Just so I don't have to type all this again, posted on the other thread:
The Constitution allows for three ways military force can be used.
1. A declaration of war.
2. Punishing offenses against the laws of nations. (it specifically called out piracy as an example).
3. Stopping rebellions.
In the case of Constitutional use, all three of those items are found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution- which is Congress' role.
The President does have the War Powers Act to go on which allows him to take emergency action. He has 48 days to go to Congress for approval. It is concerning when a President can use military force outside those Constitutionality required areas that do require Congressional input and authorization.
....and, before you say that this is just about Trump, no. I am basically copying and pasting the concerns we levied when Obama started using military action in Syria, Lybia, and elsewhere, on his own, without Congress's approval and not following the War Powers Act guidelines. Liberals were saying the same thing as some here: "he doesn't need Congressional approval, this isn't war, just an action, just a bombing, etc"
Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.htmlConservatives were demanding he follow the Constitution.
Example:
http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/GeorgeWill-Obama-Libya-WarPowersResolution/2011/05/31/id/398312/So I hope here that the consistent Conservative approach is that the President does go to Congress by the War Powers Act and Constitutional guideline and we don't start using the same arguments that the left used for Obama.
If he goes to Congress, then he is doing the right thing.