Is the Joint Resolution vulnerable when considering delegating the power to make the laws to other branches?
The Joint Resolution is a legislative matter that needs both the House and the Senate approval and then is signed by the President. It is also used to propose Amendments to the Constitution, this does not need the President to sign.
Almost each volume of the U.S. Statutes states at least 1 joint resolution that allows the President to take action in foreign relations. This leaves the action up to his judgement or something more general.
It also allowed, the President to have a take on peace between countries in conflict. Allowed substituting what the President wanted for Congress. Allowed putting an end to resolution, up to the President. Was subject to limits by the President, which was held to no standard.
The Federal Government has only the powers given to them in the Constitution and those powers that are implied to help the powers given to them by the Constitution. The Constitution was created to limit the amount of powers the Legislative Branch had and gave the rest of the powers to the states.
The Constitution only applies to the states' powers. Since they never had international powers, the international powers were controlled by the Federal Government. During the early years, the powers were controlled by Great Britain.
The Articles of Confederation was the document that contained the External Powers that we gained from Great Britain after the war. The foreign affairs at this time were given to states and they would act as a single individual.
The External Powers don't depend on the Constitution, like declaring war and creating treaties. If the Constitution didn't have these included then these powers would have been given to the Federal Government. Our power and right are equal to the international's, this makes us a sovereign nation.
In this case, this practice has been going on for a long time and helps prove that the practice is constitutional. Since the practice has been in place for a long time, the Supreme Court should not interrupt this practice.