Do you have a Supreme Court decision or perhaps constitutional reference to the term “full war”? Or do you just make things up convince yourself putting your army in another country and killing their people is something less than war.
The Executive Branch has never recognized the War Powers, so when they make “obligated” reports to Congress, they change the language so as not to recognize its authority. It has never gone to the Supreme Court, but President’s simply ignore it.
See Trump in putting ground forces in Syria, killing Iranian Gen., and firing cruise missiles into Syria.
There are a myriad of Constitutional questions regarding War Powers. This one references the “full war” concept.
“There is controversy over whether the War Powers Resolution’s constraints on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief are consistent with the Constitution.[48] Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution rather than “pursuant to” so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional.[49]
One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[50] argues “The power to make war is not an enumerated power” and the notion that to “declare” war is to “commence” war is a “contemporary textual preconception”. Bobbitt contends that the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that ‘declaration’ was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as “linked and sequenced”; Congress’s control over the armed forces is “structured” by appropriation, while the President commands”