Skip to comments.Why Did This Republican Vote Against The Keystone Pipeline?
Posted on 02/12/2015 9:43:31 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Michigan Rep. Justin Amash was the sole Republican in the House to vote against the latest version of the bill advancing the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Amash says he supports the construction of the pipeline, but he opposes legislation singling out one company. He has previously voted present on Keystone, but the addition of new, unrelated sections empowering the EPA and the federal government with respect to local energy efficiency pushed him to a no.
In a statement published on his Facebook page, the tea party favorite said that the bill includes a lot of cronyism. Since 2013 he has argued against simply giving TransCanada, the builder of Keystone, an exemption from government permits. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL, he said on his Facebook page on June 8, 2013.
Amash has said legislation permitting Keystone uses improper means to accomplish its laudable goal by singling out TransCanada Corporation and its Keystone XL pipeline for special treatment.
A GOP primary challenger unsuccessfully raised the Keystone issue against Amash in 2014.
A fellow Michigan Republican, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, argued in favor of pipeline. The Associated Press quoted Upton as saying, The evidence is in. The case ought to be closed.
The Keystone bill passed the House 270-152.
He is my Rep, and he has been consistent in hi stance on this. I’m glad there is at least something out there explaining why he voted no.
Isn’t a bill that applies only to one, named individual or company a “bill of attainder,” and therefore unconstitutional?
Or he is lying (a common thing among politicians) He is against the pipeline but has to have an excuse to hide his true feelings.
Amash is a Libtardian, and just a stupid and dysfunctional as Ron Paul was.
Is Amash a closet muzzie?
I believe that a bill of attainder is when person or group of people are declared guilty of a crime without benefit of a trial. Private bills do mention individuals. Private bills are the way that historically Congress helped individuals to deal with citizenship problems. When you hear this nonsense about these unjust sad cases of immigrants facing deportation, remember that congress has always had the option of private bills to help them. Each congressman could submit as many private bills as necessary, each congressman has submitted many bills, every single year since our country was founded, and the entire congress approves these bills. There has been no debate or partisanship for private bills.
Is Amash a closet muzzie?
Nope. A BOA is a law written to outlaw something AFTER it was committed and then charging the person who committed said crime.
But all anybody really see's is that he voted against it. He voted with the democrats.
I believe there is a valuable lesson to be learned here.
I don’t think he is lying. I’ve watched him come up thru the ranks locally, and he tells it like it is as far as I can tell.
Pretty sure that’s an ex post facto law you’re describing...
“He has previously voted present on Keystone”
maybe he’s trying to become POTUS. voting present didn’t seem to hurt obozo much.
Probably right. A BOA and xPF are quite similar...
"A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial."
"ex post facto. adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done."
Petro dollars are being recycled/laundered through the green movement and are then used to contribute to the campaigns to those friendly politicians that see things differently than simply an energy independent.
Looks like he’s preparing to take McCain’s ‘moderate’ media spot when McCain retires.
What BS. Michiganders need to set his Inbox on fire.
“Looks like hes preparing to take McCains moderate media spot when McCain retires.”
He’s no McCain. He’s a Paulista libertarian type. He might take idiotic stances from time to time, but he’s consistent, he doesn’t betray conservatives and play for the camera like McCain and Graham.
I would have thought the fact that it uses the power of eminent domain to reward a private business would be the reason he opposed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.