“...he has done nothing unconstitutional.”
The act of ordering military action with circumstances that the US, nor US interests were attacked initially is unconstitutional.
He used the excuse of a UN resolution.
That resolution belonged to the US Congress to debate, and authorize any action, NOT the President.
I posted this to a related article - I am not happy about it but it still requires interpretation (lawyer not I am - victim yes).
USC TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVI > § 287d
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000287-—d000-.html
In this code is written -
“The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein”
Articles 41,42 and surrounding available here.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
I guess we have an article 42 in effect which does not require congressional input.
The War Powers Resolution needs work to clarify procedures in events such as this. I see no reason why the code cannot be modified so as to require Congressional consultation (not just advisement) in situations such as this.
Some suggestion are given in pages 44-48 in CRS RL32267
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32267_20080310.pdf
I like the idea of a Consultation Group described therein.
The whole issue is confused - or in my case confusing.