Federal Law Makes Obama Reponsible For Stopping Oil Spill & Cleanup

USArmyRetired

Rookie
May 29, 2010
2,601
360
0
This is a massive failure on the part of the federal government as a whole and of Obama as a President.

The federal response under Obama has been pathetic. For all of the billions of dollars that the federal government collects from the oil industry and for all of the demands that they put on it in the name of ‘safety’ it is absurd to argue that they are doing a good job.

You can not be the entity that profits most as the government does through taxation and the entity with the most power as the government is through massive regulation and then still claim that you are the solution. Especially when your response is so pathetic and everyday you are ignoring the issue while partying with sports and musical royalty.

This is a massive failure by Obama.





Federal Law Makes Obama Responsible for Stopping Oil Spill and Cleanup

Fingerpointing at BP ignores federal law!

It's day 51 in the Gulf Oil Disaster and oil continues to gush from the "cap" British Petroleum placed to stop the leak. (Here's the live feed of the camera at the leak site.) BP now says that "virtually all" of the leak may be stopped in the next few days. Obama has timed another visit to the region. No doubt to claim credit.

Yet, over the last weeks Obama and his left wing allies have been desperate to point fingers at Bush, Cheney, BP, Halliburton, Transocean and in at least one case "tea baggers."

So, perhaps it's time to have a little reminder about what Obama's responsibilities are. The Clean Water Act Section 311 - Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability grants the president broad powers and also responsibility to stop any discharge of oil and to direct any cleanup. The president's powers and responsibilities are referenced 47 times in the brief document.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 further strengthened the President's powers and responsibility. The Bureau of Land Management offers this analysis:


The OPA amended §311to mandate the President to take action to ensure “effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance.”

The purpose of the amendment was to remove some of the latitude towards private cleanup efforts by the discharger and assure that the job gets done right. It's the primary responsibility of the President to see that the leak is stopped and that any cleanup is swift and effective. The President has sole responsibility for developing and implementing emergency plans to address a spill. Yet, we have already seen how the Obama Administration failed to implement long standing disaster plans by delaying a burnoff of oil and other measures.
 
The law is bascially moot. The US SC has ruled many years ago, a President can NOT be sued for any official act while in office, this includes malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
The law is bascially moot. The US SC has ruled many years ago, a President can NOT be sued for any official act while in office, this includes malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance.

But the Federal Government can be sued. Obama is part of the Federal Government.
 
This is a massive failure by Obama.

In what way? I'm in Louisiana and don't see this as a failure on the Obama's fault. He isn't the one that loosened the regulations on off shore drilling. In the early days of the disaster it was BP in the driver seat, and BP that claimed, on paper, when they signed up to drill that site that BP had a plan to deal with any such disaster. It was BP that claimed any potential environmental risks were minimal.

This one is BP's doing. The only solution here would have been to have had the Feds taking a more active role in regulating, inspecting, and controlling the site. Are you really advocating that?
 
Why don't the Feds use some of the $1.5B collected via the 8 cent per barrel oil tax (for disaster relief) on this mess? They took they money under the pretext of addressing future damages. Well, we have damage. Why aren't they spending the money to deal with it?
 
This is a massive failure by Obama.

In what way? I'm in Louisiana and don't see this as a failure on the Obama's fault. He isn't the one that loosened the regulations on off shore drilling. In the early days of the disaster it was BP in the driver seat, and BP that claimed, on paper, when they signed up to drill that site that BP had a plan to deal with any such disaster. It was BP that claimed any potential environmental risks were minimal.

This one is BP's doing. The only solution here would have been to have had the Feds taking a more active role in regulating, inspecting, and controlling the site. Are you really advocating that?


Try reading this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-deep-water-blew-obama-knew.html#post2393826
 
Why don't the Feds use some of the $1.5B collected via the 8 cent per barrel oil tax (for disaster relief) on this mess? They took they money under the pretext of addressing future damages. Well, we have damage. Why aren't they spending the money to deal with it?

Why should they? BP has accepted the blame publicly, they've agreed to foot the bill.... why spend taxpayer money when the responsible party is already footing the bill?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
This is a massive failure by Obama.

In what way? I'm in Louisiana and don't see this as a failure on the Obama's fault. He isn't the one that loosened the regulations on off shore drilling. In the early days of the disaster it was BP in the driver seat, and BP that claimed, on paper, when they signed up to drill that site that BP had a plan to deal with any such disaster. It was BP that claimed any potential environmental risks were minimal.

This one is BP's doing. The only solution here would have been to have had the Feds taking a more active role in regulating, inspecting, and controlling the site. Are you really advocating that?

I am in Houma. Obama at his official press conference a few weeks ago said he had been in charge since day 1. He said the responsibility lied with him.
 
Why? To prevent the damage from getting worse. The Feds sitting back and expecting BP to do everthing is risky - and cognitively dissonant. The Obama Administration has started a criminal investigation of BP. If they think they are criminals, why trust them to protect the gulf region?
 
The law is bascially moot. The US SC has ruled many years ago, a President can NOT be sued for any official act while in office, this includes malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance.

But the Federal Government can be sued. Obama is part of the Federal Government.

I should have been more clear, sorry. I meant be sued in an Individual capacity for damages. He is sued in his "official" capacity at times, yes.
 
This is a massive failure by Obama.

In what way? I'm in Louisiana and don't see this as a failure on the Obama's fault. He isn't the one that loosened the regulations on off shore drilling. In the early days of the disaster it was BP in the driver seat, and BP that claimed, on paper, when they signed up to drill that site that BP had a plan to deal with any such disaster. It was BP that claimed any potential environmental risks were minimal.

This one is BP's doing. The only solution here would have been to have had the Feds taking a more active role in regulating, inspecting, and controlling the site. Are you really advocating that?

I am in Houma. Obama at his official press conference a few weeks ago said he had been in charge since day 1. He said the responsibility lied with him.

And you believe him?

The only people in the driver seat on this mess is BP. They've been in control from day 1, they still at this point control the situation.

And I'm shocked I have to explain this to libertarian leaning folks, but BP should be the one in the driver seats. They've got more equipment and experience at dealing with a mess like this. They've got ample reason to fix this ASAP. Let the experts deal with it.

The criminal investigations, the assurances that Obama is in control... that's for the public. The truth is its BP's game, and it is probably best it is.
 
Why? To prevent the damage from getting worse. The Feds sitting back and expecting BP to do everthing is risky - and cognitively dissonant.

What additional powers do you advocate the Federal Government taking on to deal with this situation? What additional Federal programs do you advocate creating to deal with this situation?

I'm surprised I have to say this, but when you turn to the Feds for a solution, you often get more than you want. BP has publicly claimed responsibility, BP is publicly working towards a solution, and BP has publicly agreed to foot the bill. So let them do it and keep Federal entanglements out unless absolutely necessary.
 
They could spend some of the $1.5B on booms to contain the oil and on dredging and building sand berms to protect the coasts. That is a proper role for the feds in this situation.
 
They could spend some of the $1.5B on booms to contain the oil and on dredging and building sand berms to protect the coasts. That is a proper role for the feds in this situation.

Isn't that what they're already doing? They are sending skimmers and booms to the gulf, but they are billing BP instead of us, as they should. Wait, aren't you the one who wants to let corporationss "police" themselves? I'm confused...
 
They better fix that Damned hole or President Erkle will come down there and kick some ass!!!! What a loser!!!!
 
Why don't the Feds use some of the $1.5B collected via the 8 cent per barrel oil tax (for disaster relief) on this mess? They took they money under the pretext of addressing future damages. Well, we have damage. Why aren't they spending the money to deal with it?

Well, there you go, another conservative WTF. Let the taxpayers pay for BP's fuck up.
 
Why don't the Feds use some of the $1.5B collected via the 8 cent per barrel oil tax (for disaster relief) on this mess? They took they money under the pretext of addressing future damages. Well, we have damage. Why aren't they spending the money to deal with it?

Well, there you go, another conservative WTF. Let the taxpayers pay for BP's fuck up.

Yeah, I don't get this. You've got the Tea Party, Libertarian types that hate the Federal Government Outraged!(tm) because they think that the Federal Government isn't doing enough. I just don't get this.
 
The law is bascially moot. The US SC has ruled many years ago, a President can NOT be sued for any official act while in office, this includes malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance.

But the Federal Government can be sued. Obama is part of the Federal Government.

I should have been more clear, sorry. I meant be sued in an Individual capacity for damages. He is sued in his "official" capacity at times, yes.

so corporation officials should only be sued officially and not personally...right??
 

Forum List

Back
Top