One of my favorite members of Congress is Justin Amash. If you're on Facebook you should follow him. He is the only member of Congress who posts how he voted for each bill and why. It's refreshing to see a member of Congress so open and willing to give details as to why he voted the way he did.
The Keystone XL Pipeline has turned into political football with both the Republican and Democrat candidate in Louisiana trying to push a bill through the House and Senate in order to swing voters their way in next month's runoff for the Senate seat. The Senate bill failed, the House bill passed.
Enter Justin Amash. Rep. Amash voted "Present" for the bill. Why? Here's his reasoning (part in bold is mine):
Quote:
"I voted present on H R 3, Northern Route Approval Act. The Keystone XL pipeline is a private project owned by TransCanada Corporation. This bill improperly exempts TransCanada Corporation - and no other company - from laws that require pipeline owners and operators to obtain certain government permits and approvals.
I support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and holding it up for over four years (with no end in sight) for political reasons is wrong. It's improper, however, for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private project, while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that allowed such delays to occur. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," but the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL.
As F.A. Hayek explained in The Constitution of Liberty: "It is because the lawgiver does not know the particular cases to which his rules will apply, and it is because the judge who applies them has no choice in drawing the conclusions that follow from the existing body of rules and the particular facts of the case, that is can be said that laws and not men rule. Because the rule is laid down in ignorance of the particular case and no man's will decides the coercion used to enforce it, the law is not arbitrary. This, however, is true only if by 'law' we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody. This generality is probably the most important aspect of that attribute of law which we have called its 'abstractness.' As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons."
My commitment to my constituents when I took office was that I may vote present on legislation in three extremely rare circumstances (this is the 12th present vote out of nearly two thousand votes in Congress): (1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper means to achieve its ends, e.g. singling out a specific person or group for special treatment; (2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or (3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation - a circumstance that hasn't happened yet and I don't anticipate happening.
H R 3 uses improper means to accomplish its laudable goal by singling out TransCanada Corporation and its Keystone XL pipeline for special treatment.
It passed 241-175-1."
|
Amash is right, and from other op-ed pieces I've read there's also issues of eminent domain with this project, and some believe because this bill names and benefits a single corp it would not hold up against a lawsuit which environmental groups will no doubt file if this somehow gets passed.
Linear Mode
