Democrats can be Trumpists too?

[The Minsky Moment]

Michigan's declaratory judgment complaint filed in Nov 2020 - seems like this dispute has been going on for a bit now: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf

Michigan contends that Embridge violated the terms of easement by failing to provide proper supports, failing to conduct required coating testing, ignoring curvature restrictions, failure to exercise due care to mitigate potential impacts from anchors, etc.  These are all allegations, not proven facts.  However, if proven, it would seem to provide a basis for action consistent with Article IV of the treaty.

[Berkut]

Naive is the better word.

Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.

Sounds like you agree with CC's overall analysis then, even if your reaction differs.

I'm not sure though... there's always been bullshit when it comes to US-Canada relations and trade. Trump was obviously going low places, but I'm not sure there's a sea change with Biden compared to the pre-Trump era.

Yeah, this doesn't look like anything even remotely "new".

That doesn't make it any less bullshit though - it just isn't some example of some New and Even More Outrageous Contempt From the US. It's just pretty normal political and economic bullshit.

I could as well post some outrage bait about how Canada, once again, shows that they all their concern about the environment is clearly posturing, and they continue to not care about polluting the environment and their callous disregard for obviously failing pipelines that are likely to pollute the Great Lakes.

[Grey Fox]

Naive is the better word.

Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.

Sounds like you agree with CC's overall analysis then, even if your reaction differs.

Yes, I think that applies. But, in Quebec it's nothing new.

[Razgovory]

CC, I don't know what you are doing here.  Your opening post didn't provide much information about the case.  You left out, the name of the state, the governor, the company and most important the stated reason for doing this.  You started with hostile argument and not surprisingly put several people on the defensive.  Berkut, and garbon may very well agree with you and believe Whitmer stepped out of bounds.  But when your start using Trump's name you kind of shut down any sort of argument.

[Berkut]

CC, I don't know what you are doing here.  Your opening post didn't provide much information about the case.  You left out, the name of the state, the governor, the company and most important the stated reason for doing this.  You started with hostile argument and not surprisingly put several people on the defensive.  Berkut, and garbon may very well agree with you and believe Whitmer stepped out of bounds.  But when your start using Trump's name you kind of shut down any sort of argument.

I suspect CC doesn't care so much about the case itself as much as its utility to drive his outrage-o-meter over how terrible the US and Americans are....

[The Minsky Moment]

Lets imagine that Embridge is not from Canada but from Oklahoma and instead of an international treaty governing the case, there is just a regular federal statute governing interstate commerce.

Seems to me this dispute would play out exactly the same way it is playing out now. The issue here isn't some kind of anti-Canada xenophobia, it's just the kind of regulatory-commercial conflict that plays out all the time in this country.

The fact that a treaty is in play doesn't change the analysis - a ratified treaty becomes a part of federal law, it doesn't become some kind of magical legal trump card that overrides the entire legal system.

[grumbler]

The governor is revoking the easement because she claims that the operator (Enbridge) won't take the required steps to maintain their right to the easement.  That seems a clear violation of the treaty, but Witmer claims that her actions are authorized by state law and the treaty's exception for "an actual or threatened natural disaster, an operating emergency, or other demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a Transit Pipeline."  I don't think that she is acting "by or with the approval of the appropriate regulatory authorities of the Party in whose territory such disaster, emergency or other demonstrable need occurs" because the Federal government, not the state government, is the Party to the treaty.

The treaty doesn't forbid tiresome whining, so I guess we can't stop these kinds of complaints by Canadians, but we also don't have to indulge them.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think that she is acting "by or with the approval of the appropriate regulatory authorities of the Party in whose territory such disaster, emergency or other demonstrable need occurs" because the Federal government, not the state government, is the Party to the treaty.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but I don't think I agree.  The relevant language under article IV says: " a Transit Pipeline shall be subject to regulations by the appropriate governmental authorities having jurisdiction over such Transit Pipeline . . "

The State of Michigan has jurisdiction over the pipeline, concurrently with the federal government.  I assume the same would be true for a Canadian Province through which the pipeline travels. Thus, under the treaty, Michigan, as an appropriate governmental authority with jurisdiction over the pipeline, may lawfully apply its own regulations, provided that it does so "in the same manner as for any other pipelines or the transmission of hydrocarbons by pipeline subject to [its] authority" and provided that exercise of regulatory authority relates to one or more of the 4 enumerated categories.

Note I take no position as to whether the Michigan action satisfied all these conditions.  But if it did, I think they could take action consistent with the treaty.

[Eddie Teach]

Crazy Canuck is really fucking stupid. I mean it would be nice if the US lived up to its treaty obligations, but if we did this country would still belong to Native Americans.

Unlikely. European settlers would still have taken the land without the US army's help.

[Oexmelin]

Crazy Canuck is really fucking stupid. I mean it would be nice if the US lived up to its treaty obligations, but if we did this country would still belong to Native Americans.

Unlikely. European settlers would still have taken the land without the US army's help.

History suggests... no.

[Eddie Teach]

History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though.   

[Oexmelin]

History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though.   

I am not doing too bad with actual history either, thanks.

"The army's help" is woefully underselling it.

[Jacob]

History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though.   

I expect Oex is drawing on examples where European settlers did not have the army's help, and did not succeed, and applying it to the hypothetical you proposed.

[Valmy]

History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though.   

I am not doing too bad with actual history either, thanks.

"The army's help" is woefully underselling it.

My wife had an ancestor who was in the Georgia Militia during the War of 1812 and they kept invading what is today Alabama, getting whipped by the Creek Confederacy, and retreating back to Georgia. This happened a few times (three?) until Andrew Jackson showed up to ruin the Creek Confederacy's day. So yeah it does seem you needed at least a little military skill to successfully win.

[Oexmelin]

My wife had an ancestor who was in the Georgia Militia during the War of 1812 and they kept invading what is today Alabama, getting whipped by the Creek Confederacy, and retreating back to Georgia. This happened a few times (three?) until Andrew Jackson showed up to ruin the Creek Confederacy's day. So yeah it does seem you needed at least a little military skill to successfully win.

Yes, and that is a pattern we can generalize. Settlers encroach, their cattle devastate Indigenous fields, hunters pillage hunting territories, violence ensues. Sure, settlers sometimes organized in de facto armed bands, but these armed bands usually had their successes against already weakened Indigenous polities in spaces of earlier contact. In most cases, the escalation promptly required the involvement of organized military, either to prevent all-out war, or to centrally manage all-out war.

The narrative of "settlers would have taken lands" as some sort of nameless horde of locust has long been a useful narrative that simultaneously portrayed the decline of Indigenous polities as some inevitability of history, and sufficiently diffused responsibility for how said history unfolded. It's also part of a long trend in American history to minimize the role of government (Otto gestured towards that in another thread).