I'm a Constitutionalist, and when I try to redpill people, undoubtedly they will attempt to bring up the Constitution in the debate.

I'm not a fan of the UN Security Council, but these are the rules. The UN charter prohibits the use of force with two exceptions: self-defense (including anticipatory and mutual self-defense) and with the authorization of the UN security council. Any other invasion or attack is technically illegal under international law.

There is no way the UN Security Council will authorize attack on Syria because Russia has veto power.

If the The War Powers Resolution is presumed to be constitutional, the President should abide by it in Syrian situation. The only situation where the President has the constitutional authority to order armed forces to engage in hostilities without the authorization of Congress is “a national emergency” when the country has been attacked. Although the Syrian regime used chemical weapons contrary to international standards, it did not do so in an attack against the United States. POTUS has also conceded that the country is not in immediate danger.

I support POTUS, and I trust the plan, but I think these points need to be addressed. We need to work on a narrative to support POTUS, and I'm finding it hard to do.

Please help Anons. We all want to Keep America Great.