Dem speaker of the House introduces resolution to prevent president from ordering U.S. military without her permission

Nancy Pelosi is a typical Democrat leader: doesn't understand the Constitution, and feels free to violate any terms that document contains.

Not surprisingly, Nancy was outraged that Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani without asking permission from congress.  And she was determined to hobble the president's ability to do that.

Now, it's vital that every American understand that the Constitution only gives congress the power to "declare war."  There are many actions short of that that need to be taken by a good leader, but Nancy wasn't in the mood to listen.  Moreover, when congress correctly decided to close the loophole of multi-year military operations that were wars in all but name, in 1973 (the end of the Vietnam war) congress passed the War Powers Act, which specifically allows the president to not only make fast decisions to keep the nation safe, but to order U.S. troops to conduct military actions overseas.  The only constraint is congress imposed is that a president can't maintain offensive operations for more than 60 days without getting approval from congress.

Such authorization is called "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" (AUMF).

But Nancy wanted to limit the president's power even further, limiting the time U.S. forces could operate without an AUMF to 30 days.  Because the Constitution says nothing about this, Nancy smoothly trotted out a vague statement that people who don't know what the Constitution says could interpret as supporting her, but while leaving her wiggle room to say "I didn't say the Constitution said THAT."   Here are her words:

“We deserve the respect from the administration and that Congress deserves under the Constitution.  The Constitution of the United States calls that there be cooperation when initiating hostilities.”

No, Nancy, it doesn't "call" that.  It does say congress shall have the sole power to declare war.  Since the Constitution doesn't try to define what constitutes a war, next up is the War Powers Act's 60 days.

Nancy's updated resolution “requires the president to consult with Congress ‘in every possible instance’ before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”  It's clearly unconstitutional, but an eventual adverse ruling in the Supreme Court doesn't matter to her--because her goal is simply to paint Democrats as the party of peace and love, and Trump as a crazy warmonger.

And at least half of all voters agree with Nancy.
====

Text of the act is here (Cornell Law)

BTW, the Wikipedia summary of the War Powers Act brazenly lies about damn near everything--in every case drawing the conclusion.that the president must get the approval of congress before using U.S. forces.  This is not at all--not remotely--supported by the Constitution.  In other words, typical leftist asshats at Wiki telling you the left's interpretation.