1. The Constitution - Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 - empowered one branch of government to declare war for our nation, to delimit hostilities as it sees fit, and thus to declare conflicts over, as circumstances dictate, in the absence of treaty or truce. This plenary war power was deliberately given to the Congress, with no presidential signature required for a declaration of war to come into being. Think of it as the Congressional parallel to the Executive's plenary "Commander in Chief" of the Armed Forces authority. In other words, Congress - all 535 of its department store managers and orthodontists, etc. - is required under our Constitution to macromanage the use of federal armed force on our behalf.

2. In the aftermath of World War II, the Legislative Branch has increasingly forfeited its crucial decision-making responsibility for the use of federal armed force, and presidents have had an unquenchable and predictable hunger to abuse and overextend their Constitutionally-limited authority to deploy our powerful standing army (often simply 'because they could' with little or no meaningful Congressional or media opposition). The general refusal of the Judicial Branch to intervene unless and until Congress and the president are in direct and open conflict about the issue has contributed to today's extreme imbalance of powers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001652.html?nav=hcmodule

3. In 1973, the War Powers Resolution was a laudable attempt (passed over Nixon's veto) to define the boundaries of Constitutional war powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches, aimed at reducing the overreach by the Executive evidenced so graphically by the Vietnam War. However, the War Powers Resolution in no way modifies the Legislative Branch's underlying power to declare war, any more than FISA modifies the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. [1983's INS v. Chadha Supreme Court ruling (regarding the so-called 'legislative veto' outside the area of war powers) is usually cited to throw doubt on Section 1544(c) of the WPR, but it seems firmly grounded in a core Constitutional principle that stands independent of any legislative enactment.] Although authorization for war ought to be less complex to rescind than to grant, it is of paramount importance that authority for war not be more complex to rescind than to grant.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html

4. In 2002, Congress decided it could and should relinquish its exclusive Constitutional duty and prerogative to declare war, and passed a resolution in legislative form, in accordance with the War Powers Act, to leave the decision to declare war on Iraq - or not - up to one man (the president). [Many legislators still deceitfully pretend that they voted to prevent war by leaving this decision to him.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07cuomo.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

5. Notwithstanding Congress's reckless and dangerous refusal to carry out its profound Constitutional duty to declare war - or not - on our behalf, the Constitution remains unchanged. One branch of our government, and one branch alone (absent emergencies), has the authority - by simple majority vote - to declare, change, or end hostilities against other peoples and other lands. The president shares power to end hostilities; he does not share power to begin them, except in cases where Congress cannot act in time.

6. The operative text of 2002's AUMF:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I believe Senate rules prevented a filibuster of (and thus the need for a 60-vote majority for) 2002's AUMF, so any legislation to cease such hostilities ought to have the same rule.

7. As the AUMF text makes clear, there's virtually no basis left for claiming that the current operations in Iraq have been authorized in any way by Congress (funding does not constitute "specific statutory authorization" under Section 1547(a) of the War Powers Resolution). The remaining fig leaf of "legal" cover is the U.N. Security Council's repeated renewals (in open contravention of the elected Iraqi parliament's majority opposition to the measure) of a U.N. "mandate" for the U.S. military to remain in Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-dreyfuss/maliki-bush-trample-iraq_b_77903.html

8. Now, however, even the manipulation of the U.N. has apparently run out of willing enablers, so 1/1/2009 will see the expiration of that fig leaf of "legality" for our armed presence in Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402581.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

9. Unless Congress votes to extend the occupation over the objections of the Iraqi people, or otherwise revises or replaces the 2002 AUMF so as to continue hostilities (such as by approving a "bilateral agreement" with the corrupt, unelected al-Maliki), the United States will not only be an occupying power in violation of international law in Iraq come January 1, 2009, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces will be in clear violation of the authority granted by Congress if he (or his successor) continues to use our military forces against the people of Iraq.

10. Before 2009, if the Legislative Branch simply musters the will (and the necessary fortitude to defend its own powers) to rescind any remaining authorization for force against Iraq given in 2002, by voting to affirmatively end any further hostilities against that nation, using the unilateral authority of its Constitutional war powers, the president will be flagrantly violating the Constitution unless he orders our Armed Forces to disengage from Iraq.

In sum: The Congress - representing the people - is in the legal driver's seat of our armed intervention in Iraq, not the President or the Pentagon. Yet many star-struck Senators and Representatives - ignoring their own power - will nevertheless continue to dishonorably and dishonestly pretend otherwise, during their sycophantic "questioning" of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker this week.