[Reily]

I agree 100%
Great historical summery as to how we got into this constitutional mess.
Of course as I said the argument as to why the 'Declaration of War' is out-moded was the possibility of super-power confrontation that my or may not have happened over Vietnam. As you brilliantly pointed out its now a convenient dodge for Congress to avoid its constitutional responsibilities.

[DustyMoment]

I said the argument as to why the 'Declaration of War' is out-moded was the possibility of super-power confrontation

Solely for the point of discussion, this leads to another interesting observation. At the time that the Constitution was written, government bodies were controlled by people considered to be gentlemen, and men. When we see the battle tactics employed by both British troops who would march into battle, assume a firing position, shoot, and fall back to re-load, it reminds us of a totally different world, then. Gentlemen conducted war according to certain gentlemanly rules of warfare. For example, each side's military wore a uniform that identified them as a member of the opposition force. And, before starting war, one side formally notified the other that a state of war exists between their two countries.

I think the point I'm taking the laborious route to come to is agreeing with you that Declarations of War are outmoded. Gentlemen do not, necessarily, run governments anymore. Certainly, neither Hezbollah nor al Qaieda, are government bodies and their "soldiers" wear no uniforms. To declare war against al Qaieda, to whom would we deliver it? And, under what rock would we have to crawl to find the individual terrorist to deliver our Declaration of War? The breakdown in this protocol can be seen as recently as the beginning of WWII when Japan was planning its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor while it was still taking peace with SoS Henry Stimson. The formal Declaration of War came NOT from Japan or another Axis country at the time, it came from the US Congress the day after Pearl Harbor.