 |
Re: Washington State Lawmakers seek oil train regs. & restrictions
Author: brains
Date: 02-07-2014 - 21:18
Dear David Smith (and H.30cal., too!)- You might both benefit by using modern technology to bone up on basic political science to get a grasp of the terminology and a refresher course on the REAL Constitution of the United States of America, not to mention, say, the Louisiana Purchase, before you sound off like a bunch of loose cannons of windiness with nothing FACTUAL to bolster your assertions. If you want to turn this discussion board into a forum for political tirades, at least try to assemble some verifiable evidence for your views.
Others posting on this thread have weighed in with relevant points that touch more acutely on pros/cons on this.
As a resident of Washington and residing not too far from a refinery that already receives Bakken Shale oil, over an old swing bridge and along if not pristine, very alive coastal shore- and wetlands, I can see no harm in close scrutiny in light of Lac Megantic and Casselton, and the "commerce clause" has less to do with this than Federal legislation that uses that clause to sweep all RR regulation into Federal hands, much to the benefit of the RRs, and demolishing more local regulation that had to be instituted in the days of the tycoons!
Others posting on this thread have weighed in with relevant points that touch more acutely on pros/cons on this.
As a resident of Washington and residing not too far from a refinery that already receives Bakken Shale oil, over an old swing bridge and along if not pristine, very alive coastal shore- and wetlands, I can see no harm in close scrutiny in light of Lac Megantic and Casselton, and the "commerce clause" has less to do with this than Federal legislation that uses that clause to sweep all RR regulation into Federal hands, much to the benefit of the RRs, and demolishing more local regulation that had to be instituted in the days of the tycoons!
