Please read the whole reference. You will find that it is well documented that the president can do whatever he wants with the military to protect the US. There are many examples that support this, not only from recent times. But from the fathers themselves. It was long ago stated (directly after it was written) that declaring war is not necessary for military action.

If you would have actually read my reference we would not be having this conversation right now.

For example. If you would have actually read it you would have read this part.

"Constitutional Text. The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. (3) During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch. (4)"

Now if you are willing to simply say that it does not meet with your interpretation of the constitution, then that is fine. But that does not make it illegal.

And as such, you would never be able to argue that it was illegal.

Please try again.

__________________
The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.