It's a bit of a grey area. Article I and Article II conflict a bit about who decides what and many of the clauses are somewhat vague. The war powers act of 1973 was supposed to clarify things but instead just muddied the water. Additionally, some question whether or not we can declare war on non-state actors like terrorists, Ron Paul for example suggested that we could not and recommended we use letters of marque instead. (which while still allowed are considered antique and haven't be actually used in a long time) In the US, where there are matters of contention these issues are usually resolved by the Supreme Court but in order to have standing you'd probably have to be the president or a member of congress and so far no one has pushed the issue. Personally I'd like to see us move back to formal declarations of war, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

The only thing the religious hate more than unbelievers is heretics. The more similar the heresy, the higher the level of hate. Here is a nice joke from Emo Phillips to illustrate my point:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! What denomination?”
He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me too!”
“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” I said, “Die heretic!” And I pushed him over.

There is never a zero percent chance of collateral damage, regardless of the weapon or soldier involved. It's important to set a high threshold of confidence, but that threshold will never be perfection, so from time to time you'll kill someone you didn't mean to. That's still quite a bit different from the terrorist's strategy which is to do 100% collateral damage ON PURPOSE.

While I would prefer the older declaration of war structure, he is actually acting within his authority under the current authorization for use of military force.

Well a good start might be to choose a workable business model. They've been pretty much running in circles since Google surpassed them as the lead search engine, in like what 2002 or so?

Well, if they graduated high school and still don't grasp fractions then something is seriously wrong.

Perhaps, but it wasn't available outside of a small number of specialists. I was a heavy computer user at that time I can guarantee you if it had been widely available I would have been all over that. Instead, for home users, the mid-1980s were mostly about BBS services, which while kind of similar, were by no means the huge interconnected thing that the internet has since become.

Minimizing future crime is certainly an important goal, but it's not the only one or even the most important one. The most important goal is that individuals should feel that they got enough justice that they're willing to abdicate their natural right to take matters into their own hands. A system which fails to meet that goal results in vigilantism and then eventually independent militias and civil war. This is one of the basics of being a civilized society ruled by laws rather than a group of barbarians.

Good, Americans like a war we can really sink our teeth into.

Should be in control and actually are in control are not the same thing.

Only if those who benefit most from that switch are the ones in control of the state. A more likely result is that investment just moves elsewhere and a lot of people are out of luck.

For items which are high in labor but low in raw materials, land use and energy cost, yes. Electronic devices are going to be pretty darn cheap, food, not so much.

Figure out one that doesn't suck or run on pipe dreams and you can count me in, for the moment there is no alternative.

There would still be limitations on the quantity of raw materials, land, and the total energy production capacity. It would certainly be vastly different than things are now, but that doesn't mean everything would be free.

Replace the word "reasonable" with "maximum" and you're closer to the truth.