soooooo if a liberal 2009 congress decided to wage 12 wars, you'd support all 12 wars? LOL!
LOL... you have egg on your face from standing with mccain/kerry on the "I support Libyan NFZ" position (which obama adopted), and now you're against that war.
You know it will probably happen again here, and you refuse to say if you support military action in Yemen until the repub congress tells you what to think 
Jesus fucking christ, quit with the fucking "333 is a male. Males have killed other humans. Therefore 333 kills people. Is that what you're saying 33??? You are a male, right? Admit it!" bullshit.
He said he's AGAINST the US going to war against the US Constitution without congressional approval.
That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being for every single act of war that congress approves.
There is a difference between an absolute stance and situational stances.
I can't speak for 33, but since he's not being even the slightest bit ambiguous in his stance and since most of us learn the difference between absolute values and situational considerations by kindergarten, I'm pretty sure he feels similar to my stance on the matter:
I'm AGAINST the US going to war in violation of our constitution. That means that I'm against going to war without congressional approval as part of that absolute.
If there IS congressional approval AND there is no violation of the constitution, i.e., when I must make "
situational considerations" on a declaration of war in which no violation of my "
absolute value" on following the constitution occurred, I make a decision based on the GIVEN SITUATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
For the life of me, I can't understand how a man in his 30s can continue to write post after post after post of the same entirely unrelated jumps in logic like "So you are for EVERY SINGLE WAR that congress approves because you don't want the president to violate the constitution???" and think it "deserves" a reply. I just don't understand it?
