Thank you - it was a treat to see Noam Chomsky quoted - truly an underappreciated american hero.

Yeah, the first time I read him, it was pretty mind-blowing.

For anyone that wants a TL;DR for Chomsky on the "free press": https://youtu.be/34LGPIXvU5M

The US Constitution is not legalese bullshit. It is pretty concise and clear on its very sensible assertion that the executive shouldn't start wars single-handedly.

Yeah, you're missing my point. If your only concern about the US raining down fire from the sky is whether or not the commander in chief got congressional approval first as per a 200 year old document written by slave owners then you're probably not someone I would consider a reliable ally for the future. Laws are not morals. And the people that treat them as such, when push comes to shove, tend to side with the oppressors.

It's a lot like that whole supposed Churchill quote:
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

Either you're against war and much more because it's morally wrong, or you're just haggling about your price. And as with arguments regarding the cost of social services (Who's going to pay for it?!), rather than moral concerns for those that are suffering, the approach puts the debate far more to the right side of the political spectrum than most people realize.

To be clear, I believe this act of war should not have occurred. In condemnation of this act, I appeal to the universally recognized, demonstrably violated, constitutional powers of the Congress.
I cannot as easily appeal to the abhorrence of war, because I do believe that war has a finite, albeit huge, price. But I believe that a country should act as soberly as possible in reckoning this price.

What in particular would you change about the constitution, aside from its provenance?

I mean, ignoring that its provenance was likely largely for the purpose of maintaining the legality of slavery... It literally still allows for slavery. The 13th amendment contains a glaring loophole that codifies slavery and ensures that the same authority that makes the rules can enslave you for violating those rules. Matter of fact, I'd say the current fight for legalization of marijuana is a very good example of the problem when people put laws on the same level as morals. Getting back to the constitution, I'd say that it's purpose of serving only white property owning men was a pretty big drawback. Women didn't get the right to vote till 1920, PoC didn't really secure their voting rights until 1964. We still don't have an economic bill of rights, though my version would probably be more anti-capital than the current version Bernie is pushing for, but regardless, the fact that it's necessary paints the sort of country the founders weren't going for when it comes to everyone else.

An Economic Bill of Rights is a great idea. Now, think, what a shame would it be if we fought for it, ratified it in Congress, and the President just ignored it.
Rule of law is not "rule by law" or "law'n'order". It is universal obedience to mutually-agreed-upon rules. The latter are obedience to the whims of the individuals in power, for the sake of stability.

lol, you're still ignoring my whole point. I'm not saying that law itself is meaningless, I'm saying that by getting nitpicky over whether or not it was legal rather than moral, you've already legitimized the act. Your haggling with the military industrial complex (represented in both parties) has begun, and it's on their terms. If anything the article you've shared demonstrates how ineffective nitpicking over legality actually has been, or rather to defer to one of the most poignant memes of this administration...

I've made my point why I prefer legal arguments at times like these. I don't see how emphasizing the illegality of an act legitimizes it. As for morals, there's no Morality Enforcement Agency, and that's as it should be.

Ah! Well. Nevertheless,

for the record, I do not believe war to be wrong.

only foolish.

Because it makes so much sense wasting lives to make both parties sit down and hammer out agreements 🙄