It seems to me you are dangerously close to saying, "the Constitution means whatever I say it means." The Constitution doesn't specify any exact wording for a Declaration of War, nor any limits on one. And it's hard to argue that an authorization to use force passed by both Houses actually removes power from Congress and gives too much to the Executive in the absence of such restrictions.
What is most likely going to happen is that Syria will be partitioned into a rump Syrian state in the West acting as a Russian satrapy, the Turkish border will be moved a few miles south, and the US will pick up the rest of the country (with the Kurds in the East and a buffer Northeast of the Golan). Basically a new Sykes-Picot arrangement.
Our goal here will be to crush ISIS (Russia doesn't give a rat's patooty about ISIS) and keep the Iranians out. We will be there for decades.
> And it’s hard to argue that an authorization to use force passed by both Houses actually removes power from Congress and gives too much to the Executive in the absence of such restrictions.
It’s very easy to argue, when said AUMF is both permanent, and slippery enough to be applied anywhere for any reason. De facto, it is a surrender of the power to declare war.
We were not previously in a state of war with Syria as a result of AUMF.
Now, suddenly we are - without a declaration by Congress. If you recall, an attempt to secure such a declaration by the Obama administration was rejected by a national public outcry against it.
So we have an AUMF which previously did not authorize war against Syria now being reinterpreted to authorize such a war, post-facto. If that’s not an usurpation of the power to declare war, nothing is.
It is thus beyond reasonable dispute that a state of war was created between the US and Syria without a declaration to that effect by Congress, and that warmaking activities by US forces there are in violation of the Constitution.