Lawmakers to Obama: Syria strikes need our OK

President Barack Obama's possible military intervention in Syria is already running into fierce opposition among some members of Congress, with a growing chorus of Republican and Democratic lawmakers demanding he seek congressional authorization for any strikes against the Assad regime.
In the House, Republican Rep. Scott Rigell is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval for any military action.
And in the Senate, even some who support punishing the Syrian government for launching alleged chemical weapons attacks are joining the call for the president to first gain Congress' approval.
"Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorisation would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution," Rigell's letter argues.

A copy was obtained by The Associated Press today.
To make their case, lawmakers are citing the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Passed after President Richard Nixon's secret Vietnam War-era operations, the law reaffirmed Congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war and put a 60-day time limit on the president's ability to take unauthorized, emergency military action.

Since then, commanders-in-chief of both parties have maintained that the resolution is unconstitutional and have regularly disregarded it.
The Obama administration appears likely to use force in the coming days in response to reports last week of a large-scale gas attack by Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces in the Damascus suburbs. At least 100 people died.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry said evidence of such an attack was "undeniable" and that intelligence strongly pointed to Assad's government a claim the Syrian leader called "preposterous." Kerry said that international standards against chemical weapons "cannot be violated without consequences," outlining the clearest justification yet for US military action, most likely coming through sea-launched cruise missiles on regime targets.
After a decade of costly and deadly fighting in the Muslim world, Americans strongly oppose any new US war in the region.
Opinions in Congress are mixed as well. Republicans are split between hawks and tea party isolationists. Democrats are divided between advocates of humanitarian intervention and those who fear that even limited action risks sucking the United States into another conflict.

Despite the divides, legislators of varying political hue are trying to reassert what they claim is their power to authorise the use of force.