if there was an executive order to be lifted given that other law, why was there an order if the other law already banned drilling.
See http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html

karl
Reply to  Jeffrey Mitchell
December 21, 2016 12:34 pm

This is not an EXECUTIVE ORDER.
It is a statutorily granted power under the ACT in question. The ACT has no process or procedure to reverse a withdrawal. Until there is a lawful (meaning in an enacted law) process to re-instate withdrawn lands — the govt CANT act.
Congress can amend the law to provide a process to re-instate lands withdrawn by the POTUS.
Or it can legislate a new law specifically addressing the issue of re-instating lands withdrawn by POTUS under the ACT.
Until then DJT literally has no means by which to re-instate and an EO cannot overrule actions done under statute.

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 3:21 pm

Which depends on your interpretation of the statute. Which is wrong explicitly because of section 1332(c) and SCOTUS rulings on statutory interpretation. Obama can determine that under the environmental and technical circumstances of today, those lands should be withdrawn. And any future President can determine that under later circumstances, they shouldn’t be. Statutory interpretation. The law didn’t say withdrawn forever. It said withdrawn from time to time. I repeat, it appears a non-lawyer is here dispensing erroneous legal advice based on a WaPo article. Get back when you pass the bar exam and have been admitted. Me, that was 1976 after Harvard Law.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 3:35 pm

Ristvan go back to Harvard and sue for a refund of your tuition.
..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advice
.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
..
There is a difference between opinion and advice

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 4:39 pm

KS, this is a blog commentary. You really think I do not know the difference between legal opinion and legal advice? One is formal, the other informal. One is supposed to have all the law details checked and referenced. Been there, done that. The other is a consultation. Been there, done that also. But Karl is apparently certain his is both. So trying to jolt him into looking up,the actual law.
Your problem is not my degree. It apparently is that I continue to point out that Karl is just wrong, and won’t let go. Right. He is wrong, and I am not letting go.

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 4:43 pm

Oh, something I did not notice. The law is very funny. Merriam-Webster definitions are not valid. Black’s Law Dictionary is. You can get the 10th revision for only $140 ar Amazon. But then , you would have to read and memorize it.

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 5:28 pm

Ristvan this is a blog commentary and the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster are perfectly valid here since this is not a court of law. Please copy and paste the exact quote of Karl where he provides ADVICE as defined in the links that Mr. Sketchley gave.

Thank you in advance.

Reply to  karl
December 21, 2016 7:48 pm

Rdw, you do not merit a responsive reply since so legally lazy. I already explained the distinction. Karl is adamant that he is right as a matter of fact and law. He is neither. Why bother to link his erroneous comments giving him a false echo chamber? Those false apspertions you can look up yourself upthread. Do your own self assigned homework, warmunist. i will not echo it, you election loser.

troe
December 21, 2016 11:33 am

Not unexpected. President Obama hails from the Chicago school of American politics which places primary importance on gaining and maintaining power full stop. Laws and regulations are simply another tool toward that goal. Bad public policy is often the by product.

karl
Reply to  troe
December 21, 2016 1:03 pm

So you are upset that POTUS Obama use a (poorly written) LAW passed by congress in 1953, to enact his Administration’s Environmental policies?
He didn’t use an Executive Order, he used power granted to him by Congress.
Perhaps you should direct your ire at your elected representatives for falling asleep at the wheel.

Eric H
December 21, 2016 11:37 am

Mandate? Wow, is that overselling the result.

ralfellis
December 21, 2016 12:12 pm

Caliph Obama only ever paid homage to one other king. And that king did not want any competition for the exports that underpinned his wealth. And Obama complied with his wished, like the willing servant of the Umma that he was…..comment image

Bindidon
December 21, 2016 12:33 pm

There is currently no precedent for a president to hit rewind on bans against offshore drilling in the name of environmental protections.
Maybe, but i cite here out of NYT

And he noted that Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, George Bush and Bill Clinton all used the 1953 law to protect portions of federal waters. None of those designations have been undone.

And I add: shame on Eric Worall when he writes
Ordinary people will suffer because of Obama’s spiteful attempt to thwart the will of the American people.
1. The ordinary people at best will suffer in 10 or 20 years because the shale gas industry didn’t care of environment protection.
2. The ordinary people never and never would place industry’s interest above environmental interests, would they really be informed about what happens in the Continental Shelf Lands when the oil and gas industry irremediably destroys the environment.

michael hart
Reply to  Bindidon
December 21, 2016 8:39 pm

I think “the ordinary people” can, and should, decide for themselves what best serves their economic interests, not Greenpeace or the Sierra Club.
Environmentalists frequently like to pretend that the interests of industry and ordinary people must necessarily be in conflict when this is not actually true: Affordable energy from petroleum resources serves my interests as a consumer of energy AND ALSO serves the interests of industry that produces it for a profit. Environmental scaremongering is the tactic commonly used to create divisions and an illusion of conflict.

Russell R.
December 21, 2016 1:56 pm

The executive branch enforces the law. The executive branch has “discretion” in the level of enforcement they choose to use. President Trump will determine the appropriate level of “discretion”.
By the time anyone wants to drill in these areas this “permanent action” will be just another one of Obama’s legacies in the dumpster.

karl