Breaking News

Taxpayers Will Pay So Obama Can Veto Jobs

Published

on

Obama Keystone XL pipeline

  • Obama's administration is being sued over the Keystone XL pipeline by the parent group TransCanada.
  • TransCanada is seeking $15 billion in taxpayer dollars for the “loss of value”
  • Ultimately Obama sided with the environmentalists saying ““Frankly, approving this project would’ve undercut that global leadership.”
  • Keystone XL pipeline would have ultimately created over 40,000 jobs.

TransCanada on Wednesday accused President Obama in a federal lawsuit of exceeding his constitutional authority when rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and, in a separate challenge, said the White House violated a historic trade agreement, igniting an election-year battle over a project that most considered dead — at least until the next president takes office in one year.

The company, which proposed the project nearly a decade ago, is seeking $15 billion in damages from the U.S. for the “loss of value” of assets related to Keystone.

“In its decision, the U.S. State Department acknowledged the denial was not based on the merits of the project,” TransCanada said in a statement. “Rather, it was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the perceptions of the international community regarding the administration’s leadership on climate change and the president’s assertion of unprecedented, independent powers.”

See RelatedGuantanamo Bay Is Obama's Terrorist Training Camp

The company argues that Mr. Obama “intruded on Congress’s power to regulate interstate and international commerce” and blatantly disregarded the will of the legislative branch. Congress last year passed a bill approving Keystone, but the president vetoed it.

In a separate legal action, the Canadian company filed a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement saying the president’s decision was “arbitrary and unjustified” and violated a portion of the landmark trade deal.

The White House referred all questions about the legal action to the State Department.

32 Comments
Exit mobile version