Even though the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to declare war", there is no stated "penalty" for the President to act in his role as Commander in Chief.
So that canard doesn't hold water with critics of the President's action.
The fact is, the last time that Congress declared War was in 1941. Since then, there have been any number of "wars", "police actions", or whatever other semantics one would like to attach to such activity conducted under the auspices of the authority of the President.
There is one Constitutional remedy for any President who wages war against the will of the People as represented by the Congress: impeachment.
Inasmuch as no impeachment has ever been launched against any President since Congress stopped delcaring war in 1941, I doubt very much that this particular minor action will set any new precedents.
Then, of course, there's the War Powers Act to be considered. Mark Levin specifically cited this law in his discussion of the President's lawful, Constitutional actions.
Even among the most strict constructionists, there doesn't seem to be any compelling case to be made that such activities fall outside the President's Constitutionally delegated express and implied powers.
So my suggestion would be for people to focus on Constitutional reality, not butthurt theoretical whimsy...
He claims a “naturalized born citizen” - whatever that is - is eligible to the presidency.
“There is one Constitutional remedy for any President who wages war against the will of the People as represented by the Congress: impeachment.”
That’s the *legal* remedy, however there are many *political* remedies under our Constitution.
In our history the political remedies have been frequently used.
People won’t find a clear legal definition of authority here because it is left to be decided politically. The Founders knew all possible situations could not be accounted for in the Constitution.