While the press leads the lemmings to fret about Trump...

Mr. Obama invoked an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he said gives him the authority to act unilaterally. While some presidents have used that law to temporarily protect smaller portions of federal waters, Mr. Obama’s declaration of a permanent drilling ban from Virginia to Maine on the Atlantic and along much of Alaska’s coast is breaking new ground. The declaration’s fate will almost certainly be decided by the federal courts.

Environmentalists are already drawing comparisons between Mr. Obama’s use of the 1953 law to ban new drilling to what critics and opponents called his novel and audacious efforts to craft new climate change regulations: He turned to an obscure, rarely used provision in the 1970 Clean Air Act to write sweeping regulations that would require states to shift their electricity systems from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

But because of new and legally inventive strategies, Mr. Obama and his staff may well have built firewalls

TheReal_LWS wrote:It's going to be a rough 8 years for you left wing whackos!

Death Roe wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:It's going to be a rough 8 years for you left wing whackos!

Really want to change my vote now. Or just cancel it altogether.

Death Roe wrote:I wouldn't have voted for her. Should've just not voted.

I'm a mild Republican, but nuts like you scare the shit out of me. And we're supposed to be on the same side.

DWags wrote:I hear they've backed off now. It's gonna be funny.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Death Roe wrote:I wouldn't have voted for her. Should've just not voted.

I'm a mild Republican, but nuts like you scare the shit out of me. And we're supposed to be on the same side.

Man, a lot of you are afraid of me. And I'm really as sweet as a puppy dog.

DWags wrote:Wow. Sounds brilliant. Any laws broken?

Blanch32 wrote:

DWags wrote:Wow. Sounds brilliant. Any laws broken?

say the same about the out going nc governor? let me guess, you dont watch the news.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Blanch32 wrote:

say the same about the out going nc governor? let me guess, you dont watch the news.

Except one act was in the interest of the common good, while the other was just a power grab.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Except one act was in the interest of the common good, while the other was just a power grab.

AnomanderRake wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Do you not think it is in our best interest to protect the environment? Even if you don't care about the environment, the net benefit to the US is negligible at best.

Research on arctic drilling prospects has shown that the oil would take 10 years to reach our markets, and would only satisfy 3% of US daily oil consumption. The net impact to our price per barrel would be $.50, or about $.04 per gallon in 20 years.

Seems insane to me that we would allow the destruction of public lands for little to no benefit to the public.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Do you not think it is in our best interest to protect the environment? Even if you don't care about the environment, the net benefit to the US is negligible at best.

Research on arctic drilling prospects has shown that the oil would take 10 years to reach our markets, and would only satisfy 3% of US daily oil consumption. The net impact to our price per barrel would be $.50, or about $.04 per gallon in 20 years.

Seems insane to me that we would allow the destruction of public lands for little to no benefit to the public.

Energy independence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protecting the environment

AnomanderRake wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Energy independence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protecting the environment

Drilling in the arctic will not help us achieve energy independence. It would hardly even put a dent in the amount of oil we need to purchase from foreign powers.

The most viable path for energy independence for the USA is to become the world leader in renewable energy sources. It also happens to be the most sustainable path. We're lagging behind much of the rest of the world in this regard currently due to the influence of big oil.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Drilling in the arctic will not help us achieve energy independence. It would hardly even put a dent in the amount of oil we need to purchase from foreign powers.

The most viable path for energy independence for the USA is to become the world leader in renewable energy sources. It also happens to be the most sustainable path. We're lagging behind much of the rest of the world in this regard currently due to the influence of big oil.

Drilling in the arctic and further exploration in the ocean could get us there. Couple with lifting restrictions on fracking and increasing shale oil production. Maybe we'll never get all the way there, but we could certainly reduce our dependence on foreign oil over time.

AnomanderRake wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Drilling in the arctic and further exploration in the ocean could get us there. Couple with lifting restrictions on fracking and increasing shale oil production. Maybe we'll never get all the way there, but we could certainly reduce our dependence on foreign oil over time.

