[familyop]

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E. S. T. For those neocons that haven't seen one, this is a formal declaration of war.

You're saying that in order for Congress to be declaring war, it has to use the exact same words of past declarations? ...or some anarcho-leftist magic words? In my humble non-lawyer opinion, the following said it clearly enough.

Public Law 107-243
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
"Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Public Law 107-40
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)"

Public Law 105-238
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

[billbears]

No it doesn't have to be the exact wording. Anarcho-leftist? Haven't heard that one before... The wording should not be a blank check as what Congress has passed in these four resolutions. In none of the four 'laws' that you passed was the word war even mentioned. You might as well say having troops handing out candy canes to Iraqi children. The Constitution says declare war, you better d#mn well put the words 'declare war' in the wording. The Constitution doesn't say 'authorizes the President to do whatever he feels is right'. It doesn't say 'to maintain UN Security Council resolutions'. It says 'declare war'. If you're going to send brave men and women to their possible deaths for victory, at least have the damn gumption to declare war instead of passing the buck to another branch for them to toy with the idea of what they want to do. By your argument Congress has no way to limit what the President 'feels' is right or wrong in defending our national interests. And from the documents written by the signers and authors of the Constitution, that's not the case