Does Obama have the numbers in the next Congress to sustain a Keystone veto?

[bluestateguy]

They would need 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate.

Will a veto be sustained?

[merrily]

1. What Keystone veto?

If override is certain, he'll veto.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. The House needs 288 of 435 members and 67 Senators to over rule the President's threatened Veto.

If voting strictly along party lines, no one will overrule the President's veto. There are a number of Democrats who would likely vote for the Keystone XL Pipeline. When it comes up for a vote, look at the tally of votes. The question remains whether they will vote to over ride the President's veto, which requires a second vote.

[GitRDun]

3. I thought it was a state department approval that is required.

Maybe I have it wrong, but I don't think Congress has anything to say about Keystone.

[merrily]

4. I thought the state department already gave the approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us/politics/report-may-ease-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?_r=0

If a Congressional vote is not necessary, someone should tell the House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817179

And the POTUS.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/us-usa-obama-keystone-idUSKCN0IY0JD20141114

[GitRDun]

5. I don't know

The Times article says Kerry has not made a recommendation on behalf of the state dept.

The Reuters article, does not effectively articulate how the legislation would impact what appears to be a Presidential required approval.

[merrily]

6. Well, the House seems to be gearing up to vote. An international matter should not require more

than the Senate.

If only a Presidential approval is required, why did Obama threaten a veto?

No clue what is going on.

[Samantha]

12. Actually this falls within the purview of the Executive Branch and not the Legislative Branch

What is going on is the Republicans are making a power grab to usurp some Executive Branch functions. The House has voted and passed the legislation, I think the Senate is going to vote Monday (I believe I heard that). Mitch McConnell has been crowing he has 60 votes to pass it, it is fillibuster proof, he says. So say they put a piece of legislation on the President's desk and he vetoes it, say the Legislature finds the votes to override. The Republicans will probably assert the pipeline is approved, but without a Presidential Permit issed by Barack Obama it is worthless.

Sam

[merrily]

32. Thanks.

I am not sure I know what would disempower Congress to act on this, at least the Senate. However, if you are correct, Obama should not be threatening a veto. If Congress is purporting to act on something as to which it has no Constitutional power to act, then maybe Obama should be doing what Congress does or threatens to do when Congress think he's overstepping his Constitutional power. Threaten legal action.

In any event, threatening to veto a bill Congress had no right to pass to begin with doesn't seem like the right answer. However, again, I am not sure why this would be solely in the Constitutional authority of the President, with Congress having no Constitutional power to act.

[Samantha]

11. The State Department processes the applications and makes a recommendation to the President

to approve or disapprove. No permit can be issued without the President's approval. And no pipeline that crosses an international border can be legitimately built without the Presidential Permit -- regardless of what showboating the politicians in the legislature or in front of the media choose to put on to confuse the electorate. This is a power grab, simple as that.

Sam

[karynnj]

19. No they didn't

The confusion is that a study that was initiated in the first term, written by some people will connections to the industry would have backed it. However, the SOS raised issues with it and now the state of NE had issues with its part.

Kerry was 100% against as a Senator and from Obama's comments his boss is not for it either.

[merrily]

33. Thanks.

BTW, FWIW, I didn't think it was Kerry who gave approval. I was under the "misimpression" that Hillary had.

[Samantha]

9. Yes, it is an Executive Branch power, and a Presidential Permit is needed to build that pipeline

This is a circus. What is important to note is that the Republicans are now accusing the President of a power grab on immigration they as sit in the Senate and House attempting to usurp the right of the Executive Branch to approve pipelines that cross international borders.

Do not let them fool you.

Sam

[GitRDun]

20. Thank You!

That's what I thought...you are correct, quite a circus.

Interesting that you find zero main stream media articles that explain what a circus this is.

[Samantha]

23. I believe we are getting a performance designed to confuse us into thinking this is a legislative

decision --- when it is clearly not.

Sam

[Spazito]

7. The numbers are there for a veto to be sustained...

The repubs will have, I believe, 245 seats in the House, 45 seats short of the number to override a veto and they will have 55 seats in the Senate, 12 seats short of the needed 67.

(There are two seats still undeclared, one in Alaska and one in Louisiana, but they don't look good for the Dems so I added the two to the repubs tally for the Senate.)

[kentuck]

8. As usual, the problem lies with the Democratic caucus...

They need to be sent a message in no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate them voting with the Republicans to over-ride any veto by the President. They will be on the shit list if they choose to do so. They need to understand what is at stake here.

[Samantha]

10. kentuck, this is not the Legislature's right to approve that pipeline

If the President of the United States decided to issue a Presidential Permit, the legislature could have a vote signaling its approval (always good for political reasons, right). But if the President does not issue a permit for this pipeline, and the Republicans try to assert legislation is all that is needed, look for all hell to break loose.

