[DugwayDuke]

I understand your argument and I don't think it relevent. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a congresscritter from criticizing a resolution after it is passed even if that critter voted for it.

You do realize that the "declarations of war" in WWII were Joint Resolutions of Congress? Whether the Joint Resolution includes the words "declaration of war" is irrelevent. The JR authorized the use of force to accomplish US policy. If another country passed a similar resolution authorizing the use of force against us would you consider it to be a "declaration of war"?

[Kip Lange]

Besides, Kennedy does far more damage to himself by opening his mouth instead of shutting up sometimes. ;-) If he's going to put himself *further left* than Feinstein...*shrug*...let him. I mean, he'll still get re-elected, but the more he spouts inane gibberish on TV and in op-eds, the more I get to laugh at people who voted for him. :p

[Straight Vermonter]

You do realize that the "declarations of war" in WWII were Joint Resolutions of Congress? Whether the Joint Resolution includes the words "declaration of war" is irrelevent.

You are right DD. An authorization of force is all that is required. The Constitution does not lay out guidelines for how a declaration of war should be written.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

More on declarations of war here.