Sure SFB; No problem...

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"... Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33 expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; ..."

Again, I hope that despite your severe intellectual limitations that you'll be able to muster sufficient means to recognize that the authorization of the use of military force is by definition, A Declaration of War.

While it's not a ton of hope... as you've yet to demonstrate even this minimal means, I suppose there is always... Hope.

So, just to head your severely limited @$$ off... whn you fail and we both know ya probably will; meaning you reject that these two declaration authorizing the use of military force are not "Declarations of War" then you will need (and note this is the THIRD TIME you've been challenged to provide this...) to return with the language in the USC wherein it spells out the specific outlines by which the Congress must declare war, for it to be super-official...

Best of luck...