You are correct except that the Congress made a law that gives the President some leeway. That is, the Congress made an allowance for time and expediency to allow the President to act but still maintain Congressional control.
In the way lawyers always do, the matter has been obfuscated by argument over one word.
I would guess the President et al expected the Qadaffi regime to fold long before the legal attack on the War Powers act was necessary. It hasn’t worked out that way.
It will be a real hostile war when Obama is personally harmed by a counter attack on American soil. That will happen. The President or his family, not the American people, will receive the counter attack.
It doesn't work that way. Congress can't pass a law that supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America. According to the Constitution, the power to go to war rests with the Legislative Branch - not the Executive Branch. Any law to the contrary would in fact be in opposition to the Constitution and thus unconstitutional.
The Line-Item Veto law is a good example of this. Congress granted the Executive Branch the right to veto specific lines of legislation rather than entire bills. The courts ruled that there was nothing in the Constitution that granted this power, thus the legislation was unconstitutional. In effect, one branch cannot grant powers to another branch that are not already delegated by the Constitution.