Posted on 12/04/2016 4:39:01 PM PST by ColdOne
The Dakota Access Pipeline will not go ahead at the Standing Rock Indian reservation, it was announced Sunday.
Moments after the decision was announced Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council Chairman Harold Frazier told DailyMail.com that he was 'shocked' by the news, which he'd received from Jo-Ellen Darcy, United States Assistant Secretary of the Army.
The camp erupted into cheers as the news spread that the US Army Corps of engineers would not enforce an easement that would have allowed a pipeline to run under Lake Oahe half a mile south of their reservation, potentially affecting the tribe's drinking water and infringing on land rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Thanks for the informative reply.
This is really confusing. I thought they had all the permits they needed and this was a “done deal”.
What changed?
Why was the corps able to change anything?
Obamas minions were called to duty? Remeber one of obamas best buds own a railway that carries oil in USA.
I believe that the portion of the pipeline that goes under the Missouri River is a wide spot (”lake”) created by a dam, and the area is owned by the Feds and run by the Corp. I read where the pipeline company started construction of the line (85% done now) without the final permit for this section, but must have figured in talks that it would be a done deal. The company also said that it already has the mineral rights to this land, and that they will use those rights to allow them to bore under the lake.
I thought they just won a court case and that is why they are working. In fact, people mocked Obama for saying, just a couple of months ago, that maybe a new route could be chosen. And it was because the court ruling was the final say.
Excerpts:
Federal officials have denied the final permits required for the Dakota Access Pipeline project in North Dakota.
The Army Corps of Engineers on Sunday announced it would instead conduct an environmental impact review of the 1,170-mile pipeline project...
Energy Transfers didn’t immediately respond to the announcement on Sunday, but CEO Kelcy Warren has previously said the project — a majority of which is complete — will move forward, even if it means waiting for Trump to take office next month....
“President Obama’s decision not to issue the final easement is a rejection of the entire regulatory and judicial system, as well as the scores of Army Corps of Engineers and civil servants who toiled for more than 800 days to ensure the process was followed correctly, in accordance with the law,” said Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the group Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now.
...while the tribe fought against it in the courts and within the Obama administration.
After a federal judge approved of regulators’ initial permitting process for the pipeline, the Obama administration immediately stepped in and said it would conduct a new review of the project. That review culminated in Sunday’s announcement from the Army Corps...
That slippery ba$tard.
How many days left?
See my post 87. Court rulings and the law don’t matter when it comes to protestors, terrorists and obama. (I know - adding obama in there was sort of redundant.)
The new water intake will be less than two miles from a rail bridge. There shouldn’t be many crude oil haulers over there, because that is well outside the oil producing part of the State. The vast majority of oil production comes from west of a line drawn through Minot and Bismarck. There is none in the Southeast part of the State.
” It Should NOT have even Been any Question about it. It was THEIR LAND! PERIOD.
jafojeffsurf, where is it you live that you can say no one else laid claim to it before you? Could it be you are Kennewick Man?
And YOU pollywog...how is it that you have taken one of their children?
She was THEIRS, PERIOD, to quote your friend jafo. “
I Have No Idea what you are saying, Are you trying to say it is not their land? Are they a sovereign Nation?
God Bless
“So...you are completely ignorant of what has already happened. Ok.”
Please tell me what has already happen? For you ask because you believe I do not know so what is it I do not Know?
God Bless
“You are clueless to what is occurring here in North Dakota.”
Really I am? how do you come to that conclusion? I’ll ask you a simple question, Are they or are they not a Sovereign Nation?
God Bless
When the states separated from England was it not sovereignty they declared? My point is Sovereignty is not something granted by other states but rather declared by a state(Nation) itself. Add to this knowledge the fact that the treaty’s, most of them, allowed and maintained the different tribes were recognized as Nation States.
By the way Sovereignty means much more than what you think it means.
Sovereignty
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
God Bless
No. It really doesn't.
