Would you support the impeachment of Barack Obama if he intervenes militarily in Syria?

[Yo_Mama]

37. Your examples have nothing to do with the current issue

The law that makes the president CinC is the Constitution, and the Constitution is pretty specific on the subject:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

The Congress shall have power ...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

When Congress has authorized a field of action, the president's power then comes into play. And the president is authorized to take immediate defensive action against attacks on the US, US territories, US personnel, or US forces, but that is not the current case.

A president is authorized to use immediate force in many circumstances, most immediately and specifically to defend against attack. The president is not authorized to simply initiate hostilities. I refer you to this paragraph from Campbell v Clinton:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1177126.html

In this case, Congress certainly could have passed a law forbidding the use of U.S. forces in the Yugoslav campaign; ?indeed, there was a measure-albeit only a concurrent resolution-introduced to require the President to withdraw U.S. troops. ? Unfortunately, however, for those congressmen who, like appellants, desired an end to U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia, this measure was defeated by a 139 to 290 vote. ? Of course, Congress always retains appropriations authority and could have cut off funds for the American role in the conflict. ? Again there was an effort to do so but it failed; ?appropriations were authorized. ? And there always remains the possibility of impeachment should a President act in disregard of Congress' authority on these matters.

In that case Clinton sent the WPA report to Congress and Congress took mixed action - funded it, did not pass war authorization, voted down negation of the action. But note that the legal wrangling in this case turned largely on the idea that the Congressmen who sued did not have standing to sue not because the president's actions were necessarily constitutional, but because Congress already had the legislative power to accomplish its aim, including negation by statute, removal of funding and impeachment.

Note that the 2011 Libya actions by the president overrode internal legal opinions!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=0

The rather tenuous justification for Libya is not even present with Syria.