With the economy on the mend and other pressing issues losing traction, Democrats are increasingly looking to impeachment as a rallying cry in Washington. As the midterm elections approach, they’re promising voters to revitalize impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. For many on the left, this has morphed into a captivating legal showdown.
Recently, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), a candidate facing a left-wing challenger, has put forth the idea that Trump might be impeached due to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Interestingly, those who once pushed for what could be termed an “instant impeachment” against Trump are now suggesting he could face such measures for actions that were previously sanctioned by the courts.
Goldman contended that the operation against Maduro represented an undeclared war, which he argued did not align with grounds for impeachment.
Expressions of shock regarding this operation seem somewhat disingenuous, especially coming from leaders who were silent when similar actions were taken by Democratic presidents.
There weren’t calls for impeachment when President Bill Clinton acted in Bosnia, nor when President Barack Obama engaged in military action in Libya. In fact, I represented some Congress members who opposed Obama’s actions in Libya, asserting that, like Trump, he bypassed Congressional approval to intervene internationally.
On top of that, there’s an evident amnesia among Democrats, blended with a striking lack of knowledge. Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia, speaking on national television, claimed, “The Constitution does not give the president the right to initiate military action.” However, that’s a bit misleading.
While the president can’t formally declare war, he definitely can order military actions without such a declaration. Kaine doesn’t seem bothered by past Democratic presidents conducting foreign operations without consulting Congress. This includes Obama’s controversial drone strikes that targeted American citizens.
Some Democrats in both houses have even voiced support for military actions in various forms.
The debate surrounding undeclared wars is one I personally think deserves attention, yet I find myself questioning whether the president possesses legal authority, as per existing legal precedents, to take such actions. In fact, Trump has that authority, and attempts to challenge such unilateral actions in court have largely failed.
Take the case of Manuel Noriega, the former Panamanian dictator; it led to military engagement and regime change in a similar manner, even facing scrutiny all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where his claims of immunity were rejected.
Claims by Maduro hold even less weight. Though he insists he remains president after being ousted in the last election, many nations refuse to acknowledge his legitimacy, similar to the stance on Congressman Goldman’s assertions.
Voices against military interventions under international law exist, and indeed, countries like China and Russia might leverage such arguments. But ultimately, this decision hinges on U.S. legal standards. The Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, recently called out the actions as violating the UN Charter, but it will be Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution that decides these matters.
Circling back to the topic of impeachment, Goldman and others are contemplating charges against Trump that closely mirror the rationale behind Noriega’s arrest—grounds that courts have deemed lawful. Even without any criminal allegations, these actions resemble those taken by numerous presidents, including Democrats, over two decades.
Neither the lessons of history nor constitutional principles seem to hold much weight in the current impeachment landscape.
In a nod to the film Gladiator, where Emperor Commodus remarks on the historical inaccuracies of the reenactments, it’s evident that the political theater surrounding impeachment leans more toward spectacle than substantive governance. For figures like Goldman, calling for impeachment feels akin to inciting a mob.
Senator Gracchus’s words ring true: he knew Rome well; it functions more as a distraction than a bastion of order. Yet somehow, that allure of crisis keeps them engaged.
