I'm seeing a lot of people invoke the War Powers Resolution as a legal justification for the air strikes in Syria against Assad. The most direct of these is Amber Phillips over at The Fix on the Washington Post:
One thing Phillips forgot to do, but really should have, is actually read the War Powers Resolution, because it simply doesn't apply in this instance. The relevant language is here:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Congress did not declare war. Congress did not give specific statutory authorization for using force. We weren't attacked. Our territories or possessions weren't attacked. Our armed forces weren't attacked. The War Powers Resolution, by its own terms, doesn't apply to this strike.
It’s becoming common for people to cite the War Powers Resolution as though it’s some blank check for the President to bomb anywhere he wants for two months, but Congress never intended it to be that, and its own language doesn’t support that reading. It states directly that its purpose is to require the collective judgment of Congress and the President when it comes to using the military. It requires the President “in every possible instance” to consult Congress before using military force. It’s not an authorization to fire missiles anytime the President thinks we need to look tough, or that there’s a moral imperative to use force. It has limitations, and this strike exceeds them.
To be perfectly clear: Trump just militarily attacked a foreign government’s facilities and personnel — the textbook act of war — even though that country did not attack the US, and even though Congress did not authorize it. This was an illegal act.
This is only explainable under a theory that the President has inherent war-making power, Article I §8 be damned. This should be a troubling development regardless of whether one supports action against Assad.