I know that expecting politicians to exhibit intellectual consistency is like hoping that a dog will learn to smile: maybe sometimes we might fool ourselves into believing it happened, but it never really will.

Which brings us to the recent debate about the power of the president to take military action in Syria without congressional approval. Suddenly, it has become a sacrosanct argument among many conservatives—and even some liberals—that the president is hidebound by the Constitution and history to sit on his hands until after Congress finishes some chin stroking and decides it’s O.K. to act. And that is simply malarkey. That’s not to say that plenty of people haven’t been deceived by the recent drumbeat of calls about the limits of executive power into thinking that President Obama can’t do anythingwith the military if Congress says no.

A typical response, by a fellow named Paul Cohen from Connecticut, was posted on The New York Times’ Web site under an article about members of Congress congratulating Obama for deciding he would seek legislative approval before taking military action against the Syrian government for purportedly using chemical weapons against its own people. The comment read:

Are you kidding me? President Obama was all set to commit an act of war against Syria all on his own which violates the constitution. Only Congress can declare War. You and your colleagues in Congress are equal to the Executive Branch. You don’t applaud a President who holds himself above the law. You reproach him that he is violating his oath of office to, “ . . . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” And if he fails to get Congress’ approval then it would be your duty to vote out articles of impeachment for infringing on your exclusive prerogatives as spelled out in the constitution.

Yeah, well . . . no. That’s not right. As a lawyer for the Obama administration wrote in an analysis presented to the president: