[JamesP81]

Oh, the founders knew that the document was imperfect and they knew that it would be modified. That is why they put in a process for amending it. Liberals want to skip over that messy stuff and just arbitrarily change the meanings of the words.

It seems like everyone these days wants to skip over all those 'antiquated' traditions. Another good example is the WoT. We're in a conflict; why hasn't the Senate passed a war declaration?

[El Gato]

We're in a conflict; why hasn't the Senate passed a war declaration?

In effect they did, twice. They just didn't call it that, quite. Although both resolutions, one authorizing use of the Armed Forces to prevent another terrorist attack, and the other the use of force against Iraq, did mention the "War Powers Resolution". The latter can be read here, while the former can be perused Implementing language on Iraq:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The anti terrorism resolution states:

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.