SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Further, a resolution does not change the Constitution -that would require an ammendment.
Finally, what you term "a tacit admission that the POTUS has the power to use military force without a congressional resolution or declaration of war" which is a violation of the Constitution EVEN if some resolution is interpreted to okay it IS REALLY a section that discussed congressional actions IF the president has engaged the military in a conflict. It does not claim the President can do it but rather what should happen IF he does.
Again -a resolution does not change the Constitution.
I suggest you keep it simple rather than trying to create special powers where none exist -the left does that well. We do not need to start doing it even if the ends might be good the means must remain lawful.
Terrorists take 1000 Americans hostage outside US territorial waters on an Italian cruise ship. Congress is not in session. The terrorists kill 100 Americans and say they will kill 100 more per hour until America releases all terrorists worldwide.
The POTUS can not get authorization from Congress because they are not in session. There is no declaration of war. A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces has not happened under the circumstances I described.
According to you and Sec. 2. (c) of the War Powers Resolution the CIC can not make war on those terrorists to save those American civilians. So they all die.
How's that for simple Beers?