Trump’s in Venezuela: Legal, constitutional

American Thinker ^ | 01/03/26 | Ed Mazlish

[SeekAndFind]

Say what you will about the wisdom of Trump’s decision to remove Maduro, but his critics are wrong on the Constitution.

The Trump critics are out again, criticizing Trump’s use of the military in Venezuela to depose Nicolás Maduro. The critics cite Congress’s power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution as proof that Trump acted “illegally” and “unconstitutionally.” The critics are wrong and are misreading the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces. If the president needs congressional approval before using those armed forces, then he is not a “commander in chief.” The critics’ claim is contradicted by Article II, Section 2.

The history of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 in the drafting of the Constitution also contradicts the critics’ claims. That provision was originally drafted to grant Congress the power to “make war” and was changed to “declare war” only when the delegates raised the exact issue the critics raise: that the president might be hampered in his commander in chief duties if he had to obtain permission from Congress before acting.

Furthermore, there are various provisions in the Constitution where the president is authorized to act only with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. When the Franers intended for the president to seek advice and consent, they obviously knew how to write such a requirement into the Constitution. But no such limitation on presidential power exists in Article II, Section 2.

Does this mean Congress has no role to play in war-making? No. But Congress’s role is an oversight role, not a first instance role. Oversight is necessarily after the fact. If Congress disagrees with the president’s war-making activities, Congress has the power of the purse to cut funding…

[SeekAndFind]

Congress also has the power to impeach if the president drags the country into an unpopular war. Congress has power but not before-the-fact power.

I’m betting the Democrats can’t wait to do that if God forbid, they take over Congress this November’s midterm elections.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

It’s amazing, no matter what he does to protect the country, improve the country, bring about peace, they are against. It’s like having our own little domestic enemy party in the USA and now after fighting the Korean war, the Vietnam war to stop communism, they are putting communists into office like that little turd they made Mayor in New York city quoting Stalin during his speech “The warmth of collectivism” “We will seize the means of production” No complaints from them about that.

[BenLurkin]

Near as I can tell, “intifada” and “bolivarian revolution” are the same thing.

[Political Junkie Too]

The telling clause in the Constitution is not the "declare war" clause of Article I Section 8, it is:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

This clause recognizes the President's power as commander-in-chief to use the military at his discretion. The Congressional check was to stop funding the President's exercise of this power after two years if Congress objects. If Congress consents, they can continue funding the military.

-PJ

[chief lee runamok]

Say what you will about the wisdom of Trump’s decision to remove
Maduro, but his critics are wrong on the Constitution.

On the bright side, it keeps the lunatic liberals distracted from their
previous issue they protested over.

I'm looking forward to their next distraction.

[Nachoman]

When is a federal judge going to step in and say Maduro and wife have to be returned?

[Ronald77]

And people will vote demon-cratic in the midterms

[DownInFlames]

Impeachment means nothing without removal. Never going to happen.

[lastchance]

I am not in complete agreement with the author’s view. For example he writes, “That provision was originally drafted to grant Congress the power to “make war” and was changed to “declare war”” The change makes sense because only the Commander in Chief can actually “make war” by ordering troops into battle. Deciding that means he is the primary decision maker when it comes to whether the country is officially at war is debatable. The President is also free to keep troops home should he disagree with Congress on whether we are at war.

If it was without question the primary duty of the President to declare war independent of Congress there would be no need for the “War Powers Act”. The text of which can be read here,

https://psc.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/War-Powers-Act.pdf

At a minimum it states Congress shall be consulted and be reported to. Most importantly there is a time limit set for the use of troops absent Congress’ declaring war (with some exceptions). This seems to contradict the author’s assertion that Congress is not the body that declares war.

Currently Trump’s serving of the warrant and his ordering troops to Venezuela do meet Constitutional and legal muster. It is what happens in the coming weeks which will see whether those actions need to be challenged by Congress.

[Ronaldus Magnus III]

It would be wonderful if President Trump gathered whatever “fast boats” are left (the ones he was blowing to smithereens) and used them to quickly deport illegal trespassers. A fast trip to the coast of El Salvador, for enrollment in their huuuuge prison.

Heck, there could be an internal ICE competition to see who could make the trip in record time. For longer trips, fuel barges could be strategically placed. Make for great videos

[lastchance]

Give it a day. After all Libs will want to get a good bargain and that can take some time.

[Lockbox]

Time to report those giving legal advise on this topic! Remember it’s the least the Libs would do if the shoe was on the other foot.

In the U.S. and most jurisdictions worldwide, offering legal advice without a law license is prohibited. The act of applying the law to someone’s specific situation, giving a recommendation, or predicting the outcome of a legal case constitutes legal advice. Only licensed attorneys are authorized to provide such services. Doing otherwise may result in a violation known as the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), which can lead to civil penalties, criminal charges, or disbarment for the licensed professionals involved.

[lastchance]

I doubt that was the reasoning. You have to realize that the U.S. at that time would not be any fan of standing armies. They did not want any chance of an organized uprising and occupation by those troops. That is one major reason they made the President (and not a military member) the Commander in Chief. One way of making certain the military would not grow too powerful was to limit how long they would b funded.

If as you claim “This clause recognizes the President’s power as commander-in-chief to use the military at his discretion.” Why was that clause not also added to Congress authority to “provide and maintain a Navy”?

[chopperk]

The dems are the only ones who don’t want Trump in Venezuela. They will lose billions of dollars of cartel monies.

[airborne]

Bookmark.

[Drew68]

"We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."

    -Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, author of The Monroe Doctrine

There were over 600 ongoing bilateral agreements outlining energy, infrastructure, trade, defense and strategic partnerships between China and Venezuela. In fact, China sold and implemented the air defense system that failed the day of the US operation to capture Maduro.

Not anymore. Those days are over.

[WoofDog123]

do the attacks (by military aircraft) on various sites in vz also meet muster? I know, clown world rules but used to this was in and of itself considered an act of war.

[Political Junkie Too]

Why was that clause not also added to Congress authority to “provide and maintain a Navy”?

Because the United States didn't formalize a navy until the Naval Act of 1794 in response to the Barbary pirates, and the Article I Section 8 clauses were ratified in 1789.

You're correct that, at the time, the standing army was the projection of domestic force, and the navy became the projection of external force.

But, the funding clause was to prevent the commander-in-chief from misusing the army, not just the check on the standing army itself. The check on the standing army was the state militias and the second amendment.

-PJ

[lastchance]

My first reaction would be yes that is an act of war with the caveat I believe it may come under the Trump’s authority as Commander in Chief as specified in the “War Powers Act.” That act provides,
“(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

I am supposing that Trump is either justifying this either by (3) due to the cartels or (2) some statutory authority, (which one I don’t know). Perhaps even both. I can’t see how “declaration of war” would apply.

The important word to take note of is “only”

What I take issue with is how did this go from serving a legal warrant by means of a limited strike force to bring the former leader of Venezuela to the U.S. to face charges and trial to now the U.S. is going to be in charge of Venezuela?

[lastchance]

Thanks for that explanation.