[Con X-Poser]

<< Constitution says "Declare War", not "resolution of force"."
Does the Constitution says what form the declaration must take? Or the wording it must contain? NO >>

But the fact that Congress rejected Paul's rider to make it a declaration indicates that they knew their's wasn't - otherwise they had NO reason to reject Paul's rider making it an official Constitutional declaration.

Now people like Hillary can play both sides. She can say she was against the war and against Bush even though she voted to give Bush dictatorial powers to wage unlimited war. If she had to vote on an actual declaration, she'd be accountable for her vote one way or the other.

[capitan_refugio]

"But the fact that Congress rejected Paul's rider to make it a declaration indicates that they knew their's wasn't - otherwise they had NO reason to reject Paul's rider making it an official Constitutional declaration."

Your answer is a classic non sequitur. Could it be that those who voted against Ron Paul's rider did so because it was simply redundant? The point is, what passed was, for all purposes, a declaration of war if certain conditions were not met. This country has had several more "wars" than strict "declarations of war." Tell someone who fought in Korea or Vietnam that they are not veterans of a war.