Historical precedents

2,393 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by ts5641
KingofHazor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I asked Gemini AI to list all historical precedents for what happened in Venezuela, i.e., the use of force by a President in a foreign country without prior Congressional authorization. As it turns out, the precedents go back to the earliest days of the Republic, followed by almost continuous precedents throughout our history:

18th & 19th Centuries (Founding 1900)
Undeclared Hostilities & Limited Force
  • 17981800 Quasi-War with France (naval engagements) undeclared naval conflict. Congressional Research
  • 18011805 First Barbary War (North Africa) naval/landing operations against pirates without a formal declaration of war. Congressional Research
  • 1815 Second Barbary War U.S. squadron attacks Algerian forces; no U.S. declaration of war. Congressional Research
  • Numerous 19th-century "Small Wars" Marines/naval forces landed in Latin America, the Caribbean, Central America, and Asia to protect U.S. interests, often without prior Congressional declaration (e.g., interventions in Nicaragua, Uruguay, China). Congressional Research
Quote:

Note: These early deployments often lacked formal congressional declarations, though some later received funding.


20th Century (19011999)
Major Undeclared Wars & Campaigns
  • 19501953 Korean War engaged under U.N. auspices without a U.S. declaration of war. Congress.gov
  • 19641973 Vietnam War (Escalation) U.S. combat expanded after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (a broad authorization, not a war declaration). Congress.gov
Regional Interventions & Strikes
  • Lebanon Peacekeeping & Beirut 1982-83 Marines sent without specific prior approval. X (formerly Twitter)
  • 1983 Invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) no specific prior congressional authorization. X (formerly Twitter)
  • 1986 Bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon) U.S. air strikes without prior congressional approval. Wikipedia
  • 1989 Invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause) removed Noriega without a war declaration. X (formerly Twitter)
  • 1998 Operation Infinite Reach cruise-missile strikes on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan (no new congressional authorization). Wikipedia
21st Century (2001Onward)
Quote:

_After 9/11, Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) a broad, continuing authorization often interpreted as permitting many actions without new specific approvals. However, for many uses listed below, no new congressional authorization was sought or passed.*

Drone Strikes, Targeted Killings, Special Operations
  • 2001present Global drone strikes & special operations against al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Philippines, etc. These were conducted under the 2001 AUMF or presidential authority without specific congressional re-authorization for each strike. X (formerly Twitter)+1
  • 2002 Marib airstrike (Yemen) CIA drone killed AQ leader and others; no separate congressional approval. Wikipedia
  • 2011 Killing of American Anwar al-Awlaki (Yemen) U.S. drone strike targeting an American citizen without trial or prior congressional authorization. Congress.gov
  • 2011 Raid killing Osama bin Laden (Pakistan) SEAL special operation conducted without prior congressional vote (only later notification). X (formerly Twitter)
Major Campaigns without Specific Prior Authorization
  • 2011 Libya Intervention (Operation Odyssey Dawn) U.S. air operations enforcing a no-fly zone under NATO/UN without a specific U.S. congressional authorization. Wikipedia
  • 20142017 Airstrikes vs. ISIS in Iraq/Syria initiated under broad AUMFs but without a distinct new congressional authorization. X (formerly Twitter)
  • 2017 Raid on Yakla (Yemen) U.S. special forces killed militants and civilians; authorized by the executive without fresh congressional approval. Wikipedia
Recent and Ongoing Presidential Actions Without Prior Congressional Approval
(Examples from 20212025.)
  • 2021 Airstrikes in Syria (Biden) against Iran-backed militia without specific congressional authorization. X (formerly Twitter)
  • 2024 U.S. strikes on Houthi targets (Biden) in Yemen without a new congressional authorization. X (formerly Twitter)
  • 2025 Airstrike on Venezuelan cartel vessel (Trump) in the Caribbean under executive authority with no congressional approval; legal experts question the basis. Reuters
  • 2025 Aerial strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities (Trump) ordered without prior congressional authorization (debated as outside existing war powers). X (formerly Twitter)
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Donroe Doctrine, 2026.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
chickenfingers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this an attempt to say what he did was right?
BTKAG97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How does the War Powers Act of 1973 dictate the President "consult" with Congress?

