Good.
No President, Trump included, has the authority to take us to war without the consent of the people (House) and the States (Senate).
In 1941, the Congress used the words “authorize and direct the President” to utilize the Army and the Navy to wage war on Japan.
That is the correct way to use the authority granted to the Congress.
“No President, Trump included, has the authority to take us to war without the consent of the people (House) and the States (Senate).”
Have you ever read about the Whiskey Rebellion? George Washington, who was close to the writing of the Constitution, sent troops to Pennsylvania to quell a public uprising. He did not seek authorization from Congress.
Likewise, Lincoln did not seek authorization from Congress in pursuing the war against the South.
So in your thinking, the President can wage war against the American people without authorization from Congress, but not enemies overseas.
The practical effect of this law is to give aid and comfort to Iran, an enemy who wants to destroy us. They, like you, rejoice in this law.
Then why the "redundant" vote.
That is untenable, if "take us to war" means what the House vote seeks to disallow, that of any military force against Iran. For in today's world a nation can engage in inflicting extensive crippling and possible fatal damage on the military assets of a nation, at least in its local area, before the House and the States even know it, less alone get together and convene. Or in the case of the USS Pueblo, now captive for over 40 years, an asset can be commandeered and the Presidents hands would be tied until Congress can get together to sanction attacks to recover it.
Rather, the President should be allowed to order immediate localized retaliatory air and or naval strikes in response to such (versus a planned pro-active attack such as the Gulf Wars) within a period of one or two hours, until Congress’s explicit approval is obtained.
And the Presidential authority to do so is given by the States by electing the Presidential as the chief executive.
Requiring such explicit Congressional approval before action can be taken against an aggressor actually fosters such attacks as Iran has engaged in, and her boasting of it.
On the other hand, allowing immediate localized retaliatory air and or naval strikes in response to such for in the space of one or two hours could result in "a shot heard round the world," initiating a larger conflict that could have been avoided, and which would compel Congress to sanction war, yet that risk may be better than standing by and allowing attacks until Congress can convene, debate, and vote on the issue.
And contrary to the non-binding hand-typing House vote, The War Powers Resolution federal law actually provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," before approval of Congress is obtained. And a military drone should qualify as a possession.
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.
It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.
[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[6] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.[7] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.[8]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.[10][11] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.[12] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and the New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.[13][14] The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.[15][16][17]
May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[18] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[19] since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,[20] and since US involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.[21] By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.[22] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.[16][23]
On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[24][25] In The New York Times, an opinion piece by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama's position "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years."[26]
Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed a bill that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized "...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals..." The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of U.S. troops or other U.S. forces into hostilities.
In spite of the prohibition, President Obama, and later President Trump, introduced ground forces into Syria and the United States became fully engaged in the country, though these troops were primarily for training allied forces. On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.[29]
Then there are the Questions regarding constitutionality