<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">I just wanted to throw down a little rant here about how the media is portraying the Syria situation.<br><br>From what I've seen, they all characterize the President going to Congress as him asking for "approval" to attack Syria. Shouldn't he be asking for "authorization" instead? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the ability to declare war to Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President can commit the US to an armed conflict only if authorized by Congress or in the case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." We haven't been attacked by Syria, so if the President orders an attack on Syria without authorization by Congress to do so, he would be acting illegally. <br><br>Is that
correct? What might I be missing that would give him the authority to attack Syria without authorization by Congress, as he originally intended to do? <br><br>I'll be very interested in this question if Congress turns him down and he goes ahead and authorizes an attack on Syria anyway.<br><br>Paul<br><div><br></div></div></body></html>