You're talking in practice, which I understand whereas I'm talking in actuality. >Authorizations for the Use of Military Force are how Congress gets around it's requirement to declare war... A declaration of war is not a declaration of the use of the US military. They're legally different. The former has zero actual ramifications whereas the latter carries with it the force of the US military. So sure, congress can, and does "declare war", but that is completely irrelevant to anything of actual merit. AUMF is new but "going to war without declaring war" is not new. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2. POTUS has **ALWAYS** gone along with the plan. Which sets up unconstitutional precedence that allows for AUMF. And that's what bothers me. Unconstitutional Precedence (well it was done, and it wasn't stopped, therefore we can't change it and we need to allow it again) is abhorrent legal jurisprudence, it's wrong, it's morally bankrupt, and devoid of thought. >All that is being done here (with the revocations) is that Congress is finally getting around to doing what it should have done already. There's nothing stopping them from issuing another one. Which is good. Finally. Maybe I'm being too negative... but I don't see it as enough.