1. The winner of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was Edmundo Gonzalez, who ran in Maria Corina Machado's stead after she was kicked off the ballot.
2. Might not another motive for deposing Maduro have been to sweep away any argument for continuing Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans? Once their country has a legitimate government, they will have no grounds for claiming refugee status (though I suppose that some Democratic judge will declare that Tren de Aragua members face persecution if they return home).
3. It won't surprise me if the horde of white shoe lawyers who will show up to defend Mr. and Mrs. Maduro pro bono find a judge to grant them habeas corpus. Perhaps the Administration's best response, after a democratic government is installed, would be to extradite the Maduros to Caracas, where they would undoubtedly meet justice at the hands of the people whom they have most directly wronged.
Totally agree with everything you said. But I'd like to add that a secondary, if not primary, consideration is that this action has probably neutralized any threat China might pose to Taiwan. Iran is effectively out of the oil business, and now Venezuela, at least so far as exporting to China is concerned. Without this oil, China's ability to sustain an invasion of Taiwan is significantly diminished.
As far as "international law" is concerned, I think the whole notion is rather specious and in reality, a great example of the "Golden Rule"; i.e., them that has the gold, makes the rules. Who enforces this? The UN? Don't make me laugh.
I agree there are questions about the legality of it. But given actions taken by Democratic administrations specifically Obama's protracted attack on Libya with the express purposes of overthrowing a dictator who posed no strategic threat to the U.S., done entirely without Congressional approval, I certainly dont intend to listen to any Democrats on this. In any event if a potentially illegal action is taken I prefer that it be lightning quick and serve American strategic purposes. Having a large and high oil producing South American country have a brutal Marxist dictatorship openly aligned with the Mullahs and Putin is definitely a national security threat and given Maduro's basic illegitimacy, this alone would justify what was done. And there clearly was no opportunity to get Congressional approval and given the current state of things, no possibility a Congressional committee could be trusted to keep the plan secret if told in advance. All of this is by way of saying I support the action but as always deployed Trump's horrible big mouth. I believe the opposition WILL get control of Venezuela and it likely will be Muchado or someone she is closely aligned with and Trump will have no problem with that. But as always he opened a can of worms and fed amo to those who hate him and us.
I know nothing about international law, but I believe that law enforcement had a lawful right to arrest this fugitive from justice. Trump offered many opportunity for Maduro to surrender.
I am in Spain with my Venezuelan daughter-in-law. I arrived on November 29th not knowing if she would be able to get a flight out of the country. Several flights we had booked were cancelled either by Maduro or the airlines. Thankfully, she arrived safely via Columbia. We have been staying in short term rentals waiting for whatever action the U.S. administration would take. My son’s petition to bring his wife to the U.S. was scheduled for determination of status on December 1st, the day the pause was put in place. They are in a holding pattern but I am very thankful we got her out. Her mother and sister are still there.
I was disappointed by Trump’s remark that Machado was not respected. The vast majority of Venezuelans love her. Perhaps he meant the transitional figures that still have a strong hold on the military and judiciary. I read on Don Surber this morning that Delcy Rodriguez fled to Russia. I have not confirmed that, but pray it is true. I hope Gonzalez returns next week as indicated, that Machado plays a key figure in the administration and the transition is smooth. And yes, I truly pray for a return to freedom and prosperity for Venezuelans.
Numerous provisions of Article II of the Constitution confer power on the president. He holds all executive power, a one man branch of government. He is commander in chief. He has a power and a duty to take care the laws are faithfully executed. I think Trump can point to all these powers to justify his Maduro snatch. As chief executive and commander in chief he can take action to protect the homeland and its citizens from foreign dangers. As commander in chief he can deploy the armed services without congressional approval as long as he is not waging war, and subject to the posse comitatus law as construed by the Supreme Court. I know what Trump did in Venezuela is an act of war, but not all acts of war are war for purposes of congressional power to declare war. American presidents almost from the constitutional jump have taken acts of war without a congressional declaration of war. Maduro has been indicted for numerous crimes under American law, with more likely to come, so Trump can reasonably argue that, in grabbing Maduro, he is executing American drug and other laws. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for the comment, Jim. Under your theory, the president -- any president including the ones you strongly dislike such as Joe Biden whom you have called the head of a "crime family"-- can unleash the military simply by claiming that unleashing it will protect Americans from foreign dangers. The president can do this even if his claim has no basis in fact and even if he doesn't believe the claim and is just using it as a pretext, e.g. to promote "crime family" interests.
