[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "I never said that."

Oh yes, of course you did. Words mean things, and you can't now escape the consequences of your words.

You are the one arguing that, notwithstanding the explicit words of the Constitution, the President has a "default right" to also make rules governing the armed forces, because, as you argue, "The Constitution specifies where grants of power are intended to be exclusive".

Then the only conclusion consistent with your imagined principle would be that Congress then has the right to act as Commander-in-Chief, since the Constitution did not specify a grant of exclusivity to the President to act as Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, according to you, Congress can not just declare war, but they can now also make war.

Those words are your albatross, either learn to live with their consequences or retract them.

inquest:   "So by declaring war, Congress doesn't cause a war to be started?"

Absolutely not, a "state of war" is not synonymous with actual war. There is no war till there is a clash of arms. Only the Commander-in-Chief can actually make war. Congress is limited to merely declaring that a state of war exists.

[inquest]

Then the only conclusion consistent with your imagined principle would be that Congress then has the right to act as Commander-in-Chief

I already asked you where Congress is given any kind of right to do this. You blew right by that question and began falsely attributing opinions to me. You've continued to do so in this last post.