Obama veto just one way to stop Keystone XL - Macleans.ca
 

Obama veto just one way to stop Keystone XL

A look at the potential pitfalls that could prevent progress on the Keystone XL pipeline


 
Barack Obama at the Cushing, Oklahoma site in March 2012. (Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Barack Obama at the Cushing, Oklahoma site in March 2012. (Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON – The wild and unexpectedly speedy ride of Keystone XL legislation through the U.S. Congress late Wednesday had supporters of Canadian oil hopeful of a celebratory end to the project’s six years of stagnation.

Some sobering realities, however, were setting in the following day.

The biggest downer for pipeline enthusiasts came in news from Burma. That’s where the White House hinted during a press briefing early Thursday, during President Barack Obama’s trip to Asia, that he might veto the bill.

A spokesman noted Obama’s long-standing view that the legal right to approve cross-border infrastructure belongs to the administration — not to members of Congress.

He noted that the president had scuttled such a congressional effort in the past, and could do it again if Congress tries forcing the issue before the administration completes its ongoing review into the Alberta-to-Texas project.

“I think it’s fair to say that our dim view of these kinds of proposals has not changed,” Josh Earnest said, while refusing to offer a firm answer on whether there would be a veto.

“There have been previous proposals … and in evaluating those earlier proposals, we have indicated that the president’s senior advisers at the White House would recommend that he veto legislation like that. That does continue to be our position.”

He was weighing in after a dramatic flurry of legislative activity the previous day. Two opponents in a Louisiana runoff election used their respective seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate to push companion pro-Keystone bills, with the key vote expected next Tuesday.

If the legislation passes both chambers, and gets Obama’s signature, it becomes law. But there are potential pitfalls that could prevent progress on the pipeline.

Here are some of them.

The Veto: A bill needs two-thirds support in Congress to override a presidential veto — which is 67 votes in the 100-seat Senate. The bill being pushed by Louisiana’s embattled Sen. Mary Landrieu does not have those votes.

There’s already huge pressure on Obama from environmental groups to veto it, on the logic that he’d be tarnishing his own legacy on climate change by allowing the pipeline just after striking a historic emissions deal with China.

One columnist in the Washington Post pointed to another concern: the bill starves Obama of valuable leverage he might prefer using in two months.

The next Congress, to be sworn in early next year, will be dominated by Republicans. One of their biggest policy priorities — perhaps even their No. 1 issue — is pushing Obama to approve the pipeline. In exchange for that kind of political victory, Obama might have insisted on something in return from the Republicans.

The Legal Issues: The pipeline doesn’t even have an approved route, at least not for now. In Nebraska, the courts have thrown out the existing route, declaring that the state’s Republican governor used unconstitutional methods to approve it.

The case is before the state’s Supreme Court. Dave Domina, the lawyer fighting the pipeline on behalf of holdout Nebraska landowners, said he expects a decision by the state Supreme Court soon, possibly by the holidays.

Domina said lawmakers need to remember not only that there’s a gap in the route in Nebraska but also that the final decision belongs to the president, not Congress.

A hasty move in Washington could prompt more lawsuits, he suggested.

“I would hope people who are looking at these kinds of possibilities don’t get carried away with foolish decisions that aren’t researched,” Domina said. “This isn’t all about politics.”

The Filibuster: It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Landrieu has said she thinks she has those votes. Other estimates put the guaranteed support at around 58 votes.

In any case, that tight margin suggests there might be some frantic arm-twisting and vote-counting early next week. The House is expected to pass the bill easily but the Senate vote, expected Tuesday, will be a squeaker.

The Weather: It’s cold outside, and getting colder. Given that the ground is frozen and the construction season is over, it’s not an ideal time to be building a pipeline.

TransCanada Corp. says it can build throughout the year, but past statements from workers and from the Canadian government suggest there are meteorological realities to deal with, and union crews in Nebraska say their season starts in the spring.

By next spring, a verdict will probably be out in the Nebraska court case. The Obama administration would then have lost its stated reason for failing to complete its State Department-led review.

And should the administration fail to approve the pipeline, a new Republican-dominated, bitumen-friendly Congress will have been sworn in, with more than enough votes to put another bill on Obama’s desk.


 
Filed under:

Obama veto just one way to stop Keystone XL

  1. Bottom line is: it’s up to Obama

    Always has been.

  2. Depending on how the vote goes Obama may not have the veto as an option, he definitely will not have that option in January……………Obummer.

  3. The goal is to force Obama to make decisions on popular bills, putting him in a corner where he will have to either veto legislation or begrudgingly accept it. Obama has vetoed only two bills during his first six years in office, the fewest since President James Garfield’s brief, one-year tenure.

    “We want to get things in front of the president that define him and his party,” the Senate aide said. “Harry Reid has protected him. We want to force him to make a choice.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-if-republicans-take-senate-2014-11#ixzz3IzpEFz73

  4. Obama has always had the veto…and will continue to do so. As will the next president.

    • Doesn’t matter luv….Obama is the decider. Always has been.

      • Folly though it may be to challenge E1’s unparalleled expertise in US constitutional law, the “decider”, luv, is far more likely the US Supreme Court, who will be invited to consider whether the presidential veto power, which exists because 100 metres of the 1,800 km pipeline crosses a border, can be validly exercised notwithstanding the fact there are no environmental/security/international/labour/etc etc etc issues associated with that 100 metres and any environmental/security/international/labour/etc etc etc issues associated with the other 1,799.9 km fall within the purview of Congress, not the President. This is easier to understand in reverse – it would be as if Congress claimed a veto power over a presidential decision to, say, kill Osama Bin Laden because the bullets were made in Ohio.

        Notwithstanding anything the US SCC might say, I suspect that, if Obama repeatedly vetos Congressional approval, the chances of a Republican president less inclined to continue to obstruct bi-partisan legislation in 2016 go up considerably. I therefore join with E1 in urging Obama to keep on keeping on with the vetos!