The Supreme Court doesn't have the franchise on reading the Constitution. Each branch of government is responsible for exercising its own power constitutionally. No branch can wait for another’s permission before doing its constitutional duty.
You obviously know nothing about the constitutional system and nothing about the law. Here's a brief primer. The President has to decide for himself what his constitutional duties are. If the President concludes that his duty conflicts with the War Powers Act he is bound by his oath to ignore the War Powers Act. Congress can impeach him or it can use the power of the purse to bring him into line. When the President flouts the War Powers Act and Congress doesn't respond that is a constitutional precedent every bit as authoritative as any Supreme Court opinion. It means the law is invalid. A series of such precedents settles the matter beyond the possibility of rational dispute and we have a series of such precedents.
Of course Presidents get authorization for the use of force. They would be foolish to undertake any serious military action without consolidating political support for it. They are very careful, however, never to suggest that they are required to seek authorization under the law. They frequently consult with Congress “in accord with” but not “pursuant to” the War Powers Act. That is precisely because they are unwilling to set any precedent that might contradict the history which establishes so clearly that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less.
Oh, I don't know - law school maybe. But hey, don't take my word for it, listen to what Sam Alito said about presumptively constitutional of acts of congress in his Supreme Court confirmation testimony.
"Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional and I don’t think that saying that is just words.
I think that means something. Members of Congress take an oath to support the Constitution and I think that the presumption of constitutionality means a lot. And I think that judgments that are reached by the legislative branch in the form of findings of fact, for example, are entitled to great respect because of the structure of our government, the fact that the basic policy decisions are supposed to be made by the legislative branch and carried out by the executive branch, and also for the practical reason or the functional reason that Congress is in a better position to evaluate conditions in our country and conditions in our society and to make findings and to determine what’s appropriate to deal with the social and economic problems that we face. So I would certainly approach the question of determining whether an act of Congress is constitutional with a heavy presumption in favor of the constitutionality of what Congress has done. Now, ultimately, Marbury v. Madison decided the question that when a case or controversy comes before the Supreme Court, and the constitutionality of an act of Congress is challenged, it is the duty of the court to decide the question. Unless we were going to go back to 1819, then that’s the practice that the federal courts have to follow. But they should always do that with an appreciation of their limited role and the role that the legislature is supposed to play. "emphasis added
Where did Alito get such a "foreign" concept (at least to you)? Well, I'm guessing he has read a number of Supreme Court decisions, like this one written by Rhenquist, and this one, that said...
...The 1992 Cable Act, like all Acts of Congress, is presumptively constitutional. As such, it "should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court...."
"You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less."
Whatever my depth may or may not be, and whatever I read or don't read, you've pretty clearly established that whatever you write, although thoroughly entertaining (but not in the good way) should be ignored for merit - violently.