This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, September 4th, 2013.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The President's history of respecting Congress's explicit power to declare war isn't a strong one, and it's for that reason any limits

the Senate might place on his power to conduct a war in Syria might not stick.

Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, breaks down the Senate's version of a permission slip to go to war.

President Obama has sought what from Congress exactly.

Approval, certainly not permission.

Well, he maintains that he has the inherent authority to go to war with or without Congress, and

that's what Secretary Kerry has said as well.

He has the right to launch these operations regardless of what Congress does.

On the other hand, I think it's going to be very hard to ignore the results of a vote

after having called for the vote. If the vote turns out to be no, it would be a very difficult thing politically, I think, for

Obama to simply let the Tomahawks fly like so many other presidents have done before. The Senate voted on an amendment offered by Rand Paul, which essentially used the president's

words against him in 2007, he said the president does not have the authority

I believe he told Charlie Savage the president does not have the authority to

take unilateral military action unless there's an imminent threat and he used that to construe

that the Congress, if it were to vote against the President, he would be found in violation

of the Constitution

and it failed miserably only got 13 votes.

That was a neat trick to throw the president's words back in his face.

He did say that on the campaign trail and he got it right. The president

doesn't have any constitutional authority to launch sudden attacks, you know, in the name of humanitarian principles.

...