I'm going to disagree with you here, PC. There's nothing in the document that says the Congress has to call a declaration of war with those words. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and puts some teeth in it by giving Congress authorization over funding, so that the president can't wage war (at least not for long) without Congressional approval. But there's nothing saying what form a declaration of war has to take, only that Congress gets to do it.

My belief here is that a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to wage war, IS a declaration of war, even if it isn't called one. It's Congress saying, OK, here's the go-ahead, and here's some money, now kick some ass. And since that's really all a "declaration of war" means, as far as I can see that makes it a declaration of war. The only way the president could violate that passage in the Constitution is if he went off and made war without any Congressional approval, and that would be kind of tough since he would quickly run out of money (unless of course Congress ran out of backbone first, which I wouldn't put past them).

I don't like this war. I agree it's preemptive and that's wrong. It's against everything our country has ever stood for. It sets a very bad, very dangerous precedent. And purely from a strategic standpoint, it's just plain totally godawful stupid. But I don't think it's unconstitutional, and we can't blame Bush solely for the disaster, although it's fine to give him the bulk of the blame. He couldn't have done it if Congress hadn't given the go-ahead. So it's their fault, too.