President Donald Trump’s planned actions against Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro may not receive formal Congressional approval, which would seem, I guess, somewhat desired by some. But it’s probably unnecessary. In fact, those familiar with the precedents regarding presidential authority in foreign matters, as outlined in Article II of the Constitution, understand that such actions are generally deemed constitutional unless challenged successfully through impeachment or a Supreme Court ruling—both of which seem quite unlikely given the historical context regarding presidential power.
The Louisiana Purchase marked one of the earliest and most significant uses of presidential power in American history.
To summarize what Article II grants the President: “Executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States….The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called to the actual service of the United States…”
This brief excerpt delineates the powers of these sovereign officials. A notable example is President Thomas Jefferson’s acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. Even though Jefferson questioned his authority to make such a move, he acted decisively, prioritizing the nation’s interests.
Trump currently wields a similar breadth of power. Previous presidents like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have acknowledged this through military actions, such as drone strikes and engagements in Libya and the Balkans.
Recently, various “fraud law experts” have expressed views on Trump’s decision to target a drug smuggling vessel. This includes well-respected legal figures, as well as some who are simply students or activists. But there’s a newer group on social media that may be less credible, claiming to represent a “former JAG working group.” Their credibility is reminiscent of questionable narratives like the “Hunter Biden Emails” situation.
On the other hand, some are genuinely worried that Trump might escalate military actions against Maduro’s regime and drug cartels. They allege he is breaching “international law,” yet they exhibit a lack of balanced understanding regarding the constitutional powers vested in any president, regardless of their political affiliations.
The Constitution’s principles remain unchanged with each presidential transition. Thus, President Trump’s authority echoes that of historical figures like Washington and Lincoln, and all presidents in between.
Certain legal consultants reference Justice Jackson’s stance in the steel seizure case, asserting its relevance. However, any unilateral presidential action needs to be viewed in light of various Supreme Court rulings that address this domain extensively. If an expert fails to mention these vital opinions, they might not be worth listening to at all.
It appears that many of these “experts” overlook the significant U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Company (1936) ruling, which emphasized that political society needs a supreme authority to function. This case is often introduced in law schools when discussing Article II, demonstrating the president’s vast powers over foreign affairs.
Another critical case is Dames & Moore v. Reagan (1981), which addressed a significant use of presidential power to free American hostages in Iran. This case illustrates the extent of executive authority, even as it sometimes disregards citizens’ rights within the judicial framework.
Judge Rehnquist emphasized the narrow focus of his ruling, suggesting it wasn’t meant to set sweeping guidelines. Yet, his observations clarify the ongoing tension inherent in exercising such powers.
As it stands, Trump’s orders to target drug traffickers haven’t escalated to the level of a major military intervention like George H. W. Bush’s Panama invasion in 1989. However, should Congress intervene and demand he cease operations against drug vessels, that could shift the constitutional discussion.
The foundation laid out by Curtiss-Wright, affirming the president’s expansive power, suggests that criminal regimes harming citizens should be aware of the legal frameworks at play rather than relying on cherry-picked “expert” opinions.
