[Route66]

'Nobody's transferring power. If Congress passes a resolution authorizing the use of military force, and if Congress also passes bills supporting those military forces under its spending authority, where's the tranfer? There's nothing in the Constitution describing exactly how Congress is to declare war. But it's very clear that if it authorizes the use of military force and further supports that authorization by funding it, then if that's not a declaration, what is it?'

That's right. Just because they do not use the words 'declaring war' in the authorization, does not mean the authorization is not valid. If they have funded and authorized action under certain circumstances, then the only thing left is for the President to pick the day.

[Zebra]

Absolutely right. Who are the constitutional scholars decrying this as a usurpation by the executive branch? This is clearly constitutionally permissible action by Congress, and the President is free--perhaps obliged--to follow the authorization. It is one thing to have qualms about military action, but another to dress up these qualms in the guise of a constitutional infirmity in the action by Congress in enabling the President. Let's be real clear about this.