And that’s just what happened – months later, HE, and he alone, made that decision. Not congress.

That’s not even remotely constitutional.

In fact, if the president doesn’t want to go to war, and congress declares it, he either needs to wage it or get the hell out of office. So it works both ways. The final decision, though, is congress’, not the executive.

My point was that you could read the literal words, as you do, and come up with the construction that you do – which was that Congress delegated authority to the President as to whether we would go to war. However, I think that if you step back and read the language in the context of the day, it was quite clear that the President was seeking Congressional authority to go to war. Do you not remember all the TV time spent, with Colin Powell showing photos and charts and such, and pitching the case?

Congress then authorized it, and in we went. There was not even the remotest contemplation that Congress would give authority and THEN, the President would decide whether to go in. The President was quite clear that his mind was already made up. In fact, that is one of the big criticisms of the ant-war group is that Bush had his mind made up and would not listen to controverting evidence.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: @Judgenap on Unconstitutional Tribunals http://bit.ly/6gAWoR…

There hasn't been a proper use of the war-declaring powers since WWII. We've got a weak, ineffective congress that has continually abdicated its duty.

In fact – when presented with an amendment to declare war against Iraq, the head of the committee responsible for the legislation said such action was an "anachronism" – and that the president should simply decide.

bad news.

The AUMF said he "can" use force, not "must" Sorry, you're not even close this time.

As far as the reporting, I assume (as it seems clear) that Congress only was extending authority for a limited amount of time and wanted certain information to consider in determining whether it would allow the authority to be further extended.

I don't find any of the procedure particularly disturbing, given that I was alive and conscious as it all went down. The President was all over the globe begging for support so he could go in and begin hostilities. In that context, the wording of the AUMF hardly leaves me blowing in the wind as to what was exactly going to happen. I think the intent was very clear that this was not an "if" situation.

Remember all the pitches before the UN and the various senators grand-standing, including Hillary? There was not even the possibility that once granted authority, Bush was going to have a sudden change of heart and decide to abandon his plans.

But, LITERALLY, you could read an "if" in there if that is your predisposition.

The process – in line with the constitution – is what's important. The AUMF for Iraq did not declare war to the Constitution's standards. Instead, in practice, Congress said to the executive – "you decide on if and when we'll go to war – and let us know a short time afterwards."

That's unconstitutional.

I have personally written on this issue a number of times, and can recommend countless books and papers for you. The best, again, is Kevin Gutzman's.

That's my point. You have an interesting theory, though. I simply read the AUMF as a de facto declaration, whereas you read it as failing in whole due to lack of the express use of the term, "war." Your point is well-taken. There is no easy way to resolve which is correct.