Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the media seem to be avoiding a rather obvious question:

Under what authority is President Obama claiming to be able to fly into Syria to attack NI-ISIS?

You might have noted a few, well, probing flights recently outlined by media of Russian incursions into U.S. and NATO qualified defense zone airspace. Yet interestingly no-one seems to be connecting the dots between the Russian pokes, and Obama’s proclaimed Syrian strategy. Remember, Russia is an ally the “state of” Syria, and Bashir Assad.
The U.S. State Department, and the U.S. White House team, have been very careful to note they will not be coordinating any offensive NI-ISIS engagements with Iran or Syria.
For all current intents and purposes the matter with Iran is a non-issue, however the matter with Syria is an entirely divergent situation altogether.
As far as we can tell there is no precedent for hostile U.S. action into the sovereign territory of another nation, even to target terror threats, without a specific agreement in hand before the action.

Syria, like them or not, is a sovereign state; and for the sake of discussion, as well as reality, they are engaged in a well outlined fight with ISIS terrorists within their own border. Under what principle is President Obama taking the position the U.S. can also engage the “common enemy” without first securing permission for the offensive cross-border action?
In all other examples of terror activity you can put on the table of consideration, the attacked party was either sponsored by the state, the state itself, or a party in opposition to the state and with a agreement therein.
As an example we drone attack al-Qaeda -as a terror entity- with the permission of Yemen, Afghanistan and/or Pakistan’s government.  Another example might be that we have also attacked Libya when they were a state sponsor of terror, and of course we attacked the entire state of Iraq.
But there are no examples where we have targeted a “non-state” terror entity or network without previous agreement with the state whose borders they might operate behind.
Last week the White House press corps came close to asking the question of Senior national security and Foreign Policy advisor Susan Rice. But they stopped short. Likewise the question was never posed to White House spokesperson, Josh Earnest.

[…] …When reporters began to grill Rice about whether the president had already given the authorization to the militarily to bomb in Syria, Rice kept repeating they would not be releasing information on the timing of those air strikes. Reporters continued to push with several trying to explain their question is if the president has already given authorization.
Laughing uncomfortably Rice exited the room by interrupting a reporter mid-question saying, “Good to see you all.”

Be Sure to watch the video at the link
You’ll note that Both Rice and Earnest gave explanations/obfuscations as to the timing, but no-one actually asked about Presidential “authority” for Syria.   Earnest then went into a diatribe talking about Iraq and U.S. military operations within Iraq.   But Iraq is not the issue, we have an agreement and ongoing authority with the Iraqi government.
We do not have any similar agreement with Syria.   And, quite the opposite, the Obama administration has expressly stated we have no intention to do so.
Watch the first 30 seconds of this interview to understand the severity of that statement:

So again, this begs the question: what is the authority President Obama is evoking to grant himself, and our military, authority to use offensive military action behind the border of a sovereign country?
Perhaps, this is additional evidence to our prior research which reflects that President Obama has NO ACTUAL INTENTION to actually fight NI-ISIS. Indeed, all factual evidence we can assemble supports the assertion that both Recep Erdogan and President Obama are ideologically sympathetic toward the Sunni fighting group.

[…]  Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan views Sunni ISIS as a pure and righteous effort, and it is brutally obvious to Arabs and non-Arabs alike that President Obama supports the overall Sunni cause.

What Obama and Kerry are assembling is a list of nations who answered a poll tested question, “is ISIS a little too authentic about Islam by chopping up people“?

With a list of those Arab states who say “yes, ISIS behavior a tad too extreme” in hand, Kerry/Obama are proclaiming they now own ‘a coalition’.

No, what they actually own is a list of countries who disagree with the methods of ISIS – but they don’t have a single Mid-East nation willing to put their blood on the document swearing to stop it.  (link)

While both Obama and Erdogan disagree with the Sunni methods of ISIS neither seem as opposed to the Islamic State as they are toward Syria’s President Bashir Assad.