Wisely, the Constitution does not permit such indiscriminate war-waging without congressional approval. It's true, of course, that the president is the commander-in-chief. This gives him the power to conduct war but not to declare it. The power to declare war rests unambiguously with Congress. The British monarch had the power both to declare and conduct war, but the Constitution explicitly rejected this model.
Indeed, as the legal scholar Jonathan Adler points out, the Constitution further grants Congress the power to “raise and support Armies,” to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces,” and to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” It is further up to Congress, not the President, to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations,” and to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” In short, while the President has operational control of the military once called into action, the Constitution vests Congress with substantial authority over whether and how military force is deployed and for what purposes.
Michael McConnell, another scholar and formerly a highly respected conservative jurist, adds that "the weight of the early evidence” supports the interpretation that “congressional authorization is required before the President may employ the armed forces in offensive military operations that constitute acts of war.” That's why John Adams sought legislative authorization to deploy naval forces against the French in the “Quasi-War” during his administration.
It's true that since Adams' time, some presidents have waged war without congressional authorization. Others have sought such authorization. Some didn't see any reason to wage war, so the issue of congressional authorization never came up.
Regardless, the Constitution requires authorization. Presidential violations don't change the requirement. Judicial precedents get stare decisis respect because in our system courts interpret the law authoritatively. No such doctrine or principle applies to presidential actions.
A more promising argument than your super-expansive view of presidential power is the narrow one you suggest at the end of your comment -- that Trump is executing American drug law. This is a reasonable argument. Whether it should carry the day is another matter.
I'm aware of the provisions you cite, but I don't think they supplant the president's power to command the armed forces to take action short of war, and I don't think all acts of war, such as the destruction of drug boats, the snatching of Maduro, or the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, are war for purposes of congressional power to declare war. As for the other constitutional provisions you cite, I'm aware of them, but I don't think they're intended or designed to supplant the president's power to command the armed forces to take action short of war. Take, for example, the congressional power to "define and punish piracies and felonies upon the high seas." When Trump takes out the drug boats he isn't defining or punishing piracies and felonies upon the high seas; he's eliminating a threat. And the president often shares power with Congress under these provisions. Lincoln adopted the Lieber Code to govern the conduct of Union forces, and to my knowledge nobody has suggested his action was at odds with congressional power to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Similarly, I'm sure the president could "make rules concerning captures on land and water" unless and until Congress dictated otherwise, for he would be compelled to in order to control his forces.
You cite Michael McConnell's statement that "the weight of the early evidence" supports the interpretation that "congressional authorization is required before the President may employ the armed forces in offensive operations that constitute acts of war." The reference to "the weight of evidence" suggests it's a debatable position. Besides that, I question the relevance of early evidence in this matter, for the power of and need for the president to act is dictated by modern circumstances, not the world of a bygone era. An explosive or drug laden boat speeding toward our shores leaves little time for congressional action, as would, for example, an Iran that had and was about to use nuclear bombs. At bottom, though, I just disagree with Mr. McConnell.
I agree the president's power could be abused under my concept of presidential power, but abuse of a power doesn't deny its existence. I also agree that, in Madero's case, the president's power to enforce laws is a better fit than his commander in chief power. Jim Dueholm
Thanks again, Jim. You are extremely knowledgeable about the Constitution, but we are completely at odds about this.
The consequences of your concept of presidential power leave so much room for abuse that it's extremely unlikely the framers of the Constitution, who were so concerned about checks and balances and abuses by a king-style executive, would have embraced that concept.
They did not. They precluded it, or tried to. They did so by unambiguously giving Congress and only Congress the power to declare war.
There are different kinds of war -- big ones, small ones, long ones, short ones -- but there's only one definition of war (except when the word is used metaphorically as in "war on drugs"). The notion that the Constitution allows for different rules for different kinds of wars is baseless.
There are, of course, borderline cases -- actions that might or might not be war. But our operation in Venezuela isn't one of them.
We used more than 150 aircraft, including F-22s, F, 35s, F-18s, EA18s, E-2s B-1, bombers and other support aircraft, as well as numerous remotely piloted drones. They hit multiple targets. We blacked out Caracas. We sent in ground forces who fought Venezuelans and Cubans. We captured and abducted the president of Venezuela and his wife. According to the latest reports I've seen, nearly 100 people were killed.
This is war under any rational understanding of the term. Therefore, the Constitution required congressional authorization.
There are those who believe we have a "living constitution" -- one that must be interpreted in light of "modern circumstances," as you put it. I don't share that view. I believe the Constitution must be interpreted based on its plain language as the weight of the evidence shows it to have been understood at the time of the framing. In my opinion, this originalist analysis yields only one conclusion about the subject of our debate.
