Trump Confirms US strikes in Venezuela, says President Nicolas Maduro Has Been 'Captured'

Originally posted by: Inigo Montoya

Part of the global currency reset fighting back against BRICS moving away from the dollar in 2026.  You can call it a grab for oil or a war on drugs, but it's bigger than that.  


I'm not for regime change and didn't vote for it.  But we don't know the full story.  VZ just installed $6B in Russian air defense and it wasn't used, so perhaps we paid off their military or Maduro gave up for secret concessions.  Wait and see.


 

It is a rather interesting pattern. Anytime a country starts selling oil in something other than US dollars it gets attacked or invaded by the US.

 

Russian equipment and logistics kind of sucks so I wouldn't be surprised if the air defense system just didn't work well. 

The US does not recognize the fraudelently elected maduro, so it is not a war/invasion but an extradition of a drug lord based on an indictment

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

So since you MAGA morons think that Trump has the right to kidnap/kill another nation's leader, even though Congress hasn't issued a declaration of war ...that means that Maduro has the right to send a commando team to kill Trump...si?

 

Iggo has it sort of right. This is a straight up robbery by Trump. Like Hitler, he wants to conquer other nations and steal their resources.


A declaration of war is no the only constitutional method to capture someone. Congress may issue letters of marque. This would allow assets to be seized and people to be captured on international waters but wouldn't constitutionally justify the invasion. 

Originally posted by: Boilerman

Finally we have a president who is willing to win and beat the bad guys.  This is wonderful.


What government function is more important to you?  "Getting the bad guys" or operating under the confines of the constitution? 

 

I would urge you to consider that the latter is much more important. 


Originally posted by: David Miller

   Precedent -- May be an image of text that says 'χ Marc Thiessen 1h All those complaining this was unlawful, George HW Bush did exactly the same thing in Operation Just Cause in Panama all without an AUMF from Congress. Ronald Reagan also invaded Grenada without an AUMF. So spare me the TDS about Trump trampling the Constitution and international law.'


That someone did so before you is not an excuse to violate the Constitution. It was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Obama did it, it was wrong when Clinton did it, it was wrong when the other Bush did it, it was wrong when Reagan did it, it's always wrong. 

 

The legislative declares war, the executive executes the war. That's how it's supposed to work. The separation of powers is important. My adoptive forefathers fought a brutal war against the British because they wanted presidents, not Kings. 

Originally posted by: tom

The US does not recognize the fraudelently elected maduro, so it is not a war/invasion but an extradition of a drug lord based on an indictment


Even if the leader is not recognized as a legitimate leader, the country itself is still a Sovereign. 

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

That someone did so before you is not an excuse to violate the Constitution. It was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Obama did it, it was wrong when Clinton did it, it was wrong when the other Bush did it, it was wrong when Reagan did it, it's always wrong. 

 

The legislative declares war, the executive executes the war. That's how it's supposed to work. The separation of powers is important. My adoptive forefathers fought a brutal war against the British because they wanted presidents, not Kings. 


       Where is the "violation" you speak of in the Constitution? 

Originally posted by: David Miller

       Where is the "violation" you speak of in the Constitution? 


He already explained that, but maybe he used too many big words?

 

Let me try, using your comprehension level:

 

PREZIDUNT NO CAN KILL PEEPUL IN OTHER CUNTREES UNLESS THERE IS WAR.

 

Get it now?

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

A declaration of war is no the only constitutional method to capture someone. Congress may issue letters of marque. This would allow assets to be seized and people to be captured on international waters but wouldn't constitutionally justify the invasion. 


So would MAGA be happy with Maduro or some other leader issuing letters of marque against Trump and capturing Air Force One as soon as it left US territory?

 

As I understand it, US presidents can't issue such letters unilaterally, so once again, Congressional approval would be needed.

 

Of course, Turdiffs required Congressional approval as well, but Trump ignored that requirement. He obviously thinks that the Constitution is just toilet tissue.

So it's Constitutional when a Democrat bombs and kills people in a foreign country while not at war, yet it's unconstitutional when Trump does the same.  Thanks for clarifying.  Trump is putting an end to Venezuela killing our people.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now