I find your heretical view of the Constitution frightening and suggest that you read up on the history of the writing of the Constitution, including when Pierce Butler brought up his view of the war-making powers of the presidency, that was quite similar to yours, and how he was renounced by all of the other members of the convention.
Bullsh*t.
Pierce Butler favored vesting the power in the President, and of course that's not what I described above.
To wage war, you need a concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.
Congress can declare and fund a war all it wants, but if a president doesn't comannd the troops, there is no war.
Our system of checks and balances is not predicated on one branch being able to disregard the Constitution until another branch does something about it. It is based on each branch abiding by the powers granted to it by the Constitution itself.
Your "it's unconstitutional because....it's unconstitutional" logic is circular.
A president can commit troops in the name of defending the country. It's insane to think that a president can't. In that case it's up to Congress to then declare war and fund the war if they concur. If Congress does not concur, then they have the power to defund the war.
I find your level of intelectual understanding to be frightning. Reminds me of mid-sixties to early seventies leftwing propaganda.
The president can be replaced by Congress whenever they want. Refusal to fight a declared war would be more than enough reason.
I find your level of intelectual understanding to be frightning. Reminds me of mid-sixties to early seventies leftwing propaganda.
Look, I don't know where you got your GED, but your view that the Constitution means what you want it to mean, not what it clearly states, is what being leftwing is all about.