This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, April 18th, 2018.

I'm Caleb Brown. The blank check for war handed to the White House by Congress in 2001 and again two years later is still

being used this time to drop bombs on Syria a conflict that has no substantial

connection to the attacks on the US 17 years ago.

Gene Healy and John Glazer argue it's time to repeal, not replace presidential powers

to make open-ended war.

When the president announced these airstrikes in Syria along in conjunction with Great Britain and France,

was there any legal rationale for authorization offered?

Well, if it's similar to what they said after the first Syrian air strike, the drive-by missile strikes in April of last year, they're mainly relying

on a very broad theory of the President's inherent authorities under Article 2, that there are sort of

penumbres and emanations from the executive power that allow the president to launch wars at will.

Actually there was a report today I think that defense secretary Jim Mattis requested or

suggested that they try to get congressional

authorization for this latest strike and he was overruled by the rest of the

cabinet. So in a way, according to that report at least, they recognize that they don't have

explicit authority, but they fall back on what Jean said, which is this broad

interpretation of what the Constitution allows.

Now I spoke with Emma Ashford recently and she says there is a rationale on paper somewhere,

but no one's allowed to see it.

That's correct.

There is a, after last year's... That's

air strikes on Syria on the Assad regime.

...