I'm not arguing, but didn't LBJ's tonkin gulf resolution modify this? And while you might be technically right on "declared" war, I believe VietNam was not a declared war. I believe that the president has some, maybe unlimited options to "go to war" and notify congress after the fact, but I won't bet the farm on any of this.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened; it was a fabrication. I cannot imagine the scope of that resolution would apply to other conflicts. Congress cannot abrogate its Constitutional responsibilities by resolution; that requires an amendment.
And while you might be technically right on "declared" war, I believe VietNam was not a declared war.
Correct. There has not been a declared war since the founding of the UN (although Iraq comes close).
I believe that the president has some, maybe unlimited options to "go to war" and notify congress after the fact, but I won't bet the farm on any of this.
I believe you are citing the War Powers Act (much of whose scop should have been covered by a Constituional amendment). The Constituion does not allow one branch of government to delegate its powers or responsibilities to another. As it is, Congress has "empowered" the President to start a war by not calling it a war.
Again, I am not averse to amending the Constitution to allow the President more latitude in the conduct of war. Technology has changed the speed with which conflict can initiate and asking the President to wait for Congress is plainly silly.