Can States Invoke the 10th Amendment to override a Presidential EO such as the Keystone

I guess we will find out, one AG (can't remember) has said they will file suit over Keystone.

EO's are limited to effecting the Executive Branch of the FedGov.

Your state and local LEO's for example are NOT effected by POTUS EO's, directly. It's the Indirect effects though, mainly the purse strings, that can control non Executive Branch FedGov areas. Must insert "Tab A" into "Slot B" to receive funds EO crap.

Most of the alphabet agencies are covered by EO's. The EO's determine the "definitions" and "interpretations" of the laws, rules, regulations, and the scope of the powers of the agencies. Hence the permits and other requirements to conduct business are controlled by the alphabets under EO's.

If an activity requires Fed conditions be met, then EO's can determine whether said activity occurs or not. States must find ways to circumvent EO's by eliminating the alphabet agencies from their activities. Another reason why DimProgFilth love huge centralized FedGov: control.

Not unless we go to war.

The keystone pipeline is permitted under an international border crossings permit issued by the state department. The president has total control.

This is how it generally works:

International crossing - state department permit.
Interstate crossing - FERC
Intrastate - state permitting

Interstate Commerce and international agreements (with a Canadian business) are part of the Federal powers.

quote:

---

Te primary beneficiaries of the XL are China and Canada, why would the Dakotas wish to get involved?

---

The China part of your argument is laughably ignorant. The Chinese do not want the Keystone pipeline. They want that oil to go to thee eat coast of Canada and then ship to China.

Canada cares in as much as the dollars they have already invested and Canadian jobs are protected. The oil is getting sold one way or another.

The biggest benefactor of this EO is BNSF rail which has a very large sim donor as a huge shareholder.

quote:

---

Nope. Pipeline is interstate commerce.

---

The FERC is the overarching permitting agency for interstate pipelines. If a pipeline company has been issued an FERC permit it means that all other permits (state, local, EPA, COE, historical, archeological, wildlife and fisheries, etc.) have been acquired and if said pipeline company is living up to the terms and conditions of the permit the president can't come in and shut down operations at the stroke of a pen. It's going to take significate and unprecedented legal action that I'm not aware of for a president to shut down a FERC permitted and regulated pipeline that is in compliance.

Keystone is totally different than a typical interstate pipeline. It's an international pipeline and international pipelines are under the jurisdiction of the State Department.

The Keystone border crossing permit literally says the president can shut you down for no reason at all:

quote:

---

This permit may be terminated, revoked, or amended at any time at the sole discretion of the President, with or without advice provided by any executive department or agency (agency).

---

This is why Keystone was screwed.

Permit.

quote:

---

Can States Invoke the 10th Amendment to override a Presidential EO such as the Keyston

---

No. The Commerce Clause and court interpretation of same has effectively neutered states. Anything that deals with interstate commerce is federal. There was a case that I think went to SCOTUS long ago that said states with snow/ice problems couldn’t even require use of certain mudflaps on trucks using their roads bc it affected interstate commerce.

I am sure there are a number of reasons the states are fricked, but this is one of them.

yup. not even to mention that the US companies the XL portion of keystone would service, where they add in light crude, prefer to have their product refined on the east coast as the refineries there yield a more expensive, better quality product.

Some hack politician said in 2015 “KXL has taken an overinflated role in political discourse. It’s being used as a political cudgel for both parties rather than a serious matter.” Hard not to agree with him.

And BTW...senate Rs struck down an amendment back then that would’ve approved the project congressionally IF only US steel was used and any product resulting from KXL stayed in the US.


It’s not about US energy security, not about jobs, not about the economy. It’ll only create a few thousand temporary jobs, and maybe 30 permanent ones. The oil from Alberta already reaches the gulf through completed phases of Keystone. It’s a big fat nothing burger that changes almost nothing whether it’s built or not.

quote:

---

No. The Commerce Clause and court interpretation of same has effectively neutered states. Anything that deals with interstate commerce is federal. There was a case that I think went to SCOTUS long ago that said states with snow/ice problems couldn’t even require use of certain mudflaps on trucks using their roads bc it affected interstate commerce.

I am sure there are a number of reasons the states are fricked, but this is one of them.

---

I'm not sure what the EO says and the specific situation of the pipeline, but not sure what you said really has any relevance.

There are limits to the ability of the federal government to regulate things that impact interstate commerce. I mean in theory, if you were to produce farts than can the federal government control your food intake to limit said gases which could in theory impact interstate commerce.

The mud flap case is a specific instance of a state trying to control interstate commerce to a degree which was unconstitutional. Those same trucks are required to have brake lights.

I would say the amount of the impact of interstate commerce would be a factor in a general sense, and I would imagine without looking at the regulations that a large pipeline like that is regulated.

The issue here is probably why was the EO done and was it in violation of law i.e. "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law".

I am not saying the federal government can't regulate the pipeline, but the devil is in the details. I would assume the investors could have additional claims against the federal government but I don't know enough about those details to even know where to begin.

In this case, what the OP is suggesting is the States by pass any restrictions by the federal government, not impose new restrictions.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-epa-mostly-wins-but-with-criticism/

This is an EPA case where the EPA actually won most of what they wanted but the USSC started sending shots across the bow.