«
»

Congressmen Make Themselves Outlaws

May 26, 2008, 8:34 pm

From recent legislation:

"It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act," declared the House
of Representatives, "to limit the production or distribution of oil,
natural gas, or any other petroleum product"¦ or to otherwise take any
action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum
product when such action, combination, or collective action has a
direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market,
supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum
product in the United States."

Well, OPEC nations may or may not be in violation of this law.  My guess is that if incompetence and general third-world type fraud is actionable, then they are guilty.  It may be tougher to prove outright conspiracy.

BUT, there is one nation that has, right there on the public record, clear government legislation that substantially limits development of some of the largest potential new oil reserves in the US.  That country is the United States, and by passage of this law, the entire Congress has made itself outlaws.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Category: Government

12 Comments

  1. linearthinker:

    I had to read it twice. Amazing. Can anyone say "duplicity"?
    And this from Steyn via Volokh: Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew the routine: “I can’t say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not.” Anyone that got this far without reading the linked articles, go back! Read it all.

    And the moonbats cheered.

    May 26, 2008, 9:27 pm

  2. Mike:

    Good point linearthinker,

    I find it annoying when people attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me.

    May 27, 2008, 4:17 am

  3. David Zetland:

    "clear government legislation that substantially limits development of some of the largest potential new oil reserves in the US"

    Surely you are not talking about places like ANWR? That legislation (for, against) represents the will of the people over the people's land. We could have it worse -- google "Soviet+environment".

    May 27, 2008, 5:22 am

  5. Tim:

    WHAT IS OUR OIL DOING UNDER OPEC'S SAND???

    Seriously, did anyone else get that creepy feeling that they were making a case for eventual war? I don't want to sound like I need a tin foil hat but how hard would it be to wave an American law in front of an agitated American society that already has the attitude that all resources on this planet are American resources? A sovern country has every right to decide to not sell something that is their own PRIVATE property. Isn't this really just a form of eminent domain, super-sized? Currently in the great lakes region we are dealing with states that think that the great lakes are somehow "Federal" property and they can vote to take the resource away from it's rightful owners, the border states. I get the feeling that most people, if asked, think that gas that is in my tank right now and that I paid my hard earned money for, is somehow NOT my personal property, to do with whatever I wish. They would also say that the gas that is in the station tanks is not really theirs, and the fuel that is owned by Exxon is really a "National" resource. It is only a national resource before the lease is made to someone to extract it, then, not-so-much.

    May 27, 2008, 8:20 am

  6. Joseph Hertzlinger:

    WHAT IS OUR OIL DOING UNDER OPEC'S SAND???

    They "nationalized" it.

    May 27, 2008, 8:45 am

  7. skh.pcola:

    @David Zetland:
    "Surely you are not talking about places like ANWR? That legislation (for, against) represents the will of the people over the people's land.

    Yup, because there's no possible way that special interests like the envirotard "movement" could affect legislation, huh? I've never had a chance to vote on the issue, so "the will of the people" must actually mean "the tyranny of the few who are influenced by some other small number of people."

    Or you're being sarcastic. Can't tell...but your comment is either humor or naivete.

    May 27, 2008, 11:10 am

  8. Solar Lad:

    Tim:

    Since the House of Saud would fall in a Riyadh minute if the U.S. explicitly removed her protection from the regime, it's not as simple as "they have, we want".

    skh.pcola:

    The elected representatives who vote to bar drilling in ANWR, or off the coasts of Cali or Florida, get re-elected.

    Therefore, a sizable portion of the public must agree with their stance. That's "the will of the people".

    May 27, 2008, 4:41 pm

  9. LoneSnark:

    So, how do we enforce this law? Is someone working up a fund to bring a lawsuit against the Federal Government for violation of this new law?

    May 28, 2008, 6:25 am

  10. skh.pcola:

    Solar Lad:
    No, what you describe is representative democracy. "The will of the people" means just that and has nothing to do with whatever (low) percentage of voters who actually vote desire. "The will of the people" is rarely taken into consideration during legislative action. It would be great if that were not so, but it is.

    May 28, 2008, 3:28 pm

  11. Gil:

    I assume that this law would only apply to future actions (not ex post facto).

    But, we should still call them on it during the next energy-related bill debates.

    May 28, 2008, 7:40 pm

  12. Solar Lad:

    skh.pcola:

    As you like, but it's a pretty poor "will" that won't take the trouble to cast a ballot every few years.

    May 28, 2008, 9:11 pm