Cap and dividend is a simple, market-based way to reduce CO2 emissions without reducing household incomes. It caps fossil fuel supplies, makes polluters pay, and returns the revenue to everyone equally.

Cap and Dividend:
How to Curb Global Warming
While Protecting the Incomes
Of American Families

James K. Boyce & Matthew Riddle
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI)
University of Massachusetts Amherst
WORKINGPAPER SERIES
Number 150 [PDF]

A Climate Change Proposal With Cash

"Cap-and-dividend" advocates say to tackle global warming,
Uncle Sam will need to hand out money

By Marianne Lavelle
U.S.News & World Report
Posted June 2, 2008

re: H.CON. RES. 362

"Subject: Stop Congress from fomenting another war

We rarely send you action items on Saturday. We're doing so today because the House appears likely to vote on a bad resolution early next week. If you oppose starting a war with Iran then we must act now to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362.

This resolution has 169 co-sponsors, including 77 Democrats and 92 Republicans. The resolution calls on President Bush to . . .

• Create an international blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing the refined gasoline it needs to run its economy
• Subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspections
• Tighten economic sanctions against Iran
• Violate international treaties by prohibiting Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travelling abroad.

If another country took such actions against us, we would consider it an act of war. In addition, passage of this resolution would end negotiations with Iran in Baghdad that the administration has recently signaled it was prepared to resume.

House Concurrent Resolution 362 is a major step toward war." - more...

implicit contradiction

The disclaimer:
"Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran:"

The contradiction:
"(3) demands [DEMANDS] that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;"

Reasonably presuming that Iranian officials and traders will not timidly submit to such searches and obstructions, these demands implicitly constitute an "authorization of the use of force," if not a virtual declaration of war. How else can these demands be executed?

PLEASE URGE YOUR U.S.REP TO OPPOSE H.CON. RES. 362

The Character Issue, FISA and The Constitution

" There is a legal precedent in American jurisprudence which permits the creation of new law through congressional inaction. The 'Steel Seizure case'--also known as--Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) is the legally accepted case on increasing presidential power. In the Youngstown case, the Supreme Court reviewed President Truman's EXECUTIVE ORDER, nationalizing our steel plants during the Korean War in an attempt to end a strike. The history changing opinions were written by fellow Democratic appointees, Justices Robert H. Jackson and Felix Frankfurter. THE BASIC ARGUMENT [1] ALLOWING A DE FACTO TYPE OF COMMON LAW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT was provided by Frankfurter:

"Deeply embedded traditional ways of conducting government cannot supplant the Constitution or legislation, but they give meaning to the words of a text or supply them. It is an inadmissibly narrow conception of American constitutional law to confine it to the words of the Constitution and to disregard the gloss which life has written upon them. In short, A SYSTEMATIC, UNBROKEN, EXECUTIVE PRACTICE, LONG PURSUED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONGRESS AND NEVER BEFORE QUESTIONED, engaged in by Presidents who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, making as it were such exercise of power part [343 U.S. 579, 611] of the structure of our government, MAY BE TREATED AS A GLOSS ON "EXECUTIVE POWER" VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT BY 1 of Art, II." (Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952).

In the Youngstown case, Justice Jackson concurred, [2] adding that the president's powers possess variance in terms of acting with congressional authority (the strongest legitimacy), in opposition to the same, or IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT:

"When the president acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have CONCURRENT AUTHORITY, OR IN WHICH ITS DISTRIBUTION IS UNCERTAIN. THEREFORE, CONGRESSIONAL INERTIA, INDIFFERENCE OR QUIESCENCE MAY SOMETIMES, AT LEAST AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ENABLE, IF NOT INVITE, MEASURES ON INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law." (Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1952).

In practical terms, this decision allows for the potential UNILATERAL INCREASE IN EXECUTIVE POWER WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO AMEND SAID CONSTITUTION, GRANTED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF CONGRESSIONAL INACTION. In other words, if a president systematically and repeatedly asserts any prerogative, (such as declaring war without congressional oversight and permission, or revoking civil rights without due process), and does so routinely, with UNQUESTIONING CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE--THEN THAT POWER OR PRACTICE BECOMES A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE, THAT CAN NEVER BE INFRINGED UPON BY THE COURTS, CONGRESS OR THE PEOPLE.

