That Ship Has Sailed
- Bob O'Brien
- Dec 11, 2025
- 5 min read
US Constitution. Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
Within the last three to four months, the United States has massively increased its military presence near Venezuela, deploying the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious assault ships, and a special forces support ship. A variety of aircraft have also been active in the region, including bombers, fighters, drones, patrol planes, and support aircraft. The Washington Post estimates that ten thousand troops and six thousand sailors have been deployed on U.S. ships active in the region.
They have not been idle, for our military has conducted a series of lethal strikes on small boats operating in or near Venezuelan waters. As of the end of November, at least 21 such operations have been reported, resulting in at least 83 deaths. Yesterday, the U.S. went even further, seizing a large Venezuelan oil tanker heading to Cuba. The US claims the tanker is used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran in an "illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations".
The President’s rational underlying these military strikes is that the actions are intended to dismantle “narco-terrorist” networks tied to Venezuelan criminal groups and senior officials. The Trump administration insists that South America’s drug cartels should be considered terrorist organizations, and that each time these groups export narcotics across our border, they effectively commit an attack on US soil. Therefore, the US has the right to “secure our homeland from the drugs that are killing our people” by waging war against Venezuela’s narco-terrorists and the government that supports them.
These military strikes may just be the beginning. According to President Trump, "We're going to start doing those strikes on land, too. And we know the routes they take. We know where the bad ones live. And we're going to start that very soon, too." Furthermore, the Trump Administration does not consider that Venezuela’s President Maduro represents Venezuela’s legitimate government. In fact, President Trump has reportedly issued Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro a deadline to step down as president and accomplish a peaceful transition of power, or else face possible direct military action.
This threat of “direct military action” has alarmed some Republicans and many Democrats. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has indicated that further escalation or regime change could trigger the need for Congressional action. Sen. Cory Booker’s reaction (D-NJ) was more strident: “The constitution's very specific. The president is saying we're at war with unknown, unnamed people, and we should be coming before Congress,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) told us. “It's clearly, clearly a violation of our Constitution.” Is it? Does president Trump does not have the authority to conduct these strikes without Congressional approval? Are these the type of illegal orders that the six Democratic Representatives and Senators think the military should not obey?
We think not, for there is a long history of US Presidents acting militarily without the consent of Congress. Under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. invaded Grenada In October 1983. Bill Clinton certainly didn’t wait for Congressional approval. He authorized cruise missile strikes and deployed a special operation unit in Somalia in 1993. He sent US fighter planes to Bosnia in 1994, and they shot down four Serbian warplanes. In 1994, the U.S. deployed over 20,000 troops, backed by two aircraft carriers, and invaded Haiti. Clinton also attacked Iraq with cruise missiles in 1993 and 1996, and in 1998 he attacked Iraq with a major bombing operation. He attacked Afghanistan and Sudan repeatedly in 1998. In the following year, the U.S. led a major aerial bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. The air strikes lasted from 24 March 1999 to 10 June 1999. In addition, during Clinton’s entire time in office, he used the military to enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq.
President Obama was also no slouch in this regard. In fact, there were ten times more air strikes in the secret war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there was a total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeting Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. President Obama certainly knew the consequences of what he was doing, for he proudly stated to White House aides that “it turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” Indeed, in his 2017 farewell address, Obama boasted, "We have taken out tens of thousands of terrorists."
There is another Constitutional issue here – the right to due process. Whether that applies to foreigners or not, it is possible that some of the Venezuelans who were blown out of the water may have been innocent fisherman, and not narco-terrorists. Why didn’t we instead intercept and board those boats, and if they had indeed been carrying drugs, grant them a trial and put these people in prison?
That ship has also sailed, if you agree with President Obama. His administration didn’t stop with foreigners, and he asserted a right to kill U.S. citizens without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked men to legally object. In November 2010, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter announced in federal court that no judge had legal authority to be “looking over the shoulder” of Obama’s targeted killing. Letter declared that the program involves “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”
Obama’s first high-profile American target was Anwar Awlaki, a cleric born in New Mexico. After the Obama administration announced plans to kill Awlaki, his father hired a lawyer to file a challenge in federal court. The ACLU joined the lawsuit, seeking to compel the government “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.” The following month, federal judge John Bates dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit because “there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas” is “judicially unreviewable.” Bates declared that targeted killing was a “political question” outside the court’s jurisdiction.
In sum, if you take a look at the military decisions over the last forty to fifty years, it is obvious that the Presidents of both political parties have broadly interpreted their “core powers” as Commander-in Chief to act unilaterally without the consent of Congress. It also seems obvious that the Judiciary has decided to stay out of what it views as a political question. Thus, if Congress wants to regain its power to declare war as enumerated in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it does have the power of the purse; and, if united, it can use that power to limit the military powers of the President.
We don’t see that happening any time soon.
CHECK OUT THE LINKS BELOW ⬇️⬇️
Comments