Congress at its best

I see that the Senate, yet again, voted down expanded oil drilling in Alaska. Foreign powers must be flabbergasted, yet overjoyed, over how the United States is the only country in the world that has substantial, accessible untapped oil reserves but refuses to develop them.

But don't worry, Congress voted overwhelmingly to stop diverting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Sure, it's just a symbolic gesture (70,000 barrels a day, out of daily consumption of 20 million barrels), but that's what Congress excels at. Long-term strategic policy? Not so much.

We are so screwed.

More good news: The House has voted to allow OPEC to be sued in American courts. That'll help!

Robert Samuelson made an excellent point in the Post the other day. Where do we get off demanding OPEC to produce more oil (the dirty little secret: Except for Saudi Arabia, they can't.) when we could DOUBLE our proven oil reserves overnight if we opened up Alaska and the Gulf for drilling. How can we criticize OPEC for not maxing out their production when we won't, either?

Randall wrote:More good news: The House has voted to allow OPEC to be sued in American courts. That'll help!

Robert Samuelson made an excellent point in the Post the other day. Where do we get off demanding OPEC to produce more oil (the dirty little secret: Except for Saudi Arabia, they can't.) when we could DOUBLE our proven oil reserves overnight if we opened up Alaska and the Gulf for drilling. How can we criticize OPEC for not maxing out their production when we won't, either?

OMG Randall!!! Did you see Clinton a few days ago campaigning in Kentucky? I saw footage of her on the news saying things like, "Today President Bush went to the King of Saudi Arabia begging for more oil. If I'm your President, I won't be begging for more oil! I'll demand OPEC produce more oil."

It was a brief clip, but I heard her say she'd make/demand/force OPEC to produce more oil half a dozen times. We are screwed, indeed. However, I must concede that at least Hillary isn't going to be our next prez. Things could be worse.

Not only are they NOT going to increase production, as we reduce our usage, they'll reduce production as much as possible to keep oil prices high. It only makes sense.

I think the only way we're going to see lower oil prices hence gas pricses is for us to ween ourselves from the need for foreign oil. We start by not only drilling for our own oil, we have to increase our refining capabilities and then we really need to start taking a long hard look at our current AND future energy crisis.

We don't need to fix it for 2010, we need to plan for 2050 and beyond and base our engery needs on the future instead of the past.

Aaron wrote:We don't need to fix it for 2010, we need to plan for 2050 and beyond and base our engery needs on the future instead of the past.

Good observation. Professor Ziggy awards you a grade of A Plus for that answer.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:We don't need to fix it for 2010, we need to plan for 2050 and beyond and base our engery needs on the future instead of the past.

Good observation. Professor Ziggy awards you a grade of A Plus for that answer.

That's what I told a reporter from Fox radio out of Chicago when I took my liberal son to listen to Obama.

She gave me a litte more then an A.

You would be suprised at what whaling on 'clean coal' does to a liberal woman.

Treasure the memory!

Randall wrote:I see that the Senate, yet again, voted down expanded oil drilling in Alaska. Foreign powers must be flabbergasted, yet overjoyed, over how the United States is the only country in the world that has substantial, accessible untapped oil reserves but refuses to develop them.

But don't worry, Congress voted overwhelmingly to stop diverting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Sure, it's just a symbolic gesture (70,000 barrels a day, out of daily consumption of 20 million barrels), but that's what Congress excels at. Long-term strategic policy? Not so much.

Randall, I think I finally figured it out.

It was an inspirational thought that just "popped up" in the ole noggin as I was ..... was ..... was ...... "taking care of personal business" the other morning. I do my bestest thinking whe i'ma settin all alone, ya know.

The refusal to permit such oil drilling is not an environmental thingy, ........ it is actually a ......

Vast Left Wing Democrat Conspiracy ........

to deplete the oil reserves of all those Middle Eastern nations and again make them subserviant to the beck n' call of the Democrats in Congress.

DUH, as soon as they run out of oil, ....... they ain't got shidt to bargain with.




.

From the House bill on suing OPEC:

“It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product… or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.”

So can we sue Congress for "limiting the production or distribution of oil"? Because that is exactly what they are doing when they declare half of US oil reserves to be off-limits.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

Well it seems like half the people I know are employed by oil and gas companies leasing all the property in about 5 states that is available.

So it looks to me like there will be no need to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge.

There is plenty of reserves right here in Appalachia.

More than we can handle, probably.

That's natural gas Sherm. Alsaska is oil.

There is a wee bit of a difference.

Randall wrote:From the House bill on suing OPEC:

“It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product… or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.”

So can we sue Congress for "limiting the production or distribution of oil"? Because that is exactly what they are doing when they declare half of US oil reserves to be off-limits.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

I think it should be done. I love that idea.

I wonder if this is the method Hillary plans to use to "force" OPEC to produce more oil.

Stephanie wrote:

Randall wrote:So can we sue Congress for "limiting the production or distribution of oil"? Because that is exactly what they are doing when they declare half of US oil reserves to be off-limits.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

I think it should be done. I love that idea.

It would not be Congress who would be sued. The defendent(s) would be the administrative agency / agencies that implement the law.

And the duties of government agencies to manage public lands consistent with the laws of such public land management have been upheld repeatedly.

Is there a law on the books that Congress cannot be sued? There may be, I don't know. How do you sue a government agency for following the law?

Stephanie wrote:Is there a law on the books that Congress cannot be sued? There may be, I don't know. How do you sue a government agency for following the law?

I am not a lawyer, so I do not know just "how".

But government agencies, from local to federal level, are sued every day.

As to suing Congress, what has Congress done that agrieves you? It can pass laws year in and year out. But unless someone tries to actually enforce those laws, there is no cause of action. The laws are implemented by adminastratiuve agencies, not by Congress. If agencies ignore the law(s)- which they sometimes do- there is no cause of action other than to require agencies to enforce the laws.

So if your problem is enforcement of laws you don't like, the cause of action is against the agencies, not Congress. Your redress with goivernment agancies is to sue them. Your redress with Congress is to campaign and vote. Congress is exempt from civil charges not only for what it does on the floor of Congress, but- Constitutionally- even for what Coingressmen and Congresswomen say on the floor of Congress while Congress is in session.

We are incapable of voting them out, and we really don't have a whole lot of controll over it. I can only vote for candidates to my district. I can't vote to get rid of Nancy Pelosi, or Patrick Kennedy.
Nancy Pelosi has an enormous amount of power, yet my hands are tied when it comes to her. I would like to sue her for being a moron. I wonder if I could find an attorney to take the case on a contigency basis? lol

Can you even sue your own Congresswoman for being a moron- or even your neighbor for being a moron?

Stephanie, everyone except you and me are morons. That's just the way the world is. Get use to it.

LOL

I think I can sue my neighbor for being a moron, if his moronic behavior is negatively impacting my quality of life. So why can't I sue Pelosi?

Stephanie wrote:LOL

I think I can sue my neighbor for being a moron, if his moronic behavior is negatively impacting my quality of life. So why can't I sue Pelosi?

That's beyond me. Ask a lawyer.