The president has no constitutional authority to declare war and there is no justifiable way the legislative branch can transfer constitutionally granted powers reserved in article 1 to the executive branch created and empowered in article 2. If the supreme court says they can, the supreme court is wrong.
Does that "grant" of powers to the executive include "grant(ing) letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make(ing) Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"? I doubt it.
So, if the president takes us to war with a foreign country without using constitutional granted powers, he must be acting on powers given to him by the UN. Could it have something to do with that unknown executive order used to burn Michael New for refusing to wear the UN beret, when the uniform of the US military is clearly defined? 