It is true that only Congress is permitted to declare war.

U.S. constitution, article I section 8 clause 11.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The Congress has the sole power and responsibility to declare war, but desperately want to hand over more and more of their power to the Executive. They’ve passed War Powers acts and the Authorized Use of Military Force to let the president bomb and drone and missile other countries without needing Congress to do their dang jobs.

The constitution is pretty much irrelevant these days.

Only Congress can officially declare war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were not “wars”. 1942 was the last time we declared war.

Since the 60s or so the Legislative branch has continually given the Executive more and more power, hoping to take advantage when their guy is in office. The framers of the Constitution never thought one branch would willingly cede power to another, it’s utterly illogical, but here we are.

First of all, it’s all very silly and made up.

Second, the power to declare war rests with the US Congress. A War Powers Resolution is congress’s way of not having to formally declare war, instead it attempts to grant or restrict the executive’s (the president’s) use of military action. To say that is required by the Constitution is a bit of hand-wavy procedural farce, as the executive has habitually used military action without congressional approval many, many times, most famously in recent times with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In the US precedent often supersedes procedure. Therefore if the president does something and there’s little to no reproductions then that something basically becomes a power of the president. Insofar as Congress having control over military action, that comes from Congress’s ability to set the military’s budget (which like lol why would they ever turn the imperial money facet off?). So a War Powers Resolution isn’t a law that states the constitution is still in place. It’s a law designed to show congress’s legitimacy and that attempts to control the executive’s use of the military so they don’t have to formally declare war, which grants the president a lot of additional powers.

Why would you vote against this particular resolution? Lots of reasons. All of them stupid.

Well… do you understand what liberalism is? And I’m not trying to offer a patronizing or condescending tone, but it’s easy to miss the ocean when you are borne n it and have known nothing else.

What other commenters said, but there’s some nuance.

The US hasn’t techically declared a war since WWII, but it does get authorization from Congress to deploy troops and such. The Vietnam War, for instance, was ‘authorized’ with this: https://www.britannica.com/event/Gulf-of-Tonkin-Resolution

The War in Afganistant was this, and some other now-infamous bills that authorized stuff like mass surveilance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001

The later (for example) was nearly unanimous in Congress. They may be fudging the Constitution’s wording/intent some, but the president was not defying Congress, hence it wasn’t exactly a “Constitutional Crisis.”

…So, actually, your observation is corrent. This is different.

Trump has not gotten any blessing of Congress make a big war with Venezuela. He’s certainly not getting it.

But there’s never been a president with such a grip over their party in a long time.

It’s kind of an ‘unstoppable force’ vs ‘immovable object’ problem. Congressional Republicans can’t defy Trump so blatantly; it’d be political suicide. They can’t authorize a war with Venezuela either, as they don’t have the support of Democrats + ‘rebel’ Republicans to do it. Even if they did, it’d be political suicide.

So if Trump instigates something against Venezuela, what’s going to happen is quite unprecedented: a war Congress doesn’t approve of, but isn’t putting a stop to either. It’s not quite a “Constitutional Crisis” if Congress and the Supreme Court sit on their hands, but it sure is… something.

why would you need to vote for a law that basically just states that the constitution is still in place?

But to answer your original question:

why would you need to vote for a law that basically just states that the Constitution is still in place?

It’s because Congress has a trail of ‘implicit approval’ for wars. Like the resolutions linked above. So I suppose it’d be to clarify this war does not have their implicit approval.

I mean it looks pretty lopsided to me. Unless you’re talking the single vote making this bipartisan. Although in a general sense I agree with you, I’m commenting on this vote in particular.