when the United States hasn’t declared war on anyone in over 75 years, is about as nonsensical as you can get.
In other words, because for a long time courts considered Federal Minimum Wages constitutional, pointing out that they aren’t is ‘as nonsensical as you can get’.
In sargon’s world breaking the law is something not to be opposed if it’s been done for a long enough time.
"Breaking the law"? Balderdash. Your whimsical assertion stands unproven.
"Congress shall have the power to declare war."
That doesn't preclude the President from acting as Commander-In-Chief, and directing the Armed Forces to engage in either offensive or defensive military operations.
I'm not aware of any Supreme Court precedent which suggests otherwise—not in over 240 years of Constitutional governance.
Ironic that all three branches of government are apparently complicit in disregarding the Constitution viz-a-viz your suggestion that there's something subversive afoot.
The Korean War. Viet Nam. Desert Storm. The list goes on and on.
The President simply isn't doing anything even remotely against the Constitution—except in the eyes of your misguided ilk. That's the judgement of nearly a quarter millennium of U.S History. Why don't you examine a list of Presidents who took similar military action in the absence of a declaration of war. It's a lengthy compilation.
I'll just have to bear the unspeakable shame of having my patriotism and Constitutional understanding questioned by such sage analysis. I'm condemned to live with the burden of knowing that President Trump is every bit as tainted as President Reagan—who similarly took such Congressionally unauthorized military action during his own administration. Yep, President Reagan was just another globalist criminal—because Constitution!</sarc>
On the other hand, maybe you're the one who's wrong...