Constitution Schmonstitution, We Want a Fuhrer

Essentially the office of the president has become that of Die Fuhrer ("The leader") and this is most vividly seen when the president decides to launch a new war. According the Constitution, you know that dusty document the president swears on a Bible before God and man to abide by at his inauguration, well, according to the constitution only Congress can declare war. In fact this was the single most debated part of the Constitution that its framers discussed, that being the case one would think that it would be seen as rather important, and one would be wrong.

Today, the presidency has metastasized from being a presiding one/steward into an unmitigated Fuhrer and as such he needn't be bothered with such peccadilloes as laws and oaths, his is a high and lonely calling kind of like C.S. Lewis' Uncle Andrew. This is seen yet again in our latest imperialistic intervention in Libya, where without even consulting Congress let alone getting a formal declaration of war, the American Fuhrer has again acted as "the decider", a title which Bush the Lesser ascribed to himself, and approved a new ambiguous open ended war.

In response to the question that has come from people who bothered to read the Constitution asking, "Hey, only Congress can declare war right?!" to which the regime has said, "Not so, with the 'Presidential war powers act' the president can do this." and it has actually become a debate whether or not the president launching a war without congressional approval is a violation of the Constitution. I just wonder what that says about the "War powers act" if it is being cited in order to trump the Constitution?

It is really no small wonder how the very things that should be fixed and unquestioned have become up for debate in our age.

But, on the "war powers" schtick, it is simply laughable that this is even being postulated as a legitimate argument. But, then again I suppose there is a long train of this sort of insane Constitution mutilation from groups like the SPLC, who argue with a straight face that in reality the 2nd amendment actually means that the government has the right to keep and bear arms, not private citizens. I know, you wouldn't think that at first, but well, these guys went to Ivy League schools so we need to just bow down to their seemingly wild revisions of history. Surely, groups like the SPLC are simply slimy commies, I refuse to believe they are so dense as to believe what they are saying, but, then again the strongest delusions often take 2-5 years of post-graduate study to be accepted.

One wonders how the public can accept such sophomoric arguments, but, then again this is the same public that no longer can tell the difference between men and women, right and wrong, and what constitutes a family versus what is an aberration thereof.

As John Calvin put it, God will give people will get the government they deserve, and boy are we in for a wild mess in the next few years.

Addendum:

Here's an excellent article by Tom Woods on the constitution "debate" over presidential war powers.