Are American taxpayers financially responsible to defend Syrians?
The Constitution grants Congress the power to tax U.S. citizens to provide for the common defense of U.S. citizens, not every soul on the planet. The only exception is for citizens in countries with whom the United States has signed a mutual defense treaty. In those situations, it is assumed that American taxpayers get a reasonably equal benefit back in defense provided to them.
The founders still told us to avoid those alliances whenever possible.
Regardless, the United States has no treaty with Syria. If it did, it would be with the Assad government, not with rebels attempting to overthrow it. Syria has not attacked the United States nor issued a declaration of war against them. There isn’t even a U.N. Security Council resolution for force against Syria, and strict constitutionalists don’t recognize such a resolution as legitimate anyway.
President Obama is arguing for the United States to intervene militarily solely for “humanitarian” reasons. That begs the question, How did American taxpayers become financially responsible for protecting Syrian rebels and civilians?
Every other U.S. president has recognized that Americans can only be taxed to pay for their own defense or the defense of allies by treaty. The arguments haven’t always been bulletproof, but at least they have acknowledged this principle.