Any lawyers on the board?

[Greed]

(f) Purpose of drawdown and distribution; requests for funds for storage
(1) The drawdown and distribution of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is authorized only under section 6241 of this title, and drawdown and distribution of petroleum products for purposes other than those described in section 6241 of this title shall be prohibited.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00006234----000-.html

(d) Presidential finding prerequisite to drawdown and sale
(1) Drawdown and sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may not be made unless the President has found drawdown and sale are required by a severe energy supply interruption or by obligations of the United States under the international energy program.
(2) For purposes of this section, in addition to the circumstances set forth in section 6202 (8) of this title, a severe energy supply interruption shall be deemed to exist if the President determines that—
(A) an emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;
(B) a severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and
(C) such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00006241----000-.html

Is it me or does none of this equate to the current situation, so it would be against the law to release the reserve to manipulate prices in a non-emergency situation?

 

[keysersoze]

Yea, it seems to me as well... statutory interpretation can be done by supplemental legislative history.

You may have to pull up the legislative (Congressional) record to see what was the purpose and meaning behind the statute, but an argument can be made that (c) a major adverse impact on the national economy is happening right now to warrant release of the reserves.

Obama is calling to have us tap into those aforementioned Reserves.

In a reversal, Barack Obama proposed Monday that the government sell 70 million barrels of oil from its strategic petroleum stockpile to help reduce gasoline prices.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD92BJJSO1

 

[Greed]

But isn't an emergency supposed to exist beforehand and the price increase which would be a detriment to the economy has to be an effect and not a cause.

 

[keysersoze]

But isn't an emergency supposed to exist beforehand and the price increase which would be a detriment to the economy has to be an effect and not a cause.

Yes, thats what it seems to me - here's an analysis...

1. Conditions for Drawdown from Reserves

(d) Presidential finding prerequisite to drawdown and sale
(1) Drawdown and sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may not be made unless the President has found drawdown and sale are required by a severe energy supply interruption or by obligations of the United States under the international energy program.

The President finds a "severe supply interruption" or impairment of an "obligation"

2. Definition of Severe Energy Supply Interruption

2) For purposes of this section, in addition to the circumstances set forth in section 6202 (8) of this title, a severe energy supply interruption shall be deemed to exist if the President determines that—
(A) an emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;
(B) a severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and
(C) such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.

It seems that all 3 (A),(B), and (C) have to be met... the real question is what constitutes an "emergency situation" - which itself is not addressed in that statute but I believe a President does have a right to declare a state of emergency (with limitations of course).

 

[Greed]

In a very non-controversial way, an emergency can be define as an unusual event with some unpredictable negative consequences. An economic slowdown doesn't count.

With that said, why are all the politicians fighting to be the strongest advocate of breaking the law? Probably because there will be no judgement day for them. Who enforces the law and the Constitution when Democrats and Republicans both agree to ignore them?

 

[keysersoze]

In a very non-controversial way, an emergency can be define as an unusual event with some unpredictable negative consequences. An economic slowdown doesn't count.

With that said, why are all the politicians fighting to be the strongest advocate of breaking the law? Probably because there will be no judgement day for them. Who enforces the law and the Constitution when Democrats and Republicans both agree to ignore them?

Now your asking a political question. There's no legal answer to that ... the answer is a political one (at least to me): the people are suppose to hold their politicians accountable - hard to do when the majority of America cares more about American Idol than the Constitution.

 

[QueEx]

But isn't an emergency supposed to exist beforehand

Not necessarily. While not all that clear, the statutory scheme makes provisions for an "anticipatory interruption." Look at section 6202(8) which, in subsections (A) and (C), talk about an interruption that "is, or is likely to be . . ." 6202 is also important because it turncates the whole notion of an "interruption" by defining the same as "a national energy supply shortage." Hence, it is possible to invoke draw down for a shortage that may be somehow threatening but which has not already occurred.

What, however, is a shortage ??? Of course, the 73/74 embargo is a clear example. But, is the increased Asian (and world) demand without a corresponding increase in world production, such to the point that demand is outstripping production, a shortage contemplated by the statutes ??? Is such a shortgage really that far out of the contemplation of the statutory scheme ???

. . . and the price increase which would be a detriment to the economy has to be an effect and not a cause.

If you accept the anticipatory theory above, then would not the price increase resulting from demand over supply be a result, not a cause ??? Arguably, I would think so.


QueEx

 

[QueEx]

the real question is what constitutes an "emergency situation" - which itself is not addressed in that statute but I believe a President does have a right to declare a state of emergency (with limitations of course).

I agree. I think Congress intentionally left to the President's discretion what constitutes an emergency. Without consulting the legislative history, Congress could have listed a whole litany of what would constitute an emergency and still failed to think of all the possible ways an emergency might manifest itself. So, instead of tying the President's hands, leave it to the person the people elected to deal with or at least provide the leadership in an emergency.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

In a very non-controversial way, an emergency can be define as an unusual event with some unpredictable negative consequences. An economic slowdown doesn't count.

Seriously. Couldn't that maybe depend upon the severity of the slowdown; the cause of the slow down; and, among other things, the impact of the slowdown on security and/or the economy???

With that said, why are all the politicians fighting to be the strongest advocate of breaking the law? Probably because there will be no judgement day for them. Who enforces the law and the Constitution when Democrats and Republicans both agree to ignore them?

I don't think those who argue for a draw down are even thinking about someone breaking the law. I don't think that they think it will get that far. The way I see it, the reasoning goes thusly: If the people believe that a draw-down would lower prices; If you don't believe that the sitting President will draw-down; tie your opponent to the sitting president's policies; and, hammer away saying it should be done.