My own sense re: Trump's recent airstrikes against Syria boils down to this: I'm a constitutional "strict constructionist" where it pertains to matters of war. I believe that the "founding fathers" had it right when they stated simply that it is the prerogative of Congress (and Congress alone) to "declare war."
The War Powers Act of 1973 MAY have originally been formulated as a well-meaning effort to rein in the unconstitutional and largely unchecked war-making activities of Presidents such as Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and then-President Nixon. But it seems to have been subsequently, skillfully, and repeatedly utilized by presidents like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama; and it's now being employed by Trump as a license to wage "limited" war, and potentially unlimited war - like the one in Afghanistan that has raged since 2001.
The idea held by some that the War Powers Act represents an unconstitutional infringement on the Commander in Chief's ability to engage in military intervention at whatever time and place he chooses strikes me as a convenient ploy; a nasty little "legalistic nicety" designed to circumvent that legal NECESSITY outlined in the Constitution, of actually DECLARING war. Congress and the Supreme Court should never, as a rule, make it too easy for the chief executive to engage in hostilities at a moment's notice. By now it appears obvious to me both those branches of government have ceded whatever critical oversight they might have brought to bear, time and again.
"Trump's Syria airstrikes: constitutional or not?"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... al-or-not/
"So over the past few decades, presidents have routinely asserted their authority to take military action without prior congressional approval. Congress has largely acquiesced, and the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in in any significant way.
So reasonable minds can disagree over whether this trend is constitutional."