I’m an “a-hole” for supporting the Constitution.
Okay. Cool.
Man, you really show a huge amount of stupidity. You have nothing to stand on, nor does this Bushite.
With your level of discernment and wisdom, how do you keep yourself from having sex with animals?
No, your an "a-hole" for totally misrepresenting the Constitution with respect to this Presidential power.
In over 240 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has had ample opportunity to rule on the Constitutionality of Presidential power in his role as Commander In Chief, and yet, not once has this power ever been challenged or limited in any meaningful way.
On top of that, we have the War Powers Act, wherein Congress basically ceded whatever lingering power it did have in this area. And the War Powers Act has never been struck down. Indeed, the War Powers Act itself might be Unconstitutional, by placing invalid limits on the President's power as Commander in Chief.
But that's a debate for another day.
One thing that can be categorically stated—with as much confidence as anything relating to the Constitution—is that such actions by the President are de facto Constitutional, with over 240 years of precedent to support that notion, and zero (zip-zilch-nada) precedent to the contrary.
This concludes your Constitutional lesson for the day.
I apologize for being harsh, but it seems to me that you are intentionally ignoring the Constitution in making your claim that this military act by the President was unconstitutional, because almost a quarter millenia of U.S History and precedent indicate quite the opposite.
So please accept the reality that your interpretation of the Constitution (and/or this writer's) is dangerously misguided...
Whatever, let’s move on because there’s probably going to be another big show next week.