In hindsight, when Pelosi stated that ..."impeachment is off the table," she was guilty of the very..."indifference or quiescence," needed to increase the powers of an imperial presidential dictatorship. Ironically, impeachment is not the only check against presidential abuses. Members of Congress do not need to successfully impeach in order to hold a 'grand inquest' into newly claimed and questionable presidential powers. The action of a 'grand inquest,' and the convening of such an inquest could serve as the formal objection required to prevent such an escalation of executive overreach. All that is needed to place an abusive executive 'in check,' is for the House Judiciary Committee to formally convene this same GRAND INQUEST, regardless of impeachment status. Given the fact, that most congressmen ARE ATTORNEYS, makes their inaction, inertia and quiescence--inexcusable.

Whether the concern is the FISA 'compromise' bill or one of many constitutional violations; the silence on constitutional restoration from both presidential candidates speaks volumes in terms of their respect for due process, constitutional rights and basic personal integrity. In an age where a candidates' qualifications include the requisite patriotism; I wonder about issues more serious than the presence of a lapel pin. It's not merely a question of McCain's alleged intellectual deficits or Obama's relative inexperience; it's a question of their integrity. When a new president or member of congress swears on the Holy Bible to ...defend the US Constitution...against enemies both domestic and foreign; you have to question the cowardice displayed by THIS congress AND the presidential contenders. Rather than be called out as 'soft on terrorism,' they prefer to destroy the last remnants of a once proud constitution.

Rather than decry the constitutional abuses of the past eight years; the presidential candidates give us propaganda. While McCain throws dictatorial tantrums denying the legitimacy of rights articulated in the constitution; Obama uses measured language, full of nuances--a true test of an excellent attorney or diplomat. The question remains, is this measured, vague language a sign of leadership? Where does Obama stand on restoration of constitutional rule? Do his actions match his rhetoric?

We know where McCain stands, as he constantly complains about constitutional restraints. McCain's contempt for our constitution is obvious; Obama's interpretation is murkier. The Senator from Illinois preaches constitutional rights, yet repeatedly votes against constitutional rule as evidenced by his earlier vote for the hapless 'Protect America Act,' and his admission of begrudged support for the FISA 'compromise' bill. His voting pattern is consistent with the most hawkish neoncons, but he does make the public feel better about this American 'empire.' I n truth, Obama must clarify his positions on the return of constitutional rule and the balance of power between the Judiciary, Legislative and Executive branches, in a concrete and precise fashion. This not only speaks to his intentions regarding the constitution he professes to love, but also addresses the very nature of presidential leadership. Is Obama going to embrace the Bush/McCain Unitary Executive form of presidency, which establishes a presidential dictator and reduces congress to writing blank checks, or will he restore constitutional rule with the president working as an equal branch of a tripartite democratic republic? Will Obama respect the rights of citizenry as established in the constitution, or will he bashfully accept the role of 'benevolent' presidential dictator, thus relegating the Bill of Rights to a quaint notion? Finally, will a President Obama and the corporate 'centrist' democrats line up eagerly to accept the ongoing slide to fascism; or will they embrace the promise of..."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated , and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." (4th Amendment, US Constitution). "

". . . A review of available casualty data such as "Analysis of VA Health Care Utilization Among U.S. Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Veterans Operation Enduring Freedom Operation Iraqi Freedom VHA Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards October 2007," reveals that over 263,000 American military personnel have been diagnosed with medical problems that are related to toxic exposures including food and water contamination.

A review of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Gulf War Veterans Information system 'GWVIS' May 2007 report reveals that out of 696,842 Americans who participated in Gulf War 1 as of May 30, 2007 only 620,266 are still alive and that at least 280,623 of those left alive have applied for lifetime medical care because exposures to battlefield toxins.

Sadly United States leaders did not learn and consequently a review of the same casualty data reveals that as of May 30, 2007 out of the 1,129,340 American military personnel who deployed to the Gulf only 963,083 remain alive while at least 407,911 individuals have applied for lifetime medical care.

According to casualty data published in the recent issues of a Army Times at least 29,395 Americans have been wounded in action (WIA) and at least 4000 have no been killed in action (KIA). Obviously the majority of all casualties are classified as "disease and non-battle injuries" (DNBI) and unrelated to actual combat actions but are related to the complex toxic exposures. While Army Times editors report that 89,360 Iraqis have been killed other estimates range from 600,00 to more than 1 million.

The number of Iraqi and other casualties who would be classified as disease and non battle injuries remains elusive but must be proportional to United States DNBI casualties. These numbers are staggering and can never be justified . . . ."

complete article: The Canadian