Then why did George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who between them were all either signers and/or authors of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution) seem to take a different view of the role and duties of the Commander-in-Chief?
Those wacky founders, they just couldn't get everything right.
Then again, maybe when the took the office of President, they ceased to be founders and became neocons.
Washington and Jefferson warned against becoming entangled in other nation’s affairs. None of the forefathers you mentioned was a nut case, either. There is room for genuine debate regarding our role in foreign affairs, presidential powers, and the like.
Ron Paul brings a different perspective, to be sure, but I see nothing in his arguments to make him worthy of the knee-jerk slander that seems to crop up whevever his name is mentioned. Sounds just a like a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth Bush haters.