Excuse me, but all that legalistic gobbledegook misses the big picture.
War is a national effort. You cannot prevail with the USMC at war and the people at the mall.
Our constitutional Republic is made up of the People, who inhabit the States. Both of these (People and States) dictate national policy through Representatives in Congress assembled.
From LBJ through BHO, Presidents have tried to win wars with soldiers, sailors, and marines whose families, neighbors, and States don’t want them there.
Whether the President is “allowed” to do this is not the issue (although it is important in its own right). The issue is, can a national armed force drawn from this kind of Republic prevail in war and do what is necessary to gain victory (Germany, Japan) WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE ARE IN OPEN OPPOSITION.
My position is that it is the job of the Congress to authorize, and to direct, the President to make war. I recognize the existence of the other view. I myself concede that the President must respond, alone, to incoming ballistic missiles.
But even if I’m wrong - would the President alone people here send their sons to war on Presidential order, KNOWING that a Declaration of War is not sought BECAUSE Congress would refuse?
Yes, but not likely, and today most would be opposed to going to war with China even if they attacked Pearl Harbor and intended to do the same to the Philippines, etc.
My position is that it is the job of the Congress to authorize, and to direct, the President to make war.
Again, there is a distinction btwn disallowing any instances of air and or naval strikes against an Iran in retaliation for an attack on armed forces or its possessions, versus committing armed forces to continuous military action in a war footing.