To avoid future political complications, members of Congress will approve President Barack Obama’s plans for military action in Syria, said an Eastern political science professor.

Professor Ryan Hendrickson, who has written extensively on the subject of constitutional war powers and has made it the focus of his studies, said he predicts Congress will vote on a military strike on Syria early next week and will likely approve the action.

“From a congressional leader standpoint, they are striving to authorize the use of force and to do this quickly,” he said.

Hendrickson said the support from Congressional leaders has been from both republicans and democrats including House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“They’ll give it to him,” he said. “They will rally the rank-and-file members of their party. They’ll get enough votes cobbled together to authorize the strike.”

He said those involved likely do not want to appear to be standing in the way of a president when his credibility has been questioned, as it has been with Syria.

Because the public tends to rally around a president when he authorizes force, Hendrickson said the jump in poll numbers might also be attracting members of Congress to vote in favor of military action in Syria.

He said congressional leaders are also likely hoping to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Hendrickson said Obama could attempt to declare military in action in Syria regardless of how Congress votes. If they deny a resolution for military action, and the president still orders a strike on the country, this would show a breakdown of the U.S. government’s constitutional orders of operation.

Though the U.S. Constitution only grants Congress the power to declare war, Hendrickson said it has become rare for presidents to go through Congress to approve the use of force. He said it was surprising when Obama chose to take that route.

“That’s their role. It’s to check the Commander-in-Chief,” Hendrickson said. “Commanders-in-Chief oversee us during the war. It’s not their decision when to enter war, constitutionally that’s the Congress’. And people forget that.”

Hendrickson said it has been a growing trend for presidents to side-step Congress when declaring military action since the Cold War. He said because most Americans were so united against the threat of Communism, the public and Congress decided it was less important to apply checks and balances to the president.

Now, Hendrickson said members of Congress often actively try and avoid taking positions.

“It’s politically much safer not to go on record to take a vote,” he said. “If the mission goes poorly, then the members of Congress can blame the president.”

Past administrations have gotten away with military action in the past by using other terms than war such as “armed conflict.” Hendrickson said this situation is no different with Secretary of State John Kerry calling any potential military action a “punitive strike”.

Hendrickson said members of Congress are already ducking out of any kind of vote and saying President Obama has the power to do this if he wants to.

“That argument suggests that there’s no checks and balances and it means the President can do whatever he wants. It certainly runs counter to the notion of separation of powers and checks and balances,” he said. “It’s not right but that’s how it works.”

Seth Schroeder can be reached at 581-2812 or [email protected].