Consider the Poor Constitution

Something should be more important to us than whether chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and if so what strategy should be undertaken to deal with the issue.

The merits of entering a conflict in Syria are not, at this time, of interest to me.

What is important is that to do so without Congressional authorization cannot be squared with the United States' Constitution's vesting of the right to declare war in Congress*.  (For the record, though I thought the policy was valid, I considered the Lybian intervention to be unconstitutional.)

It can reasonably be argued that a President needs to respond to emergencies, just as a police officer in the field may have to shoot at a suspect.

This is not an emergency, there has been a great deal of time made available to discuss the issue.

The current president has no operationaly reason not to ask for an authorization to use force from Congress* -- this the Supreme Court stipulated is consistent with Congress having exclusive war making power.

A President's reluctance to request permission before taking action, while Constitutionally vile, is psychologically to be expected -- no one wants to ask permission if they can avoid it, particularly of Congress*.

The behavior of members of the Congress* is cowardice of the highest level.  They are will to foresake their powers, and undermine the law, solely to ensure they will have no ownership of the decisions.

So it will be that, the current president will not ask for an authorization, and the Congrees* will not assert its rights.  This is a making of war on the basic laws of the republic.



*"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress!" -- John Adams, 1776.