Au contraire! It has a precise meaning.
Here is what declaring war means:
"A state of war is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
All the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States
That's what it means when the People of the United States (acting through their representatives in Congress assembled) declare war on their enemies. That's the power that We assign to Congress in Article I, section 8.
And if you think that power is a nullity (as many here do), look what happens when our armed forces are in combat without "all the resources of the country".
The Commander-in-Chief is not CINC of the People, he is CINC of the armed forces. He already has the authority to order them into combat (this was already adjudicated in in both Korea and Vietnam, the lawsuit is an absurdity).
What he lacks the authority to do is to pledge the full resources of the nation to victory. And when that commitment is lacking, the results are all bad-the minority in Congress can complain constantly about every reverse and every bad thing that happens (as they do when you are not taking over Granada or Panama), the People are not fully engaged in the war effort, and the sustaining power of the People behind our troops tends to flag and then to fail.
The "War Powers Act" is unconstitutional, a pathetic attempt by a spineless Congress to have it both ways.
Only the People of the United States can declare War, and our only mechanism to do so is through our Representatives and Senators.
We should demand that they do so-not to enable the President to act, but to add the power of "all the resources of the nation" to the struggle that lies ahead.