Douthat is disappointed with it:
The official “lesson” that the president’s words and choices are delivering is not one that actually elevates Congress back to its Article I level of authority. Rather, it’s one that treats Congress as a kind of ally of last resort, whose backing remains legally unnecessary for warmaking (as the White House keeps strenuously emphasizing, and as its conduct regarding Libya necessarily implies), and whose support is only worth seeking for pragmatic and/or morale-boosting reasons once other, extra-constitutional sources of legitimacy (the U.N. Security Council, Britain, etc.) have turned you down. The precedent being set, then, is one of presidential weakness, not high-minded constitutionalism: Going to Congress is entirely optional, and it’s what presidents do when they’re pitching wars that they themselves don’t fully believe in, and need to rebuild credibility squandered by their own fumbling and failed alliance management. What future White House would look at that example and see a path worth following?
Very few. But it remains a great opportunity to rein in the imperial presidency as it has evolved, with the military-industrial complex, over the last few decades. I agree that Obama is not making that case; but Rand Paul is. And Paul can advance that argument in the country at large. That is the precedent I’m hoping for. And it’s in our grasp, if we can stop this war in its tracks.
The Dish 