Is a brief discussion with the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House meet that condition?
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is thay tje one where he has 30 or some amount of days to go to congress after the action?
KingofHazor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chickenfingers said:

Is this an attempt to say what he did was right?

Although I do believe that what Trump did was right, that's not the point of my post. The point of my post was to say that what Trump did was both legal and Constitutional, as shown by 225 years of precedent.
AGpops1923
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chickenfingers said:

Is this an attempt to say what he did was right?


No. But common sense says it was.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Only reason Congress gets pissed off on not being informed prior is it messes up their expected stock returns if they cannot trade on such information.

No other reason they care
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Somebody knew
Highway6
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

Only reason Congress gets pissed off on not being informed prior is it messes up their expected stock returns if they cannot trade on such information.

No other reason they care

Or maybe many members of Congress are taking money from the cartels. They hate it when their gravy train gets derailed.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All the above.
BTKAG97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who?mikejones! said:

Is thay tje one where he has 30 or some amount of days to go to congress after the action?

Quote:

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress BEFORE introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.


This is what the Dems always get their panties in knots over every time a Republican President issues military orders.

There's no clear definition of what "consult" means.
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It certainly doesnt say must
Claude!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who?mikejones! said:



Somebody knew

Huh, I wouldn't have expected the President to give Dan Crenshaw a heads up as to the action.
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Highway6 said:

flown-the-coop said:

Only reason Congress gets pissed off on not being informed prior is it messes up their expected stock returns if they cannot trade on such information.

No other reason they care

Or maybe many members of Congress are taking money from the cartels. They hate it when their gravy train gets derailed.


This.
1. Drug dealer gets indicted
2. In order to enforce our laws, drug dealer is caught
3. Drug dealer will go to trial
4. Those profiting from drug dealer go REEEEEEEE

Some things are not hard.
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who?mikejones! said:

It certainly doesnt say must

A distinction without a difference. If Congress decides not to enforce it, it's all moot anyways.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No modern president can consult with cobgrsss before a sensitive military action because one of the turds will leak it to try to disrupt the action if it at all serves their own political interests against administration policy.

You could easily say operational security is why this is no longer possible.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Even Oliver Cromwell figured out 400 years ago you cannot run a nation it 500 "chiefs".

Trump should ignore Congress or gut the filibuster.

Trump, Lord Protectorate of the Great Western Hemisphere even has a nice ring to it.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MouthBQ98 said:

No modern president can consult with cobgrsss before a sensitive military action because one of the turds will leak it to try to disrupt the action if it at all serves their own political interests against administration policy.

You could easily say operational security is why this is no longer possible.

And need to know. They may have security clearance but they have zero need to know beforehand. That is particularly true when they truly don't don't know when the operation will actually commence. Which they did not until Trump was advised the conditions they were waiting on were a GO!.
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who?mikejones! said:

It certainly doesnt say must

Yep, it says "shall" and it says "in every possible instance." I'd hang my hat on the latter. Due to the treasonous nature of many democrats and the media, I do not think, in this instance, it was possible to consult with Congress without jeopardizing the operation and running the risk of getting Americans killed.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
one safe place said:

Who?mikejones! said:

It certainly doesnt say must

Yep, it says "shall" and it says "in every possible instance." I'd hang my hat on the latter. Due to the treasonous nature of many democrats and the media, I do not think, in this instance, it was possible to consult with Congress without jeopardizing the operation and running the risk of getting Americans killed.

One of the R congressmen was on Fox just a bit ago and said they had confirmed there would be leaks if the suggested briefings would have occurred.

If Hakeem wants to push this, I think Trump is ready to let them know who has been leaking and let them explain themselves.
pressitup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Only reason Congress gets pissed off on not being informed prior is it messes up their expected stock returns if they cannot trade on such information.

No other reason they care


This is their end game for everything.
.........and if you wanna hear God laugh, tell him your plans.
Matt_ag98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

No modern president can consult with cobgrsss before a sensitive military action because one of the turds will leak it to try to disrupt the action if it at all serves their own political interests against administration policy.

You could easily say operational security is why this is no longer possible.



This...Soooooo many on the take on all sorts of things here in DC
FobTies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who?mikejones! said:



Somebody knew

This happens nearly every day with stocks.
ts5641
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Surprised Google's AI would even give you the truth.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.