You couldn't lead a horse out of the barn if the barn was on fire and you had a bucket of oats.
Fact is nowhere in that wikipedia link you provided did it alledge Reagan of violating the Constitution, which was your claim.
Reagan used US military on forweign soil in combat without and congressional declaration of war several times.
A clear constitutional violation.
Iran Contra was treason. Dealing weapons with an avowed enemy of the USA.
Well I know how foreign facts are to you but lets examine the facts.
Fact: Congress has only formally declared war four times, the War of 1812 (1812); the Spanish‐American War (1898); World War I (1917); and World War II (1941).
Fact: In the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman decided against asking Congress to declare war because he thought his critics might filibuster the resolution and thereby dilute its symbolic effect.
Over the next four decades, presidents used Truman's precedent to argue that the commander‐in‐chief clause empowers them to send U.S. troops into combat without congressional authorization. In August 1964, Congress passed with only two dissenting votes the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which approved President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to use force to prevent further Communist aggression in South Vietnam.
Fact: President Ronald Reagan did sign a 1983 bill that gave him authority to keep U.S. troops in Lebanon for eighteen months, but in doing so he repeated the claim that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. (No court has ruled on the constitutionality issue.)
The resolution did not figure in the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989, the intervention in Haiti in 1994, or the peacekeeping missions in Somalia in 1992 or Bosnia in 1995.
In the case of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, President George Bush refused to invoke the War Powers Resolution, and he argued that he did not need congressional authorization to order U.S. troops to liberate Kuwait. Public opinion, however, eventually forced Bush to seek the approval of Congress. The authorizing resolution, which did not mention the War Powers Resolution, passed in the Senate with five votes to spare.
The circumstances in which presidents can initiate the use of military force without congressional authorization remain an open constitutional question. The federal courts have generally declined to hear lawsuits challenging the president's right to use military force, either on the grounds that such suits raise political and not legal questions or that it is up to Congress and not the courts to preserve congressional prerogatives. The net effect of the courts' reluctance to settle the issue has been to diminish the war powers of Congress and to enhance those of the president.
•A. D. Sofaer, War, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Power: The Origins, 1976.
•F. D. Wormuth and E. B. Firmage, To Chain the Dog of War: The War Power of Congress in History and Law, 1986; 2nd ed., 1989.
•M. J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy, 1990.
•W. C. Banks and P. Raven‐Hansen, National Security Law and the Power of the Purse, 1994.
•J. M. Lindsay, Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1994.
•L. Fisher, Presidential War, 1995
Read more:
Congress, War, and The Military: Information from Answers.com
i dont think he remembered that. 
