Secretary of State John Kerry began laying the groundwork today to justify a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. As one would expect, the prospect of another war has become quite the controversy among politicos and the talking-head class. I read today about one Senator who said this:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation… In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
I'm wondering where you readers are on the question of another war. Do you agree with the above statement? Does the President have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation? I look forward to reading your opinions in the comments.