[RandFan]

? You don’t get more explicit than only “Congress” can declare war and fund it !

This is what they had in mind during that period

Military action to repel an invasion of the United States. An Actual threat not an imagined one thousands of miles away ?

They wanted the Congress to debate and vote on issues like this they did not empower= the president with King like powers (I now hate this term/argument since the left has stolen it but you get my point )

I appreciate you feel strongly on this and making thoughtful points even though I think they’re wrong

Also the AUMF is like a resolution it’s not a serious document in my eyes and its been in tact for over 24 years. They can and do claim anything using it. I think it’s silly myself and should not be used as justification.

[pierrem15]

Basically over two centuries of Presidential actions belie the claims you are making about Presidential authority. Given English political history, the Founder's primary concern about a Declaration of War was always its -domestic- legal effects not foreign wars.

As far AUMFs go, SCOTUS has already ruled they are the legal equivalent of a DOW. The fact that Congress may have acted idiotically or corruptly does not affect that, because any government can always act idiotically or corruptly.