The Southern California Republican delegation recently voted against measures that aimed to limit President Donald Trump’s military actions in Venezuela. This decision raises questions about the delegation’s stance on executive power and military engagement without congressional approval.
On October 25, 2023, two resolutions were presented in the House of Representatives. The first sought to restrict the President’s ability to conduct military operations against groups he designates as terrorists, such as drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere. This resolution was rejected by a vote of 216 to 210, with several local representatives, including Ken Calvert, Young Kim, Jay Obernolte, and Darrell Issa, voting against it.
Critics argue that these military actions, allegedly aimed at combating drug trafficking, are unlawful without congressional authorization. Rep. Norma Torres stated, “The President has no authority to launch military strikes without congressional approval in the Caribbean or Pacific.” She emphasized the importance of cooperation and lawful measures in addressing drug trafficking rather than resorting to military action. Torres voted in favor of the resolution, advocating for a return to legislative oversight in matters of war.
The second resolution sought to formally direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Venezuela that lacked congressional authorization. This proposal also failed, albeit with a narrower margin of 213 to 211. Rep. Thomas Massie highlighted the necessity of congressional approval before any war-making decisions, arguing that “when war-making power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves.” Only Massie, along with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Don Bacon from the Republican Party, voted in favor of this resolution.
The failure of these resolutions reflects a broader trend within Congress, where many representatives appear to support the President’s expanding military authority. Critics have described this as a troubling shift away from the principles of checks and balances that underpin the U.S. government.
As the debate continues, concerns about the implications of unchecked presidential power remain at the forefront. The Southern California GOP delegation’s decisions underscore a significant divide regarding the approach to U.S. foreign policy and military intervention, particularly in Latin America.
In the context of ongoing discussions about the role of the U.S. in global affairs, questions linger about whether the strategy of acting as a global “policeman” is justified or effective. Observers are left to wonder how these legislative choices will impact the future of U.S. engagement in Venezuela and across the region.
