One Way to Get a Vote on an AUMF

For almost two decades, Presidents have been sending soldiers to war without any consultation from Congress.

In theory, absent an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) the War Powers act prevents this.

A number of states are now drafting laws prohibiting the deployment of National Guard units without a formal declaration of war, which has not happened since 1942. (Against Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania)

Since a  declaration of war creates a state of war between the US and another entity, while an AUMF  merely authorizes the use of force, such a vote would be far more difficult to secure.

Given that (Unless Federalized by the President) these are technically state militia, they may have a legal case.

Of course, the President CAN simply Federalize the National Guard, as was done on a number of occasions in the 1950s (and the courts supported it) when state governments obstructed school integration, but it is a loud and attention grabbing process, while simply shipping a battalion or two to Fallujah:
At least 31 states have legislation on the table that aims to deny the president's authority to deploy National Guardsmen to combat zones without a declaration of war, and supporters of the effort are eager for a Supreme Court battle to define who has ultimate control of state troops.

Dan McKnight, a veteran who heads the lobbying effort for the legislation through his Bring Our Troops Home organization, argues that Congress has been asleep at the wheel in its authority to declare war, ceding its powers to the White House. He said he is not against National Guard troops seeing combat, but thinks members of Congress should not be able to duck the decision.

He's trying to change that by tapping state lawmakers to assert authority over troop deployments, a back door into a dilemma in which the U.S. has waged decades of war without a formal declaration since the 1950s. However, experts say that a grappling match with the Pentagon about its authority over troops is an uphill battle, and the effort faces steep odds in federal court.

………

The Guard makes up about 33% of the Army's total force. Being unable to deploy Guardsmen abroad could undermine the president's ability to wage war, in theory ratcheting up pressure to formally declare war.

………

State efforts to seize authority over the Guard have been a relatively obscure issue until this year. No laws have passed yet. Because of legislative schedules, most of the 31 states haven't held votes or hearings on the proposal. McKnight believes 2022 will be the big year for the issue and is aiming to have a bill on the table in every state.

………

The issue has achieved momentum in dozens of state legislatures this year, mostly after lobbying efforts by McKnight. While it hasn't passed yet in Texas, which has the largest National Guard contingent among the states, preventing Guardsmen from deploying to combat without a war declaration is part of the Texas Republican Party's platform, which sets the agenda for the party in the state.

I think that this is a good thing, it makes our current state of "Forever Wars" more visible, and hence less tenable, but I feel queasy agreeing with any plank of the Texas Republican Party Platform.