[xzins]

The last line I posted from Section 8 of the Congressional power in the Constitution, “to make all laws necessary” makes it possible for Congress to issue a law permitting use of force under “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations” and under “...grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures...”

Every single one of those DO NOT require a declaration of war.

In sum, the Constitution authorizes use of offensive military force, both overt and covert, that is NOT dependent on a declaration of war.

Therefore, the Joint Resolution giving authority to the President against any “organization or person” as “he determines” would have to now be rescinded for the president to be operating those drones illegally against any terrorist he deems connected to that group that brought about 9/11.

I think this is an absolute lock if it were brought to any court. It is far too clear. With his power as CinC and of “executing” the law, he is only doing that which he has already been authorized BY CONGRESS to do.

[xzins]

ping to posts #5 and 10

[Carry_Okie]

From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

You still do not understand the Constitution as a document limiting the powers of the government, and in particular, the Bill of Rights as the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" that they are as operating on the rest of the Constitution. There was no finding that Al Awlaki had committed said felonies. Therefore, there could be no such LEGAL punishment. Sure, the executive can kill citizens, but only after due process.

You are still out to lunch.