Mike Lee is not "disappointed," he is, along with Ted Cruz, the leading constitutional scholar in the United States Senate who is properly concerned about the essential constitutional architecture of the nation. How far does the authority of the president to engage in war extend? Where does the authority of Congress begin?
The Constitution is explicit, the president is the commander-in-chief but only Congress can declare war. The funding of war must be the product of an act of Congress, consented to by the president, or overridden by a supermajority of Congress in the event of a veto by the president.
The Constitution was drafted and ratified in the age of sail yet we live, or die, today under the threat of hypersonic nuclear missiles. So the framers drafted an instrument at a time when questions of war could be decided deliberately because there was time. Today we have no time, that is why officers dog the footsteps of the Present of the United States with the nuclear "football."
Mike Lee is not a fool, he knows the real-time practical value of smoking Maduro and replacing him with the Nobel Peace Prize winner. His vision runs farther and extends deeper.
This issue has occurred and reoccurred several times since the 2nd world war. Harry Truman fought the Korean War without a declaration as a "police action." Lyndon Johnson contrived the Tonkin Gulf resolution to cloak his ill conceived war in Vietnam.
An angry Congress passed the so-called War Resolution Act of 1973, requiring the president to consult with Congress, report to Congress within 2 days of the action and potentially withdraw within 60 days.
So the Congress passed this law over Nixon's veto, a law that has been complained about by every president since then, but observed with varying fidelity by many of them. Obviously, non-constitutional legislative compromise is an attempt to align the Constitution with the technological realities of the 20th and now the 21st century.
Every kinetic action by a president creates a precedent, so Mike Lee is more than justified; he should be applauded for framing the issue so that it is openly debated in a constitutional democracy. We are setting precedents now that should be thoughtfully made. We are, after all, about our business, we are a constitutional conservative forum.
