Not this one, apparently (I'm taking your word for it). Anyway, we may have mixed signals here. Are you trying to claim that the resolution was unconstitutional, or just not explicitly based on 1-8-11 in its enacting clause? Probably, the latter is correct (I'm still taking your word for it). I'm not sure I actually care, either, but you're free to complain about it I suppose...knock yourself out till you're blue in the face about putting 1-8-11 in an enacting clause, if that makes you happy.
Why is it pathetic that I want to know where and when you were educated?
Because you're changing the subject in a desperate attempt to fish for biographical info. It's pathetic that your argument has sunk to that point. That's all I meant.
However, if Congress uses UN authorization, from whatever agreement with the UN America has made to be a member, to authorize the executive to prosecute war,
Meaningless. Congress doesn't need "UN authorization" to declare a war, since the Constitution already authorizes them to do this, anytime and however they damn well want to. So should the Congress declare war following such a (meaningless) "UN authorization" for them to do so, that wouldn't mean they "used UN authorization" to declare war. It is not "the UN" which allocates the power to the Congress to declare war in the first place, it is the Constitution. The Constitution already gives Congress all the power it could ever ask for to declare any damn war it wants to.
to be consistant with law, Congress must withdraw the resolution and authorization to the executive
Now you've contradicted yourself. Earlier you pretended to agree with me that "Congress doesn't lose it's constitutional power to declare war". But now you're saying that, under such-and-such circumstance, if a foreign body called the "UN" does such-and-such, Congress "must" withdraw their authorization for military force.
They "must"?
So do they have war powers or don't they? Obviously, the effect of what you are saying is that the United Nations retains ultimate war powers authority over the United States. That is effectively your position. And, I disagree.
I would be more than happy to see Congress constitutionally declare war on Iraq.
But they did. They declared war, and Declaring War is a perfectly Constitutional thing for Congress to do. Therefore they have constitutionally (not unconstitutionally) declared war on Iraq. I don't even think it's possible for Congress to "unconstitutionally declare war".
It is, in particular, nonsense to claim that a declaration of war by Congress is unconstitutional because of some treaty. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. And the Constitution lets Congress declare war. Period.