"...if the 1991 authorization and cease fire’s considered expired, the two congressional authorizations and the year and a half public debate since more than satisfy the sprit, if not the letter, of the Constitution...
**********************
.Congressional "spirit" resolutions and public debate are not a substitutute for an official decision on war.
"Oh, go to war if you want to" is plainly passing the buck from Congress to the Executive Branch.
That's illegal.
"The "Authorization of Force" did not decide war, it delegated to the Executive Branch the power to decide if we were going to war OR NOT... That's illegal. " Get a law degree, become a supreme court justice, and maybe your fringe opinion will means something. Until then, the authorization of force has been ruled to be constitutionally consistent. The founders would never have tied the hands of our nation as you would like if they could have envisioned international terrorism, WMDs and the shrinkage of the world from innovations in transportation.
I agree. If we don't formally use Art 1, sec 8, cl 11 to authorize the people of the US to go to war, and still go to war, we have to be doing it under the authority of the UN.
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?