I don't think this is a case of a living constitution, for it's a case of determining whether things like the Maduro snatch and the Iranian bombing are or are not war for purposes of congressional power to declare war as war was understood when the Constitution was adopted. I think war was understood, then as now, as armed conflict between nations. I think the definition requires mobilization and duration, not a one-off act of war. You believe these actions are war under the Constitution as adopted in 1787, and I believe they aren't. I don't think the twain can meet on the issue. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
At least we now seem to agree that this case turns on what war was understood to mean when the Constitution was adopted, not on the "need for the president to act [as] dictated by modern circumstances."
Beyond that, I don't think agreement is possible on this topic, so I'll end my participation with two observations.
First, it's clear to me that a one-off attack can be, and usually is, "war." For example, the 9/11 attacks were a one-off. Had they been carried out by a state, few would deny that this was war by that state against the U.S., especially if the attacks had included an assault on the White House and the kidnapping of Bush. (I'm not even sure I understand the distinction between an "act of war" and war itself.)
Second, I dispute that the attack on Venezuelan soil and the kidnapping of Maduro should be characterized as a one-off. It seems more like the climax of a military campaign by the U.S. to topple Maduro through force for the purpose of "running" Venezuela. The campaign includes sinking boats off the coast of Venezuela (accompanied by messages that Maduro needed to step down), interdicting ships carrying Venezuelan natural resources in a sort of naval blockade, and kidnapping the president, which required killing nearly 100 people. All without any authorization from Congress.
Agree to disagree. I would only note that my language you quote was inartful on my part. I didn't mean that the definition of war had changed, but only that in the modern era there can be hostile action short of war. As I said, I think war in 1787 and now was armed conflict between nations that contemplated some degree of extended action. I don't think, for example, that our strike on Iran or our killing of its top officer were war, and there was no need to tell Congress about either of them in advance, let alone get congressional approval. Where hostile action turns from war acts to war is a matter of opinion, and where we have to agree to disagree. I don't think the courts will decide the issue for us, for they're likely to dodge the issue by upholding the Maduro snatching as law enforcement. Jim Dueholm
A couple of comments and quibbles:
1. The winner of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was Edmundo Gonzalez, who ran in Maria Corina Machado's stead after she was kicked off the ballot.
2. Might not another motive for deposing Maduro have been to sweep away any argument for continuing Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans? Once their country has a legitimate government, they will have no grounds for claiming refugee status (though I suppose that some Democratic judge will declare that Tren de Aragua members face persecution if they return home).
3. It won't surprise me if the horde of white shoe lawyers who will show up to defend Mr. and Mrs. Maduro pro bono find a judge to grant them habeas corpus. Perhaps the Administration's best response, after a democratic government is installed, would be to extradite the Maduros to Caracas, where they would undoubtedly meet justice at the hands of the people whom they have most directly wronged.
Thank you for these comments and quibbles.
Totally agree with everything you said. But I'd like to add that a secondary, if not primary, consideration is that this action has probably neutralized any threat China might pose to Taiwan. Iran is effectively out of the oil business, and now Venezuela, at least so far as exporting to China is concerned. Without this oil, China's ability to sustain an invasion of Taiwan is significantly diminished.
As far as "international law" is concerned, I think the whole notion is rather specious and in reality, a great example of the "Golden Rule"; i.e., them that has the gold, makes the rules. Who enforces this? The UN? Don't make me laugh.
I agree there are questions about the legality of it. But given actions taken by Democratic administrations specifically Obama's protracted attack on Libya with the express purposes of overthrowing a dictator who posed no strategic threat to the U.S., done entirely without Congressional approval, I certainly dont intend to listen to any Democrats on this. In any event if a potentially illegal action is taken I prefer that it be lightning quick and serve American strategic purposes. Having a large and high oil producing South American country have a brutal Marxist dictatorship openly aligned with the Mullahs and Putin is definitely a national security threat and given Maduro's basic illegitimacy, this alone would justify what was done. And there clearly was no opportunity to get Congressional approval and given the current state of things, no possibility a Congressional committee could be trusted to keep the plan secret if told in advance. All of this is by way of saying I support the action but as always deployed Trump's horrible big mouth. I believe the opposition WILL get control of Venezuela and it likely will be Muchado or someone she is closely aligned with and Trump will have no problem with that. But as always he opened a can of worms and fed amo to those who hate him and us.
I know nothing about international law, but I believe that law enforcement had a lawful right to arrest this fugitive from justice. Trump offered many opportunity for Maduro to surrender.
