- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Constitutional Scholar tell SFP and Roger and his merry orgy band how wrong they are
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:21 pm
10
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:23 pm to Jjdoc
In an extraordinary military operation, the United States launched a large-scale military operation in Caracas, Venezuela, early Saturday, with Special Forces seizing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. There is a pending 2020 indictment of Maduro in the Southern District of New York, where he is expected to be taken to face prosecution…
This operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega. There is precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela…
Democratic members quickly denounced the operation as unlawful. They may want to review past cases, particularly the decision related to the Noriega prosecution after his capture by the administration of President George H.W. Bush…
Trump does not need congressional approval for this type of operation. Presidents, including Democratic presidents, have launched lethal attacks regularly against individuals. President Barack Obama killed an American citizen under this “kill list” policy. If Obama can vaporize an American citizen without even a criminal charge, Trump can capture a foreign citizen with a pending criminal indictment without prior congressional approval.
This operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega. There is precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela…
Democratic members quickly denounced the operation as unlawful. They may want to review past cases, particularly the decision related to the Noriega prosecution after his capture by the administration of President George H.W. Bush…
Trump does not need congressional approval for this type of operation. Presidents, including Democratic presidents, have launched lethal attacks regularly against individuals. President Barack Obama killed an American citizen under this “kill list” policy. If Obama can vaporize an American citizen without even a criminal charge, Trump can capture a foreign citizen with a pending criminal indictment without prior congressional approval.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:27 pm to Jjdoc
Harrumph!
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:34 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Constitutional Scholar tell SFP and Roger and his merry orgy band
Speaking of this, has anyone seen Bunk since this happened? I'm starting to wonder if he was caught up in the raid.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:37 pm to Jjdoc
You’d swear the TDS victims think Trump didn’t ask if it was legal and defensible before authorization.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:37 pm to AlterEd
I think she moved in with Roger so they can cuddle and sky scream together..
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:38 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Speaking of this, has anyone seen Bunk since this happened?
I heard He’s busy rebuilding the Chavez memorial that we bombed on the way out
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:38 pm to GooseSix
I really would have expected him to be all over this story, but I haven't seen him at all. Maybe his money source just instantly vanished.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:39 pm to ShoeBang
quote:
I heard He’s busy rebuilding the Chavez memorial that we bombed on the way out
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:39 pm to Jjdoc
Similar take from National Review - John Yoo
quote:
As in those past conflicts, President Trump’s toppling of Maduro has triggered an avalanche of criticism from the congressional opposition. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren called the attack “unconstitutional” and a threat to drag the U.S. into further regional conflicts. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) condemned the action as “reckless.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said he would push for a vote on a resolution to limit further military action without explicit authorization by Congress. We should ask whether critics of President Trump today maintained the same position on Libya, Serbia, and even Panama, or whether their constitutional principles depend on the political party controlling the White House. In all of these cases, presidents of both parties used force to topple a dictator who posed a threat, in their judgment, to American national security. They relied on their authority as commander in chief and president, in whom Article II of the Constitution “vests” “the executive Power” of the United States. Those who claim that these presidents must seek a congressional permission slip misread the Constitution’s text, structure, and history. If Congress believes a president has acted illegally, it has plenty of tools at hand, including the power of the purse and, ultimately, impeachment.
quote:
But because yesterday’s attack on Caracas confirms that the United States is in a state of war with Venezuela does not mean that Congress must consent before the warships moved onto station, the aircraft launched, and the special forces hit the ground. The declare-war clause simply does not convey that power to Congress, and critics must concede that historical practice by presidents and Congress denies such an understanding. When the Framers ratified the Constitution, they would not have understood a declaration of war as necessary to initiate hostilities. The Constitution took the phrase “declare war” from British constitutional practice, which, as Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), one of the leading authorities consulted by the Framers explains, was among the powers held by the Crown. The British, and their colonial brethren, did not understand declarations of war as serving the domestic function of constitutional authorization but rather as defining the legal status of hostilities under international law. In the one hundred years preceding the Constitution, the British waged more than a dozen wars, but they declared war only once before fighting began. When declarations did appear, they usually came months or years after the start of the conflict. Declarations served as formal notices to other sovereigns of the legal status between countries at war and provided a public recitation of grievances. This would have been familiar to the Founding generation, which had fought a war in North America (the Seven Years’ War) well before a formal declaration of war was issued. The Declaration of Independence itself was a declaration of war — which was issued a year after fighting had begun at Lexington and Concord.
quote:
History has fulfilled the Framers’ design. For more than two centuries, neither presidents nor Congresses have required Congress to declare a war before the president could fight it. The United States has used force abroad more than a hundred times, but Congress has issued declarations only five times: 1812, 1848, 1898, 1917, and 1941. In other conflicts, such as in 1991, 2001, and 2002, Congress has passed authorizations to use military force. In still others, presidents acted without any formal congressional approval. Presidents have sent troops unilaterally to oppose the Russian Revolution, chase Mexican rebels, defend South Korea, and topple regimes in Panama, Serbia, and Libya.
This post was edited on 1/4/26 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:53 pm to AlterEd
quote:
has anyone seen Bunk since thi
Bunk has started a Flotilla out of Cuba on the way to Venezuela.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:55 pm to KingOrange
quote:
Bunk has started a Flotilla out of Cuba on the way to Venezuela.
I hear Greta is riding shotgun.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:56 pm to Jjdoc
Yoo wrote a good piece on this in National Review today.
This post was edited on 1/4/26 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:57 pm to Jjdoc
Turley is absolutely correct that the Noriega case was more clearly proper, for a variety of reasons.
The Maduro capture does also seem to be within the bounds of the Noriega cases under US law. I have seen no one argue otherwise.
The question raised is whether this capture (and by implication Noriega) is consistent with our obligations under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
The Maduro capture does also seem to be within the bounds of the Noriega cases under US law. I have seen no one argue otherwise.
The question raised is whether this capture (and by implication Noriega) is consistent with our obligations under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:58 pm to Jjdoc
SFPDS
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:59 pm to Jjdoc
SFP is a law professor at Velvet Jones Institute of Technology.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 1:01 pm to ShoeBang
quote:
I heard He’s busy rebuilding the Chavez memorial that we bombed on the way out
Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, and Danny Glover must be devastated. Those fools actually traveled to Venezuela and campaigned for Hugo Chavez. Of course, his election was the beginning of the end for Venezuela.
And, of course, none of those idiots have ever been held accountable for what they did.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 1:02 pm to the808bass
quote:
Harrumph!
Posted on 1/4/26 at 1:08 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The question raised is whether this capture (and by implication Noriega) is consistent with our obligations under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Here’s an opinion on that
On the Legality of the Venezuela Invasion
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News