Did Obama violate the Constitution?

This question arises when we look at our attack on Libyan airbases, or on Qaddafi, depending on how you look at it. The president did not need to consent with congress because this is not legally a war, yet. However, the president "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", as said in the Constitution. The starting of wars is a gray area and many politicians have trouble pinning it down. This blog 'First Read' from MSNBC speculates the constitutionality of this recent attack on Libyan air bases.

"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.
While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.

I sympathize with Professor Hathaway in that the constitutional questions do not seem to have been answered. However, I do side with Obama in a way because it would definitely be hard to get Congress to allow for this attack quickly. It depends on the outcome of this attack to see if the attacks were worthwhile or incorrect. Actions have to made quickly to prevent more deaths in Libya.

Other than preventing Qaddafi from killing more of his own people, there is and was no direct threat to national security. If there was a threat, it would validate Obama's orders. Still, I feel like Obama did the right thing unless he escalates this into a war effort.