Well we're already energy independent in every industry energy is consumed other than the transportation industry which still heavily relies on oil imports.

In my opinion, we should be looking to completely eliminate our reliance on oil as a fuel source, not just our reliance on foreign oil, and technology is already trending that way with the rapidly advancing viability of electric vehicles.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Do you not think it is in our best interest to protect the environment? Even if you don't care about the environment, the net benefit to the US is negligible at best.

Research on arctic drilling prospects has shown that the oil would take 10 years to reach our markets, and would only satisfy 3% of US daily oil consumption. The net impact to our price per barrel would be $.50, or about $.04 per gallon in 20 years.

Seems insane to me that we would allow the destruction of public lands for little to no benefit to the public.

Energy independence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protecting the environment

TheReal_LWS wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Well we're already energy independent in every industry energy is consumed other than the transportation industry which still heavily relies on oil imports.

In my opinion, we should be looking to completely eliminate our reliance on oil as a fuel source, not just our reliance on foreign oil, and technology is already trending that way with the rapidly advancing viability of electric vehicles.

Rapidly advancing. LOL

LooseGoose wrote:.......our current President rushes to invent new laws.

Obama Bans Drilling in Parts of the Atlantic and the Arctic

Mr. Obama invoked an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he said gives him the authority to act unilaterally. While some presidents have used that law to temporarily protect smaller portions of federal waters, Mr. Obama’s declaration of a permanent drilling ban from Virginia to Maine on the Atlantic and along much of Alaska’s coast is breaking new ground. The declaration’s fate will almost certainly be decided by the federal courts.

Environmentalists are already drawing comparisons between Mr. Obama’s use of the 1953 law to ban new drilling to what critics and opponents called his novel and audacious efforts to craft new climate change regulations: He turned to an obscure, rarely used provision in the 1970 Clean Air Act to write sweeping regulations that would require states to shift their electricity systems from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

But because of new and legally inventive strategies, Mr. Obama and his staff may well have built firewalls

I'm sure our next President will get such fawning coverage as he uses "obscure provisions" and "legally inventive" strategies.

LooseGoose wrote:.......our current President rushes to invent new laws.

Obama Bans Drilling in Parts of the Atlantic and the Arctic

Mr. Obama invoked an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he said gives him the authority to act unilaterally. While some presidents have used that law to temporarily protect smaller portions of federal waters, Mr. Obama’s declaration of a permanent drilling ban from Virginia to Maine on the Atlantic and along much of Alaska’s coast is breaking new ground. The declaration’s fate will almost certainly be decided by the federal courts.

Environmentalists are already drawing comparisons between Mr. Obama’s use of the 1953 law to ban new drilling to what critics and opponents called his novel and audacious efforts to craft new climate change regulations: He turned to an obscure, rarely used provision in the 1970 Clean Air Act to write sweeping regulations that would require states to shift their electricity systems from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

But because of new and legally inventive strategies, Mr. Obama and his staff may well have built firewalls

I'm sure our next President will get such fawning coverage as he uses "obscure provisions" and "legally inventive" strategies.

Cameron wrote:While I support the ends Obama seems to be pursuing here, I don't much like these means. This is the sort of bullshit our system creates, though. Everyone is always looking for a loophole. Damn lawyers.

Obama wants to designate huge tracts of the ocean floor as no-go zones for drilling. No problem — Trump can just un-designate them once he’s sworn in, right? Nope, not according to liberals. The law says that the president can withdraw lands from consideration for drilling; it doesn’t say that he can change his mind later and reinstate those lands. If you want that to happen, your only option is to have Congress amend the 1953 law to make his power of reinstatement explicit. And that won’t be easy to do with only 52 Republican votes in the Senate and the Democratic filibuster still intact (for the moment).

