because ignoring it has the same effect.
One thing is glaringly obvious regarding the discussion about Syria & the authority to attack: no politician in DC and no one in the Corporate Media has said much of anything (perhaps nothing) about the Constitution. Instead, we hear about "precedents", the War Powers Act, Humanitarian imperatives, etc. There's a very good reason for that. Nowhere in the SUPREME Law of the Land is power delegated to the Fed Gov't to attack a country that is no threat to the USA and has not attacked us. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to see anyone in the Gov't or anyone in the Corporate Media point out exactly where that power is enumerated in the Constitution.
I'm not asking commenters on various public forums to show me the constitutional authority... because my experience with comments there the last few days has shown me that (if those forums are representative samples of Americans' constitutional knowledge) most Americans nowadays know almost nothing about how this Republic is supposed to operate legally.
Someone needs to tell "Bomb-Bomb-Iran" McCain that the War Powers Act, along with every other LAW, does NOT supercede the Constitution. If Laws trumped the SUPREME Law of the Land, there would be no point at all in having a Constitution. For decades, the puppets in DC have ignored the Constitution at will. Not long ago, I saw a clip on YouTube in which a Congressman (can't remember his name) said to an interviewer, "Half of what we do is unconstitutional. What's the big deal?". That pretty much says it for politicians.
The Supreme Law of the Land is crystal clear on the permitted uses of the military, there are only three...1. To execute the laws of the land (as in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion in the mid-1790s). 2. To repel invasions. 3. To quell insurrections. [Numbers 1 & 3 appear to be so similar that in the last 50 years I've usually said there are only two permitted uses.] People sometimes retort that this is modern-day America; all that old stuff is completely out-of-date. Perhaps so; that's why there are two mechanisms for updating the Constitution---the Amendment process and the Constitutional Convention. Both were purposely designed to be cumbersome...changing the Supreme Law of the Land should not be easy. For a time, the DC puppets did use the Amendment process to update the Supreme Law, but then they quit. It was easier to pass laws. They gambled that the American public would not know the difference; apparently, they won. I guess it never occurred to the Founders that We the People would allow our servant government to ignore the Constitution.
The Commander-in-Chief is constrained by the permitted uses of the military enumerated in the Constitution. I've been appalled to read or sometimes hear people say something like: The Constitution doesn't prohibit the President (or anyone in Gov't) from doing thus-&-such; therefore he/she/they can do it. We are a Gov't of Enumerated Powers [Google it]; the enumeration of things that the Gov't can do IS the prohibition. Creating a comprehensive list of prohibitions would be impossible---the list would be endless. [Isn't American Government taught in schools anymore?]
President Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar; I see no evidence of that at all. Or, if he is one, then he's deceiving the public. Again, I challenge ANYONE in Gov't or the Media to show me legitimate, constitutional authority for attacking Syria...constitutional authority. Anyone in Gov't or the Corporate Media. [I'm not naive enough to expect a response.] I like Woody Allen's old joke: I feel much better now that I've given up hope. :)