Posted on 08/01/2010 9:14:54 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
BP will this week step up its fight against an "unconstitutional" proposal to ban it from new US offshore drilling, which the British Embassy has warned could be seen as protectionism.
US lawmakers have been working for more than a month on new legislation to stop any company from winning offshore oil licences if it has contributed to the deaths of more than 10 workers in the last seven years.
The proposal cleared another hurdle by passing through the House of Representatives late on Friday night, but it still has some way to go before becoming law.
Its progress has nevertheless caused alarm at BP and in other quarters.
Although the draft bill does not mention BP by name, it clearly targets the oil giant after it was held responsible for the largest oil spill in US history.
BP has not been proved to be to blame for the Gulf of Mexico rig explosion that killed 11 men and caused a political furore, but it has been legally held to account for its Texas City refinery explosion in 2005 that led to 15 deaths.
One source close to BP said the company was preparing to accelerate lobbying against the proposed bill, arguing that it is "punitive towards a single company" and "unconstitutional".
The British Embassy in Washington has made its objections known to both the White House and members of Congress.
A British diplomat said: "This is a disturbing piece of legislation. We are concerned about the constitutionality of targeting a particular company, while it also sends a worrying signal to European markets that protectionism is alive and kicking on parts of Capitol Hill.
"Congress should know that Europe would not sit idly by if these measures are implemented."
The White House is also understood to be concerned by the
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Seems we fought a revolution over things like this
yes we did.
Our Democratic Congress are fools. They operate on ideology, and are led by sudden events, with ad hoc responses.
That is truly a recipe for failure.
What they SHOULD do instead is cite a minimum threshold for safety violations over a sliding time window. I seem to recall BP having something like 300+, whereas American companies like Exxon were instead down around 2. Clearly BP is used to operating in a reckless and negligent fashion, and therefore SHOULD be subject to restriction as a result. Let them clean up their act and start operating responsibly, and they're back in.
Sine when does UK claim protection under US Constitution?
When Dr. Savage can travel to UK, then BP can start complaining! LOL
UK is a lost cause, completely overrun with Commies, Islamic Extremist, Soros money, and corruption of the Upper Class!
Well, that does make it Bizarro world. Simple solution is that they should draft a Declaration to state their independence of the colonies and go their separate way after a protracted war.
Which side do the french take this time?
/johnny
|
I think a corporation 39% of whose stock is held by Americans (or at least its American shareholders) can claim constitutional protection against a bill of attainder.
Okay, who here, without my reminding you, remembered that BP is the result of a merger between British Petroleum and Amoco (the American Oil Company)? It turns out that the company is 40% British owned, 39% American owned, with the remainder of the stock held by folks in other countries—if I had to bet, I suspect mostly Commonwealth countries other than the U.K.
Ex Post Facto?
In applying the same standard, what’s next?.. Is Obama going to be banned from working anywhere in the United States?
shake down. ...
Thanks, I stand better informed, and once again humbled!
Hah. That went by the board years ago. The new improved constitution doesn't need old fashioned concepts like that. All those old pieces have been jettisoned for "auras,penumbras and emmanations"
why wasnt bp up to code..? who let that slide?
Anyone or anything operating within American jurisdiction enjoys the protections of the US Constitution. Where privileges to non-US citizens do not apply (i.e. voting rights), the term ‘citizen(s)’ is specifically used.
Thank you. This thread was about to go off the rails.
And I’m chuckling at the alternative: a British company gets screwed by the U.S. government, and it’s first recourse should be to run to a British court?
Britain is about to meet the tyranny of the limitless “Commerce Clause.”
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.