Sam

[kentuck]

13. It is my understanding that the permit comes from the State Dept?

I don't know if that has happened yet??

Whatever the case, I hope the President has the cajones to block it.

[Spazito]

14. It is the jurisdiction of the State Department to issue the permit...

"The State Department has jurisdiction over the Keystone XL pipeline’s approval because it would
cross the U.S. border. Before it can approve such a permit, the department must determine that the
project is in the “national interest,” accounting for potential effects on the environment, economy,
energy security, and foreign policy, among other factors. Environmental impacts are considered
under the National Environmental Policy Act, as documented in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). For the 2008 permit application, a final EIS was issued in August 2011, followed
by a public review period. Largely in response to public comments and efforts by the state of
Nebraska, the State Department determined that it needed to examine alternative pipeline routes
that would avoid the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a sand dune
formation with highly porous soil and shallow groundwater that recharges the Ogallala aquifer."

Here's a really good link that spells out the rather convoluted process:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/04/09/National-Politics/Graphics/CRSRptKeystoneXLPipelineProjectKeyIssues.pdf

[kentuck]

15. John Kerry would never sign off on that piece of crap....

would he?

[Spazito]

17. No, he wouldn't...

hence the ongoing review, the review that is driving the repubs crazy.

[karynnj]

18. He has postponed for many many reasons making the decision

calling for various studies to replace poorly done studies etc. He was a leader against it in the Senate. My guess is that his strategy is because if he said no, they would simply fight it in a different way - dragging it out means they do not get the go ahead.

[Spazito]

24. I completely agree with you...

and it is the reason the repubs are frothing at the mouth. They have tried to take away that jurisdiction from the State Department in previous XL pipeline bills that failed.

[Samantha]

21. Here is a blurb I copied from another post of mine from an ongoing thread

"Additionally, I found an article reprinted from the National Law Journal asserting that a Presidential Permit is needed for international pipelines and no legislative approval is necessary. There is a notation that the article cannot be reprinted, so I not sure if can post the specific language I would like you to read. Here is the link:

http://www.hunton.com/files/upload/Attachment_2_Pres_Permits_Article.pdf

Simply speaking, at the bottom paragraph on the first page, the author states Presidential Permits are singularly within the purview of the Executive Branch alone and no statute authorizes their creation or use."

Please note kentuck this article was reprinted from the National Law Journal, and everything we need to know is in those last two bolded sentences...although there is a ton of material out there for anyone who likes to do their own research.

Sam

[Samantha]

22. The State Department has the jurisdiction because an Executive Order delegated it to State

but it is an Executive Branch function. It makes a recommendation and the President has the final word.

Sam

[Spazito]

25. It is the State Department's jurisdiction to issue the permit...

From the link you provided in your previous post:

"The State Department is currently responsible for issuing Presidential Permits for oil pipelines."

It has the jurisdiction to actually issue the permit not just make recommendations from my reading of the document.

I think you and I are debating technicalities whereas the big picture is the permit will not be issued, imo, because the veto the President will sign re Bill HR5682 deals with an attempt to shortcut the ongoing review being done by the State Department along with other aspects. Here's a link to the Bill just passed by the House:

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141110/BILLS-113hr-keystone-HR5682.pdf

[Samantha]

28. No, we just have entirely different perspectives on it

The State Department has the authority it has because of Executive Orders issued by the President. The Executive Orders delegate that authority to the State Department. I saw two of them last night, the most recent was issued by George W. Bush. (I do not know if Obama has taken any action on this himself.) Whatever decision on the application the State Department arrives at must be approved by the President. It cannot approve an application without the President's agreement, and I am talking about those crossing international borders.

I also think the veto is a moot point. Legislation does not result in a Presidential Permit.

If the President approves an international permit, he can ask for the legislature to have a vote to back up the decision. Hopefully, there will be a two-thirds vote in agreement. But for the legislature to initiate a vote on an international permit when the expected outcome is a decision opposite from that of the President is bass ackwards.

I believe that link you have is a document I read last night, but I will check it out later.

So why don't we agree to disagree?

Sam

[Spazito]

29. LOL, I'm all for that...

have a great night!

[Samantha]

31. You too

I will see you tomorrow where probably we will be disagreeing again! but hopefully laughing about it.

Sam

[WilliamPitt]

16. . . .

[Louisiana1976]

26. I hope an Obama veto is sustained.

[kentuck]

27. and that is what is so depressing...

We "hope" they can sustain it. We shouldn't have to just "hope" - we have the numbers.

[scarystuffyo]

30. Did the President say he doesn't support it?

I know he said half heartedly he would probably veto it .

This pipe line is big money in Washington and both parties will benefit from
large political contributions just like the TPP deal he wants to ram through