Actually, why don't you explain how Congress can "enforce by legislation" if not a single Power can be delegated to anyone outside of members of Congress (your warped view, not mine).
The President isn't delegating any powers to another branch by assigning tasks to military leaders or civilian contractors. Even by assigning judges to tribunals, the President is not granting them any of his powers.
Congress has no rights at all, it has powers. The power to establish courts is indeed a Congressional power. However, legislation which defines jurisdiction of courts is not a delegation of legislative power to those courts. Congress would have to empower the courts to legislate, which they haven't quite gotten around to yet. Let's don't give them any ideas. It's bad enough that they allow unconstitutional agencies to write regulations which the judiciary then pretends have the force of law.
If you'll buy yourself a copy of that ingenious document instead of using the text on a website, you'll be able to form a single response instead of hacking your post up into sections while you surf back to the site where you're reading our founding document.
Thanks for at least reading the Constitution, though. Most people I've discussed these issues with have been more pharasaical about it, basing all their arguments on commentary from Tribes or some other liberal poseur.
Now that you've broken into the text, you will find that reading the document and comparing it to the actions of politicians in government is very enlightening. You can easily see that most of what the politicians in DC do in a given day is clearly unconstitutional. I'll give one suggestion if you'll consider it: stick to the text and ignore all the ridiculous extensionist "interpretation" by the Marxist professors who make a living fooling people about the Constitution. The document is very short and concise, written in plain, spare language and needs no interpretation. You'll come to love it after you've been reading it for awhile. Most conservatives do.