To judge by the early reports President Obama’s declaration of war against the Islamic State is going to be a disappointing document. He doesn’t want to stand on principle and stay out of the war, the way, say, the Libertarians tend to want to do. Yet the word in Washington suggests that the legislation shaping up will — on a net basis — restrict the President’s freedom of action to pursue Islamic State forces. It would place on him limitations on the duration of the war, although apparently not on theaters where it can be fought. It cramps his tactics. Our enemies must be amazed.

We’re in the camp that reckons Mr. Obama doesn’t need new authority to fight this war. He has, as commander in chief, powers that obligate him to defend the country if war is being levied against us, as it is by al-Qaeda and by ISIS. Plus he has the Authorization to Use Military Force that was passed in 2001 against Al Qaeda. It is without geographical, tactical, or time limits. The same can be said for the Iraq war resolution of 2002. There is plenty of authority in these laws for Mr. Obama to spring on the Islamic State, which has slain several Americans and threatened us all.

Yet Mr. Obama and Congress are reportedly working on a resolution that would repeal the Iraq resolution of 2002. This is so incredible that one wonders what the president hopes to accomplish – maybe repair his relations with the New York Times and others who were never really invested in the war; they have been trying to win such a repeal for years now. The Times is reporting this evening that the resolution being drafted would also limit the fight against ISIS to three years and prohibit the use of “enduring offensive ground forces.”

The document, moreover, falls short of a formal declaration of war. This is a mistake. Congress has formally declared war against 11 countries in five wars. We are at a stage of our own constitutional thinking — and we’ve been wrestling with this question for decades — where we favor the kind of language used in those declarations. Some, particularly the Mexican war, were too detailed. But the others were short and to the point, and admitted no ambivalence, as in the language used in 1917, when Congress resolved:

“. . .that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”

No time limit. No theater limits. No tactical restrictions. No handwringing. No shilly-shallying. “All the resources of the country are hereby pledged.” It’s not just a question of authorizing the president to do what he needs to do. It’s also a matter of binding the Congress, so there is no voting against supplying our GIs after voting for to send them off to war the way, say, John Forbes Kerry did when he was still in the Senate. The way the resolution on ISIS is being drafted, it’s going to invite an anti-war movement before Jane Fonda and Michael Moore can get down to breakfast.

We would also unsheathe the letter of marque and reprisal, which is the second major enumerated war power that the Constitution grants to Congress. It can write these licenses to private parties to carry out acts of war, the way we did against, say, the Barbary Pirates. Congressman Ron Paul wanted to use issue Letters of Marque against Osama bin Laden. We sent a multi-trillion expedition instead. We are not against a large expedition but we’d not abjure letters of marque, as well. This is a time to remember that we have never lost a war we’ve properly declared.