This question hasn't gotten a lot of coverage in the media. There has been some partisan whining and arguments, but it is hard to take them seriously when the GOP is also saying that Obama didn't asct fast enough. Those aside, there have been calls from Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and John Larson, calling into question the Constitutionality of the actions in Libya. There is also Obama's statement from 2007:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Over at Volokh, there are several good posts on this subject,
here,
here, and
here. There are a quick read, so check them out.
First of all, I support the action in Libya and also think that going the NATO/Arab League/UN route was the way to go. Assuming the role of 'leader' in this action would make it another US versus the Arab world intervention and would probably make Gaddafi into a sympathetic figure. That being said, I tend to agree with those who thought he should have gained Congressional approval. Like the author points out, every major US action since WWII (except for Korea) had Congressional approval. In addition, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.
I don't think that short-term, small-scale actions require Congressional approval, but this doesn't seem like one of those. If it goes on much longer, the arguments saying he doesn't need Congressional approval seem to get weaker and weaker.
Read more...