President Obama has decided that he can send troops into Syria without approval from Congress. He would be sending troops into Syria for using chemical weapons. He said that it was part of his executive authority as commander-in-chief to send in troops. 200 members of Congress are demanding that Obama get Congressional approval, but the White House has decided that it is under their Constitutional authority to conduct military affairs without consent from the legislature. Not only isolationist Republicans are calling for approval in Congress, but also anti-war Democrats. But President Obama's view on his authority was not only this way.
When President Obama ran for president in 2007 he said George W. Bush, "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." Apparently his opinion on that has changed.
I think that the President is correct in using his executive authority to send in troops to Syria without consent from Congress. That is part of his duty as commander-in-chief. I think this is the way the Founding Fathers meant for the President to act as commander-in-chief. They were looking for something that would let out military be quick and decisive. If we had to vote on every military action, the military would never get anything done. That's part of the reason the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate for the nation. They didn't put someone in charge of the military. With the Constitution we have someone who will take action when action needs to be taken.
