[inquest]

One more time, Congress would have that "right" as the only logical conclusion consistent with your foolish and imaginary principle that a Constitutional grant of authority for one branch of government, could be exercised by other branches, unless that grant explicitly stated it was to be an exclusive grant of power.

Wrong. There would have to be something in the grants of the powers to the other branches that could reasonably be construed to authorize them to exercise those powers you mention. This is the third time now you're being asked to show what grant of power to Congress might reasonably be construed to enable it to act as commander in chief.

[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "Wrong. There would have to be something in the grants..."

LOL, well that's a good sign, you're backing off and beginning to modify your original foolish statement!

inquest:   "This is the third time now you're being asked to show what grant of power to Congress might reasonably be construed to enable it to act as commander in chief."

LOL, as you've been told several times, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and that, as you would say, is a traditional and historical "default" power of the office of Commander-in-Chief.

Therefore, according to your own ill-begotten principle (v 1.02), Congress can now act as Commander-in-Chief and not just declare war, but make war, also. How convenient!