I don't see how this is relevant. The mandate contains no declaration of war whatsoever.

It's correct when he implies that the amount of war power invested in the executive is unconstitutional, but I agree that Congress is guilty of ignoring its obligations.

But I don't see how you consistently pointing out Congress' constitutional negligence is an excuse for the unconstitutionality of the war or the crimes of this administration. Two wrongs don't make a right. While you might be right that Sheer is ignoring a part of the story, it doesn't make much sense when you somehow attempt to rationalize the other side of the argument by doing the same thing Sheer does.