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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Plenty of scope in Russian Arctic. It’s all part of the plan.
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.
Unfortunately, Stephan, slightly less than half of America still thinks this jerk is a good President.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is essentially correct on both counts.
The next Congress and President Trump should immediately pass a law that relieves former Presidents from paying taxes on cigarettes.
Why? I’d pass an EO that doubles taxes on former Presidents who smoke.
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.
On private lands?
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.
yes, imagine how much more could have been done if he wasn’t fighting it tooth and nail 🙂
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.
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.
Don’t lay all the blame on Butts. There are others involved.
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.
Only Republican politicians are held to high standards of accountability.
If the ‘science’ they intend to use for ‘management’ is anything like the science used for AGW, then Lord help the marine resources.
science based…got a lotta leeway it seems
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/20/energy-dept-defends-obamas-climate-action-plan-by-firing-honest-scientist/
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.
What if Mr. Trump began a cost benefit analysis of renewable energy and energy storage?
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
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.
In a very real sense we ARE in a religious war right now.
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”.
That is called a King. We don’t want one of those here.
Thanks
JK
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.
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.
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.
How about this?
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
@ur momisugly SMC — actually it does mean that. Congress provided no means for withdrawn lands to be re-instated.
@ur momisugly Marc T. — it only states withdrawn. Yeah — it seems absurd, but Congress actually made it permanent by not providing a way to reverse it.
@ur momisuglyDMA — 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.
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.
Ristvan, as a lawyer you should know the difference between “legal advice” and “legal opinion.” Karl is not offering advice, so shame on you.
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?
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.
I know I’m not going to make many friends this way, but… it’s martial law, not “marshal”.
Eustace,
“There’s a new sheriff in town”
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.
Yep. Obama is pulling out the stops to impose his Allinsky dystopia on us.
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.
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.
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.
Roda, I agree. Allowing Congress to except themselves from the laws they pass just leads to their arrogance and self-importance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YES!
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.”
+1, Larry that is an excellent suggestion
So basically, oblunder has given russia and china free reign over arctic mineral wealth.
This.
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.”
The president is been ill advised. It demeans him.
“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.
TA, you are correct, Obama doesn’t take advise, but he does take advice.
“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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@Rud Istvan
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
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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. 🙂
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.
Ah, I thought so.
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.
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.
I wonder when Moonbeam will build his wall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“3 million more people voted for HRC”
But they were either illegal or dead. As we know, 99% of corpses polled vote Democrat.
Final vote count–Final #Election2016 numbers
#Popular Vote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750
#Electoral College vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232
Ckuve: correction Clinton: 65,844,954
.
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president
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.
Trump won 84.5% of all us counties, 33% more Electoral votes and lost the popular vote by 2,800K.