It is true that the U.S. presidents have accumulated a lot of power in U.S. foreign policy. But this is not the first time that a US President asks the U.S. congress for approval for military action. Just in the recent history, president George W. Bush sought congressional approval for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. presidents have regularly sought congressional authorization when the military interventions / wars were expected to be long. They have not seen necessary to seek the congressional authorization for potentially short-term military interventions or strikes.

President Obama asked for authorization for military engagement that had no expiration date, no limits on the kind of operations; it was an open-ended draft resolution. The Senate draft resolution puts some limits, but still allows for extensive military campaigns to reach objectives. Considering the situation in which the Obama administration has been in past year, requesting such an authorization is a pure pragmatic move from the president in order not to alienate his supporters within the US electorate and not to give the opposition further munition to attack him. I do not think president Obama requested congress authorization for military engagement in Syria to democratize the U.S. foreign policy.

Thanks a lot for this clarification, Ada. Would you agree, that the difference is that Obama risks a rejection by the Congress and that for the first time a President could loose such a consultation while in the cases before the approval was rather clear?

Every president risks a rejection by the Congress in such cases, but president Obama perhaps is taking a greater risk because he may get a more limited authorization than other presidents in the past. If Congress were to deny authorization for military action in Syria, that denial may have two very different consequences. One, unintended consequence may be democratization of U.S. foreign policy by precedent. The U.S. politics and legal systems allows for new precedents to overrule the previous ones. As such a president in the future can reverse the trend as easily as Obama's decision to seek authorization for military action in Syria. Another unintended consequence can be that presidents in the future will avoid asking for authorizations from Congress altogether. I think that if the U.S. foreign policy were to democratize and this democratization last, we should look for institutional solutions similar to War Power Resolutions (1973) which curtailed the U.S. president's powers to commit troops for extensive and long military campaigns, but allows him to respond to precipitating security situations without being hindered by the sluggishness of a multi-member institution like Congress.

I recommend Max Steinbeis' Comment (in german): Obamas Syrien-Strategie: Parlamentsheer in den USA?

http://www.verfassungsblog.de/de/obamas-syrien-strategie-parlamentsheer-in-den-usa/

How could something be democratized when it is already a democratic procedure? Since the President has been elected through a democratic process and has been vested with powers given to him/her by the people whom elected them; how could President's decisions prior to this historic event been any less democratic?

Now, I understand the premise of your question, but the way it has been presented builds a facile view of the President's position. Your question "democratization of Foreign Affairs/Security Policy?" states that President/s has been exercising procedures beyond his/her authority (vested by the people-legislation/constitution/amendment) thus making them illegal. But the President does have authority in this particular case you are referring too. The US Constitution states that (verbatim) "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows" Article II, Section 2. In other words, the Constitution grants President the rank of commander in chief of the armed forces which allows him/her to initiate military activities (strikes on Syria) without declaring war or asking for permission from the legislative branch.

President's decision to not seek an approval from Congress to attack another nation is a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, not a tyrannical upheaval of US laws.

So

I do not think the question focuses on the legality of the U.S. presidents decisions to initiate military actions. I do not think that democratic regime in the U.S. is questioned either. As I understood it, the concern is about the executive - legislative relations regarding foreign policy decision-making. Decade after decade, the U.S. presidents have accumulated more and more powers in foreign policy, understandably so (the Congress has too many heads to be able to effectively and quickly respond to precipitating situations). From the way the question is constructed, I gather that Mr. Pausch think that there is room for democratization of foreign relations policy, and as a result of such democratization the Congress will have more say in decision-making.

I see your point, I should have not delved into a pedantic decry over a perfectly sensible argument . Thank you for you time and your diligent response.

By the way, David Cameron also CHOSE to consult the British Parliament. Primer Ministers, too, generally have quite a bit of power in deciding external affairs.

Also, the Supreme Court ruled quite early on that the President has a great deal of power in foreign policy. I'm not sure the powers have accumulated, it's more that the US itself has accumulated power.