Federal Law Makes Obama Reponsible For Stopping Oil Spill & Cleanup

Discussion in 'Politics' started by USArmyRetired, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. USArmyRetired
    Offline

    USArmyRetired BANNED

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,601
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +346
    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.
     
  2. lawbuff
    Offline

    lawbuff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    439
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    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.
     
  3. USArmyRetired
    Offline

    USArmyRetired BANNED

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,601
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +346
    But the Federal Government can be sued. Obama is part of the Federal Government.
     
  4. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,952
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    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?
     
  5. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,799
    Thanks Received:
    12,774
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,794
    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?
     
  6. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,799
    Thanks Received:
    12,774
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,794

    Try reading this:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-deep-water-blew-obama-knew.html#post2393826
     
  7. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,952
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    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?
     
  8. USArmyRetired
    Offline

    USArmyRetired BANNED

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,601
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +346
    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.
     
  9. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,799
    Thanks Received:
    12,774
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,794
    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?
     
  10. lawbuff
    Offline

    lawbuff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    439
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    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.
     

Share This Page