Sovereignty
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
Sovereignty is the right to act as final judge in all disputes, including disputes involving the sovereign. Every conceivable power a state may exercise is wrapped up in this one statement.
Of course it is not “their” land.
My hometown tribes lived on that very land before the Siouxan tribes drove them away from it, a couple hundred years ago.
Does that mean the land should be given back to the tribes from my area?
And of course they are not a sovereign nation, in any sense of the word. They vote in U.S. elections. If they work, they pay U.S. taxes. Since so many of them don’t work, they live off the taxes paid by other Americans.
To their great and heroic credit, many American Indians serve bravely in the U.S. military, as U.S. citizens, as U.S. citizens, as U.S. soldiers, sailers, airmen and so on.
Canada is a sovereign nation, if you want to see what one looks like. You can pretend all you want, and so can the “Indians” who lived somewhere else before they live where they live now (just like all the rest of us), but they are not ‘sovereign’...good lord, they are mostly sadly dependent U.S. citizens.
If you think that American Indians are citizens of a ‘sovereign nation,’ you had better give the FBI a call and tell them to stop investigating and prosecuting felony crimes on RESERVATIONS.
By the way ‘Reservation’ means a lot more than you seem to think it does.
The pipeline isn’t on the reservation.
Ok, I have let you dig your own hole. They Are a Sovereign Nation, also Sovereignty is a state people can achieve at ANY point in time, but for this discussion they were and are Sovereign.
The reservation is the result of what? a Treaty... Individuals do NOT make Treaty’s, Nations do. You may not like it, You may not want to understand the Truth, They may not live like it in many ways but Never the Less the Truth is the Truth, They are a Sovereign Nation.
Here is a Founding Father Idea, Let them Live their lives the way they want and do with the Land they have as they want. If you cannot convince them that the pipeline could benefit them then reroute the pipeline through central city or some other path if it is so great... After all so many are saying it has to be built and its great and no threat, then running it through others yards without their consent must be fine too... A True “Conservative” would Not try to Force people into something if they do not wish it.
Treaty
A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public Welfare
A treaty is an agreement in written form between nation-states (or international agencies, such as the United Nations, that have been given treaty-making capacity by the states that created them) that is intended to establish a relationship governed by International Law. It may be contained in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments such as an exchange of diplomatic notes. Various terms have been used for such an agreement, including treaty, convention, protocol, declaration, charter, Covenant, pact, act, statute, exchange of notes, agreement, modus vivendi (”manner of living” or practical compromise), and understanding. The particular designation does not affect the agreement’s legal character.
Though a treaty may take many forms, an international agreement customarily includes four or five basic elements. The first is the preamble, which gives the names of the parties, a statement of the general aims of the treaty, and a statement naming the plenipotentiaries (the persons invested with the power to negotiate) who negotiated the agreement and verifying that they have the power to make the treaty. The substance of the treaty is contained in articles that describe what the parties have agreed upon; these articles are followed by an article providing for ratification and the time and place for the exchange of ratifications. At the end of the document is a clause that states “in witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have affixed their names and seals” and a place for signatures and dates. Sometimes additional articles are appended to the treaty and signed by the plenipotentiaries along with a declaration stating that the articles have the same force as those contained in the body of the agreement.Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to negotiate and ratify treaties, but he must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate (in practice solicited only after negotiation); two-thirds of the senators present must concur. Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution forbids the states to enter into a “treaty, alliance, or confederation,” although they may enter into an “agreement or compact” with other states, domestic or foreign, but only with the consent of Congress.
God Bless
It's very simple. Can Indian tribes act as Sovereign entities? Clearly they can not. The fact they keep ending up in US courts proves it. If a tribe were sovereign a tribal court would be the final judge in disputes involving the tribe and its lands. The Indian tribes are not sovereign, though we tell them they are and sometimes pretend they are. When real disputes arise though the US government settles them, not the tribes.
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.