I am in Spain with my Venezuelan daughter-in-law. I arrived on November 29th not knowing if she would be able to get a flight out of the country. Several flights we had booked were cancelled either by Maduro or the airlines. Thankfully, she arrived safely via Columbia. We have been staying in short term rentals waiting for whatever action the U.S. administration would take. My son’s petition to bring his wife to the U.S. was scheduled for determination of status on December 1st, the day the pause was put in place. They are in a holding pattern but I am very thankful we got her out. Her mother and sister are still there.
I was disappointed by Trump’s remark that Machado was not respected. The vast majority of Venezuelans love her. Perhaps he meant the transitional figures that still have a strong hold on the military and judiciary. I read on Don Surber this morning that Delcy Rodriguez fled to Russia. I have not confirmed that, but pray it is true. I hope Gonzalez returns next week as indicated, that Machado plays a key figure in the administration and the transition is smooth. And yes, I truly pray for a return to freedom and prosperity for Venezuelans.
Numerous provisions of Article II of the Constitution confer power on the president. He holds all executive power, a one man branch of government. He is commander in chief. He has a power and a duty to take care the laws are faithfully executed. I think Trump can point to all these powers to justify his Maduro snatch. As chief executive and commander in chief he can take action to protect the homeland and its citizens from foreign dangers. As commander in chief he can deploy the armed services without congressional approval as long as he is not waging war, and subject to the posse comitatus law as construed by the Supreme Court. I know what Trump did in Venezuela is an act of war, but not all acts of war are war for purposes of congressional power to declare war. American presidents almost from the constitutional jump have taken acts of war without a congressional declaration of war. Maduro has been indicted for numerous crimes under American law, with more likely to come, so Trump can reasonably argue that, in grabbing Maduro, he is executing American drug and other laws. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for the comment, Jim. Under your theory, the president -- any president including the ones you strongly dislike such as Joe Biden whom you have called the head of a "crime family"-- can unleash the military simply by claiming that unleashing it will protect Americans from foreign dangers. The president can do this even if his claim has no basis in fact and even if he doesn't believe the claim and is just using it as a pretext, e.g. to promote "crime family" interests.
Wisely, the Constitution does not permit such indiscriminate war-waging without congressional approval. It's true, of course, that the president is the commander-in-chief. This gives him the power to conduct war but not to declare it. The power to declare war rests unambiguously with Congress. The British monarch had the power both to declare and conduct war, but the Constitution explicitly rejected this model.
Indeed, as the legal scholar Jonathan Adler points out, the Constitution further grants Congress the power to “raise and support Armies,” to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces,” and to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” It is further up to Congress, not the President, to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations,” and to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” In short, while the President has operational control of the military once called into action, the Constitution vests Congress with substantial authority over whether and how military force is deployed and for what purposes.
Michael McConnell, another scholar and formerly a highly respected conservative jurist, adds that "the weight of the early evidence” supports the interpretation that “congressional authorization is required before the President may employ the armed forces in offensive military operations that constitute acts of war.” That's why John Adams sought legislative authorization to deploy naval forces against the French in the “Quasi-War” during his administration.
It's true that since Adams' time, some presidents have waged war without congressional authorization. Others have sought such authorization. Some didn't see any reason to wage war, so the issue of congressional authorization never came up.
Regardless, the Constitution requires authorization. Presidential violations don't change the requirement. Judicial precedents get stare decisis respect because in our system courts interpret the law authoritatively. No such doctrine or principle applies to presidential actions.
A more promising argument than your super-expansive view of presidential power is the narrow one you suggest at the end of your comment -- that Trump is executing American drug law. This is a reasonable argument. Whether it should carry the day is another matter.
I'm aware of the provisions you cite, but I don't think they supplant the president's power to command the armed forces to take action short of war, and I don't think all acts of war, such as the destruction of drug boats, the snatching of Maduro, or the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, are war for purposes of congressional power to declare war. As for the other constitutional provisions you cite, I'm aware of them, but I don't think they're intended or designed to supplant the president's power to command the armed forces to take action short of war. Take, for example, the congressional power to "define and punish piracies and felonies upon the high seas." When Trump takes out the drug boats he isn't defining or punishing piracies and felonies upon the high seas; he's eliminating a threat. And the president often shares power with Congress under these provisions. Lincoln adopted the Lieber Code to govern the conduct of Union forces, and to my knowledge nobody has suggested his action was at odds with congressional power to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Similarly, I'm sure the president could "make rules concerning captures on land and water" unless and until Congress dictated otherwise, for he would be compelled to in order to control his forces.
