Based on their firm declarations as members of the U.S Senate, Barack Obama would be among the first to call for the impeachment of President Barack H. Obama, with the concurrence and enthusiastic support of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, should Obama attack Syria without congressional authorization.

With the Parliament’s decision to give a red light to Britain’s participation in military action against the Assad regime in Syria, the Obama administration must either go ahead unilaterally or back down, exposing Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to international ridicule for a rush-to-judgment accusing Assad of “a cowardly crime” and “a moral obscenity” on murky evidence.

As WND reported, President Obama Saturday pledged to await congressional approval before launching a military strike on Syria, but also insisted he had the authority to attack with or without such approval. As he walked away after the speech, a shouting reporter asked if he would still launch the attack should Congress deny authorization, but Obama refused to answer.

On Dec. 20, 2007, then-Sen. Obama was asked by the Boston Globe whether President George W. Bush had the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without specific authorization from Congress. Obama answered:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Read More: