Constitutional Courage: The Senate's Bipartisan Stand Against Unauthorized Military Action

The Historic Vote for Congressional War Powers

In a remarkable display of constitutional fidelity, the United States Senate delivered a powerful rebuke to presidential overreach by advancing S.J. Res. 98, a war powers resolution to halt unauthorized U.S. military action in Venezuela. The 52-47 vote saw five Republican senators—Todd Young of Indiana, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky—join their Democratic colleagues in asserting Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority to authorize military force. This bipartisan coalition, including Democratic sponsor Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and surprisingly Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, represents a rare moment of institutional courage in an era of intense partisan polarization.

The resolution specifically directs “the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.” This vote came just days after U.S. special forces conducted a surprise raid on Caracas, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who now face federal drug and conspiracy charges. The military operation resulted in significant casualties, with Venezuelan officials claiming over 100 deaths including 32 Cuban citizens, and seven U.S. troops injured according to Pentagon reports.

Constitutional Context and Historical Precedent

The Founding Fathers deliberately placed the power to declare war in the hands of Congress under Article I of the Constitution, while assigning the President the role of Commander-in-Chief under Article II. This separation of powers was intended to prevent the concentration of war-making authority in a single executive, reflecting the framers’ deep suspicion of monarchical power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over President Nixon’s veto in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, further codified this constitutional principle by requiring congressional authorization for sustained military engagements.

Despite this clear constitutional framework, successive administrations from both parties have gradually expanded executive war powers through controversial interpretations of congressional authorizations and assertions of inherent presidential authority. The current administration’s actions in Venezuela represent perhaps the most audacious claim of unilateral executive war power in modern history, undertaken without any congressional consultation or authorization.

The Administration’s Response and Constitutional Dismissiveness

President Trump’s reaction to this constitutional check was telling and deeply concerning. On his Truth Social platform, he declared that the Republican senators who supported the resolution “should never be elected to office again” and claimed that the War Powers Act is “unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution.” The White House issued a statement indicating the president would veto the resolution if it reached his desk, defending the apprehension of Maduro as a “law enforcement operation” supported by military strikes.

Even more alarmingly, Vice President JD Vance suggested during a White House press briefing that the measure would be unenforceable and that the vote would not curtail the administration’s actions. “Every president, Democrat or Republican, believes the War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” he stated, adding that “It’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy.” This dismissive attitude toward congressional war powers represents a dangerous erosion of constitutional norms that should concern every American regardless of political affiliation.

The Courage of Constitutional Conservatives

The Republican senators who broke with their party displayed exceptional courage and constitutional integrity. Senator Young’s statement perfectly captured the proper balance between supporting necessary military operations and upholding congressional authority: “Today’s Senate vote is about potential future military action, not completed successful operations… any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress.”

Senator Collins similarly distinguished between supporting Maduro’s capture and authorizing ongoing military involvement: “The resolution I have supported today does not include any language related to the removal operation. Rather, it reaffirms Congress’s ability to authorize or limit any future sustained military activity in Venezuela.” Senator Hawley provided the most concise constitutional interpretation: “With regard to Venezuela, my read of the Constitution is that if the President feels the need to put boots on the ground there in the future, Congress would need to vote on it.”

These statements reflect a sophisticated understanding of constitutional principles that transcends partisan loyalty. They recognize that defending the Constitution sometimes requires challenging one’s own party leadership—a form of patriotism that has become unfortunately rare in contemporary politics.

The Dangerous Precedent of Unilateral Military Action

The administration’s actions in Venezuela establish several dangerous precedents that should alarm constitutional conservatives and civil libertarians alike. First, the characterization of the operation as primarily a “law enforcement” action despite involving military strikes and special forces raids creates a concerning blurring of lines between police actions and military operations. This expansion of executive power could potentially be used to justify virtually any military intervention under the guise of law enforcement.

Second, the administration’s claim that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional represents a direct assault on the separation of powers. While debates about the specific provisions of the War Powers Resolution are legitimate, the outright rejection of Congress’s authority to limit presidential war powers fundamentally undermines the constitutional structure. As Senator Paul, the resolution’s Republican co-sponsor, has consistently argued, no single person should have the power to commit the nation to war without congressional approval.

Third, the significant casualties resulting from the operation—over 100 reported deaths according to Venezuelan officials—raise serious moral and legal questions about the proportionality and necessity of the military force employed. While removing a dictator like Maduro may be desirable, the means and methods must comply with both domestic and international law.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Congressional War Powers

This Senate vote represents not just a single act of resistance but a potential turning point in the struggle to reclaim congressional war powers. As Senator Kaine noted, even if the president vetoes the resolution, the congressional action can still influence executive behavior, as occurred with similar legislation regarding Iran in 2020. “The president then backed off for the remainder of his first term because he heard the voices of the American public through the votes of Congress,” Kaine observed.

The bipartisan nature of this effort is particularly significant. The resolution has companion legislation in the House sponsored by Democratic Representative Jim McGovern and Republican Representative Thomas Massie, demonstrating that constitutional principles can still unite across party lines. This coalition-building around first principles is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they created a system of competing branches and divided powers.

The Moral Imperative of Constitutional Governance

Beyond the legal and constitutional arguments lies a deeper moral imperative. The power to send young Americans into harm’s way—to decide matters of life and death on a massive scale—is the most profound responsibility government possesses. The Founders understood that this decision must not rest with one person alone but must involve the collective wisdom of the people’s representatives.

As Max Rose, an Afghanistan war veteran and former Democratic congressman, powerfully stated: “It is sad that it has come to the point where a simple affirmation of the ‘declare war’ clause of the Constitution is news, but it is nonetheless a good day when Republicans join Democrats in telling Donald Trump that this is not ‘his military’ as much as he wants it to be his. It belongs to America.”

This sentiment captures the essence of why this Senate vote matters. The military does not belong to any president—it belongs to the American people, and through their elected representatives in Congress, the people must have a voice in when and how that military is deployed in harm’s way.

Conclusion: A Victory for Constitutional Democracy

The Senate’s bipartisan stand represents a victory for constitutional democracy at a time when such victories have become increasingly rare. It demonstrates that our system of checks and balances can still function when elected officials remember their primary allegiance is to the Constitution rather than to party or president.

This moment should serve as a reminder to all Americans that defending our constitutional system requires constant vigilance and occasional courage. The senators who crossed party lines to support this resolution deserve recognition for putting country before party and principle before politics. Their actions reaffirm that no president—regardless of party—has unilateral authority to commit the nation to war without congressional approval.

As this resolution moves forward, all Americans who value constitutional government should urge their representatives to support this reassertion of congressional war powers. The preservation of our republic depends on maintaining the delicate balance of power the Founders established, and today’s Senate vote represents an important step in that direction. The courage shown by these senators should inspire all of us to demand that our leaders uphold their constitutional obligations above all other considerations.