Dems’ Venezuela hypocrisy ignores truth — ‘war powers’ rules are dead

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine promises he’ll refile a War Powers resolution in the Senate demanding President Donald Trump ask for congressional approval before launching any military strikes against Venezuela.

A similar bill failed by a 49-51 vote in the Senate last month.

Why does the bill specify “Trump” and “Venezuela?” For the same reason a similar bill in June specified “Trump” and “Iran.”

Democrats aren’t seriously concerned about constitutional war powers. They’re grandstanding.

After all, there’s no need for any resolutions or bills.

We already have Article I of the Constitution, which explicitly confers the power to declare war with Congress and no one else.

There’s no exemption for either party in the text.

But we also have the War Powers Resolution.

In 1973, Congress, which at that time still occasionally defended its constitutional role, overrode President Richard Nixon’s veto and passed a law limiting the president’s ability to use military force without congressional consent.

The executive branch was now theoretically obliged to consult with Congress within 48 hours of an attack, or as soon as there was imminent involvement.

The ensuing military actions would be limited to 60 or 90 days, unless Congress authorized it.

Virtually every White House ignores this.

Presidents have been trying to circumvent Congress on the issue of war since President Thomas Jefferson sent the nascent American Navy to deal with Islamic pirates who were enslaving Americans and disrupting trade.

Needless to say, war has only become more kinetic and complex since then, so presidents have been given lots of leeway to react to fluid situations.

All presidents felt the need at least to justify military action with a patina of constitutional reasoning.

Until 2011, that is, when then-President Barack Obama authorized military strikes on Libya’s air defenses to protect Islamic rebels from attack.

Obama did something new: He informed Congress that his authority for military action was derived from a mandate of the United Nations Security Council.

While most presidents circumvented the Constitution, the notion that an international organization — not to mention one with permanent seats for communist China and totalitarian Russia — had any authority to dictate American military deployment was a direct attack on US self-determination.

Yet Democratic senators praised Obama’s Libya campaign as “cautious and thoughtful.”

Partisans on both sides only pretend to care about war powers when it’s convenient.

Increasingly, this is a problem on all fronts of constitutional governance.

Now, Trump has a strong case to make for stemming the influx of illicit drugs coming from Latin America.

The Justice Department reportedly told lawmakers that the president doesn’t need congressional permission to destroy drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific because the strikes don’t meet the definition of “hostilities.”

They argue that “narco-terrorists,” a misnomer now popular on the right, are using money from trafficking drugs to finance their war against the United States and its allies.

It is highly unlikely that narco-traffickers are interested in America’s geopolitical fortunes.

“Terrorism” has a precise definition, which entails the use of violence or threats of violence aimed at a civilian population or government to achieve political or ideological objectives.

Drug smugglers are powerful criminals, occasionally supported by nation-states, who attack our sovereignty.

But they aren’t typically engaged in terrorism, even if that word is helpful in your legal and political arguments.

If there’s a good case to be made for striking them, Congress should see the evidence.

Because once guided missiles start making a regular appearance, we are engaged in real-world “hostilities.”

And if a foreign nation is enabling or inciting the influx, it’s completely reasonable for the United States to retaliate.

Trump has also threatened to close Venezuelan airspace — an act of war —  and has reportedly told the nation’s strongman, Nicolás Maduro, to leave the country and allow for regime change.

Now perhaps he’s just trying to scare Maduro into curbing the narco-traffickers, or perhaps he means to destroy the country’s production facilities and drug-trafficking routes.

Either would also be war.

Conflicts are messy and unpredictable, and they often cross administrations.

If Trump wants open-ended permission to deal with Latin American drug cartels, he should go to Congress and let Democrats either vote it down or buy in.

Not only would that be beneficial politically, it would also reassert some semblance of constitutional order.

Don’t get me wrong, though, I’m not living in a fantastical world where I believe any president will relinquish power.

At this point, demanding politicians abide by constitutional norms is a lost cause.

But war powers? They’re already dead. They’ve been dead for a long time.

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. X: @davidharsanyi