When it comes to Syria, what we know at this point is that the Obama administration is making the case for the fact that the Assad regime is responsible for chemical weapons attacks on his own people and that they think a response is required. We're hearing a lot of chatter about what that response might be, but the administration has not publicly endorsed anything in particular.
But it seems that the conversation today is mostly about whether or not President Obama is constitutionally required to get approval from Congress for a military response. There is even talk about the idea that if he doesn't do so - it would be grounds for impeachment.
This is - once again - an example of raising the bar for this particular president (you can decide for yourself whether its because he happens to be black - but its certainly not an irrelevant question). Does anyone remember Reagan getting Congressional approval for the invasion of Grenada? Or Bush I getting it for the invasion of Panama? Or Clinton for the bombing of a factory in Sudan? I certainly don't. And while those actions were met with a fair amount of derision for various reasons, I also don't remember any talk of them being unconstitutional or resulting in impeachment hearings.
The truth is, as constitutional expert Stephen Vladeck said, "this is one of the more perversely gray areas of U.S. constitutional law.” Those making definitive statements about the constitutional requirement for Congressional approval for military strikes against Syria are simply playing the same game they've played over and over again with this president...holding him to a different standard than those (white guys) who preceded him.