You cite Michael McConnell's statement that "the weight of the early evidence" supports the interpretation that "congressional authorization is required before the President may employ the armed forces in offensive operations that constitute acts of war." The reference to "the weight of evidence" suggests it's a debatable position. Besides that, I question the relevance of early evidence in this matter, for the power of and need for the president to act is dictated by modern circumstances, not the world of a bygone era. An explosive or drug laden boat speeding toward our shores leaves little time for congressional action, as would, for example, an Iran that had and was about to use nuclear bombs. At bottom, though, I just disagree with Mr. McConnell.
I agree the president's power could be abused under my concept of presidential power, but abuse of a power doesn't deny its existence. I also agree that, in Madero's case, the president's power to enforce laws is a better fit than his commander in chief power. Jim Dueholm
Thanks again, Jim. You are extremely knowledgeable about the Constitution, but we are completely at odds about this.
The consequences of your concept of presidential power leave so much room for abuse that it's extremely unlikely the framers of the Constitution, who were so concerned about checks and balances and abuses by a king-style executive, would have embraced that concept.
They did not. They precluded it, or tried to. They did so by unambiguously giving Congress and only Congress the power to declare war.
There are different kinds of war -- big ones, small ones, long ones, short ones -- but there's only one definition of war (except when the word is used metaphorically as in "war on drugs"). The notion that the Constitution allows for different rules for different kinds of wars is baseless.
There are, of course, borderline cases -- actions that might or might not be war. But our operation in Venezuela isn't one of them.
We used more than 150 aircraft, including F-22s, F, 35s, F-18s, EA18s, E-2s B-1, bombers and other support aircraft, as well as numerous remotely piloted drones. They hit multiple targets. We blacked out Caracas. We sent in ground forces who fought Venezuelans and Cubans. We captured and abducted the president of Venezuela and his wife. According to the latest reports I've seen, nearly 100 people were killed.
This is war under any rational understanding of the term. Therefore, the Constitution required congressional authorization.
There are those who believe we have a "living constitution" -- one that must be interpreted in light of "modern circumstances," as you put it. I don't share that view. I believe the Constitution must be interpreted based on its plain language as the weight of the evidence shows it to have been understood at the time of the framing. In my opinion, this originalist analysis yields only one conclusion about the subject of our debate.
I don't think this is a case of a living constitution, for it's a case of determining whether things like the Maduro snatch and the Iranian bombing are or are not war for purposes of congressional power to declare war as war was understood when the Constitution was adopted. I think war was understood, then as now, as armed conflict between nations. I think the definition requires mobilization and duration, not a one-off act of war. You believe these actions are war under the Constitution as adopted in 1787, and I believe they aren't. I don't think the twain can meet on the issue. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
At least we now seem to agree that this case turns on what war was understood to mean when the Constitution was adopted, not on the "need for the president to act [as] dictated by modern circumstances."
Beyond that, I don't think agreement is possible on this topic, so I'll end my participation with two observations.
First, it's clear to me that a one-off attack can be, and usually is, "war." For example, the 9/11 attacks were a one-off. Had they been carried out by a state, few would deny that this was war by that state against the U.S., especially if the attacks had included an assault on the White House and the kidnapping of Bush. (I'm not even sure I understand the distinction between an "act of war" and war itself.)
Second, I dispute that the attack on Venezuelan soil and the kidnapping of Maduro should be characterized as a one-off. It seems more like the climax of a military campaign by the U.S. to topple Maduro through force for the purpose of "running" Venezuela. The campaign includes sinking boats off the coast of Venezuela (accompanied by messages that Maduro needed to step down), interdicting ships carrying Venezuelan natural resources in a sort of naval blockade, and kidnapping the president, which required killing nearly 100 people. All without any authorization from Congress.
Agree to disagree. I would only note that my language you quote was inartful on my part. I didn't mean that the definition of war had changed, but only that in the modern era there can be hostile action short of war. As I said, I think war in 1787 and now was armed conflict between nations that contemplated some degree of extended action. I don't think, for example, that our strike on Iran or our killing of its top officer were war, and there was no need to tell Congress about either of them in advance, let alone get congressional approval. Where hostile action turns from war acts to war is a matter of opinion, and where we have to agree to disagree. I don't think the courts will decide the issue for us, for they're likely to dodge the issue by upholding the Maduro snatching as law enforcement. Jim Dueholm
I think democracy restoration was an implicit goal, and it probably motivated Rubio more than it did Trump. For what its worth, here's my take in NR this am: https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/01/maduros-last-exit-to-brooklyn/
Thanks for directing my attention to your excellent article, Michael.
I agree as to Rubio, but not Trump. Time will tell where democracy promotion ranks in the hierarchy of goals and if, ultimately, it ranks at all.