I would also hope we could agree that the CIC is charged with making war while Congress can fund it or not.
Congress as a body of 535 bloviators is neither equipped nor conducive to making executive decisions which is why I think the CIC has to be given wide latitude in committing troops to combat. Congress can check that power easily but they don't have the balls to do just that.
History tells me that these decisions all become political rather than constitutional questions and I don't see it changing any time soon. And that's probably how it should be.
I might support the action if the marxist at least attempted to make the case that he possessed the authority under God to protect innocents or that there were some vital US interests he acted to protect.
BUT NO the nobel peace prize fool stated he was serving some UN council that does not legitimately comprise any governance over US troops or US assets nor is it beholden to US citizens...
Potentially offing Gaddaffi does not grant the marxist powers of a king to do whatever he wants...
I am really at a loss as to how these lines:
“The Congress shall have Power...”
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
...can be interpreted as the role of congress being that of signing off on war funding ex post, I.e. after war has already been declared by the President. “Declaring war” and “signing off on funding of war” are two *very* different things.