Watch This View Host Shut Down Anti-Trump Rhetoric Fast

Shortly after the Commander in Chief put forward an incredible show of force toward the Syrian government to combat their sick use of chemical warfare, the brilliant political analysists that work for The View weighed in on his actions.

I’m not sure what causes American’s to want to constantly get their news from this group of panelists that are literally just giving their “View” but since we do, let’s address this conversation.

In their defense, at least a few of the hosts seem to be trying to make it about right and wrong. Was President Trump’s military action an overreach of his powers? If you take a look at the use of military power in the past, in our early years, about half of the time any military force was used, it was first approved by congress. This was due to the division of powers that the founders built into out constitution. However, there are exceptions to that imperative.

According to The Center For American Progress some of those exceptions are:

First, the military action is intended to defend U.S. persons, property, or national interests. Second, the military operation is clearly short of the traditional understanding of war. The Obama administration relied on this interpretation of its Article II authority to undertake the bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 and the initial deployment of U.S. forces to Baghdad and airstrikes targeting ISIS in August.

More than half of all the congressional use of force authorizations—18 of 35—came in the first 30 years after independence. These ranged from large wars, such as the War of 1812, to small engagements to fight naval piracy. It was also relatively common for Congress to restrict the president to the use of specific types of armed force.

Congressional authorizations have grown much less frequent over time, with only nine occurring in the nearly 100 years since the United States entered World War I. The last actual declaration of war under Article I was for World War II. Congressional authorizations in the 20th century have often been for major military actions such as World Wars I and II, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the response to the 9/11 attacks.

So in answer to the question; yes there’s some real ground for President Trump to say that what he did was completely within his Constitutionally given rights as the Commander in Chief of the United States Military.

However, if you’re not convinced that the above proof is completely arguable, there is a whole lot of leeway given to our president that seems to be intentionally not spelled out for anyone and everyone to interpret. Two professors from Stanford University addressed this issue.

There is a whole lot of what they called “constitutional ambiguity.” Professors Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, both of Stanford, wrote a paper entitled The Presidental Power of Unilateral Action.  In it they wrote:

Our Central Purpose is to set out a theory of this aspect of presidential power. we argue that the president’s powers of unilateral action are a force in American politics precisely because they are not specified in the Constitution. They derive their strength and resilience from the ambiguity of the contract.

So, you can believe the ladies on The View, or you can believe the Stanford Professors and those who rose to President Obama’s defense for his actions in Libya, the choice is yours.

(H/T: Fox News Insider)