Stay out of Syria
Involvement in the Syrian civil war is a calculated risk that we should avoid as a nation.
Haven’t we been there before? Who exactly is using these WMDs? Cowboy diplomacy failed the Republicans in the past.
What makes the Democrats think it’ll work for them now?
Let the barbarians on both sides over there thin out their own herds of mad-cow-diseased dissidents. In other words, let them kill each other, and let God sort the rest.
And Mr. President, go back on vacation, please, and play some more golf; leave the war games to someone who knows the rules of engagement. Don’t start WWIII to please the hawks in your own party who want to paint us in a bad corner of the world.
No one wins in Syria, if we get involved, and increased atrocities by us won’t win us any frienwwwwds in the region.
For the good of the country
I read with concerns David Fuller’s comments on Aug. 27 (“Executive orders,” Your Views) regarding William Cox’s comments from Aug. 24.
I tend to have to agree with Cox’s position, because the “intent” and “purpose” of executive orders by a president are critical — the main purpose being to assist in the execution and administration of government, not to support the politics or political agendas of a president.
U.S. presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch of government manage the operations within the federal government itself.
Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain acts of Congress — some of which specifically delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation) or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the executive branch by the Constitution.
Further, to be more clear, let me also make one correction to the debate on this issue.
Although there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3 and Clause 5.
Most executive orders use these constitutional reasonings as authorization allowing for their issuance as part of the president’s sworn duties. An 1866 Supreme Court decision held that “the President has two kinds of tasks to perform: ministerial and discretionary.”
Finally, probably the most import aspect of the provision for executive orders is in Clause 5, which says the president must “take care that the laws (initiated and issued under Executive Order) be faithfully executed.” This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the president to take due care while executing laws and is called the “Take Care Clause,” also known as the “Faithful Execution Clause.” This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the president, even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.
By virtue of his executive power, the president may execute the law and control the law execution of others.
Under the “Take Care Clause,” however, the president must exercise his law-execution power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many constitutional and historical scholars have stated that the “Faithful Execution Clause” is one of the Constitution’s best provisions.
I served on George H. W. Bush’s National Security Council and assisted in the drafting of several executive orders pertaining to international security. All were for the explicit purpose of the best interest of the United States, not the president himself or his agenda.
The writer is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel.
Help the homeless
Regarding “In Hillsborough County, ‘a cruel mirage’ ” (Letter of the Day, Aug. 28):
Michael Doyle well described the failure of Hillsborough County to effectively provide help for homeless residents (many of whom are military veterans).
This reminds us of the effort to duplicate Pinellas Hope with a facility in Tampa that was offered by the Catholic Diocese at no cost to taxpayers with opposition from individuals who had no problem living next door to a gambling casino in their neighborhood.
No other religious denomination or entity has offered an alternative to helping homeless residents. The offer to help these folks in need still stands by the diocese if we can agree to set aside greed and act.
We should have adequate funds from all of that income generated by the National Republican Convention that was described in the Tribune.
Ray Kerker Sr.