WASHINGTON Heres a not-so-reassuring thought about President Donald Trumps strikes against Syria: Even though most members of Congress praised him for punishing Bashar Assad, none of them actually knew the legal and constitutional rationale that supported the action.

And few of them seemed especially concerned about what a president already criticized for chaos and impulsiveness might use that power to do next.

Asked what constitutional and legal authority the president used to fire 59 $1 million Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airport and whether he was concerned how Trump might use that authority in the future Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ducked.

I think the president had the authority to do what he he did, McConnell said, without elaboration. And Im glad he did it.

The No. 2 Republican in the Senate, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, was similarly pleased that Trump retaliated for an alleged chemical bombing this week that killed dozens of civilians. But when he was asked for the U.S. rationale, Cornyn showed why McConnell may have declined to elaborate.

Ill tell you there is a desire to see what authority that the administration is claiming to operate under so far whether its based on his powers as commander-in-chief under Article II to deal with the national security interest, or to defend the interest of the United States, or whether theres more, Cornyn told reporters after a briefing from Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Other senators who supported the strikes werent worried about the authority issues.

Ill let the international lawyers look at the details of how they view it, said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said its open to interpretation if Trump had legal authority.

It can be argued on both sides, Tester told reporters. I think we need an [Authorization for the Use of Military Force] that actually addresses this issue. We dont have one right now.