David Harsanyi tries to imagine the apocalyptic rage on the left if Trump purported to do anything “permanent” via unilateral action in office. Which, actually, is exactly why I find this Obama gambit so surprising. Do O and the left really want to set a precedent, with the populist strongman a month away from taking office, that a president’s actions can’t be undone by successors unless the federal statute under which he’s acting explicitly says that they can? That seems like a stupendously terrible and easily abused principle to hand the Trump legal brain trust as they start strategizing for ways to make the Trump revolution “permanent.” You would think the left would want to (very belatedly) try to normalize the idea of limited executive powers that can easily be reversed by future occupants of the office. Harsanyi:

The problem is that Trump (and anyone else who comes along) has little reason not to adopt Obama’s unprecedented use of the executive power.

No post-World War II president (and maybe none in our history) justified executive overreach as a function of his office, regularly contending that Congress—which kept adding seats throughout his presidency—had abdicated its responsibility by refusing to go along with his plans. Whether courts found his actions constitutional or not (and quite often they did), it’s an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit American governance…

Whether it’s worth accessing this energy or not will be a worthwhile debate one day. More broadly, though, Obama’s move—and the hypocritical reaction to it—reaffirm that most Democrats aren’t concerned about norms or “democracy,” they’re concerned about furthering liberal agenda items.

The weirdest thing about this “permanent” ban is that it’s terrible politics for Democrats. If Trump signs an executive order purporting to reinstate the lands withdrawn by Obama and he wins that court case, it’s a victory for him and an embarrassment for O and his party. Even if Trump loses the court case, he could turn around and use the issue as a wedge against red-state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2018. We must amend the 1953 law, he’ll say, so that America can take another step towards energy independence. The cheaper we can make energy, the better the conditions are for growth.

In which case, what is Obama achieving here except damage to his party and a dangerous, easily abused approach to federal statutory interpretation? It’s bananas.

But it’s also pointless to try to shame liberals now after eight years of them cheerleading aggressive executive power grabs because they were frustrated by an obstructionist Congress. They embraced the idea that the president should have more freedom to act when the legislature isn’t moving as quickly as he’d like. Now Trump’s going to embrace it too.

AnomanderRake wrote:The only power Obama "handed" to Trump is a precedent for banning offshore drilling. If Trump wants to use that power to ban more offshore drilling sites to protect the environment, I'm ok with that.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:The only power Obama "handed" to Trump is a precedent for banning offshore drilling. If Trump wants to use that power to ban more offshore drilling sites to protect the environment, I'm ok with that.

You obviously didn't read the article.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Blanch32 wrote:

say the same about the out going nc governor? let me guess, you dont watch the news.

Except one act was in the interest of the common good, while the other was just a power grab.

The_Dude wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Except one act was in the interest of the common good, while the other was just a power grab.

Arent politics just one big power grab?

I dont get it when that term is used.

AnomanderRake wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Arent politics just one big power grab?

I dont get it when that term is used.

I don't think politics can be boiled down that simply, but yes everything is often about a power struggle.

I think the NC governor situation was a bit of a false equivalence. In that case, one party coordinated an effort to take power away from the governor-elect in a general sense, and shift it to the legislative branch.

In Obama's case, he was exercising his own power/that of the executive branch in order to protect the environment. He did not seek to remove or limit executive branch power for the President-Elect Donald Trump. Trump will have all of the same executive powers that Obama had when he enters the White House.

The_Dude wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't think politics can be boiled down that simply, but yes everything is often about a power struggle.

I think the NC governor situation was a bit of a false equivalence. In that case, one party coordinated an effort to take power away from the governor-elect in a general sense, and shift it to the legislative branch.

In Obama's case, he was exercising his own power/that of the executive branch in order to protect the environment. He did not seek to remove or limit executive branch power for the President-Elect Donald Trump. Trump will have all of the same executive powers that Obama had when he enters the White House.

After seeing Reid blatantly lie on the Senate floor and other Dem plots through the year I'm glad Rs are finally playing at their level.