>> What additional powers does a president have in war times that are not explicitly authorized by Congress? <<
I didn’t mean that the powers were authorized by the president alone; I lumped him together with Congress (”...neither the President nor the Congress...”), referring to him singularly only because he executes them exclusively (”The President has powers...”).
Don’t lose the main thrust of my argument: the Constitution explicity grants the ability to declare war, authorizing trained militia into combat against states, and also to issue letters of Marque and reprisal, authorizing mercenaries into combat against terrorists, criminals and pirates. Paul’s quarrel with the declaration of war is that it isn’t titled such, it’s titled only a resolution. In fact, Paul proposed an alternative legislation entitled a Marque, but I submit that’d’ve been MORE dangerous, since Marques authorize mercenaries, and have generally been considered rogue since the Treaty of Paris.
Nothing in the Constitution defines that a declaration of war has to be entitled a declaration of war, and it’s senseless to say that greater powers of war are authorized by the Constitution, but any smaller set of powers are not authorized.
Now, to answer your question directly:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War IN TIME OF PEACE, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” (In other words, during war, soldiers may be quartered on private property, so long as law prescribes how it is to be done. Outside of war, that is never permitted.)
Further, the takings clause of the fifth amendment implicitly authorizes drafts in times of war, which is not to necessarily say that drafts outside of times of war are inherently illegal (that can be quarreled out as a separate issue), but only that they are implicitly authorized by the existence of a time of war.
In any case, none of that will take place unless authorized by Congress, even under a declaration of war. If Congress doesn’t think it’s necessary they won’t authorize it. What civil liberties are Congress protecting by not declaring war that they don’t have direct authority to protect even with that declaration?