The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law) "On the Legality of the Venezuela Invasion"
This isn't my field, so I can't offer any independent judgment on it—but it is Goldsmith's, and I generally think his work is well-informed, thoughtful, and fair-minded, so I thought I'd pass along his analysis. Here's his Conclusion:
In sum, it would not be terribly hard for the Justice Department to write an opinion in support of the Venezuela invasion even if the military action violates the U.N. Charter.
To repeat, that does not mean that the action is in fact lawful—and it pretty clearly isn't under the U.N. Charter. It only means that the long line of unilateral executive branch actions, supported by promiscuously generous executive branch precedents, support it. As I wrote in connection with the Soleimani strike: "our country has—through presidential aggrandizement accompanied by congressional authorization, delegation, and acquiescence—given one person, the president, a sprawling military and enormous discretion to use it in ways that can easily lead to a massive war. That is our system: One person decides."
This is not the system the framers had in mind, and it is a dangerous system for all the reasons the framers worried about. But that is where we are—and indeed, it is where we have been for a while.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
So we’re just going to pretend that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution doesn’t mention treaties? You people are pathetic.
LOL!
Stay mad, sideline spectator.
In some countries treaties are supreme to domestic law. In the United states domestic law can overrule treaties, even self-executing treaties. Any country which believes the United States has violated a treaty can protest.
Lol the Europoor has an opinion
Eurotrash: LOL, LOL, LOL! This is especially amusing. Try taking care of your own backyard (yes, UKR). We know how to tend ours.
The Supremacy Clause — as the name implies — is primarily about the relationship between the federal and state governments. So, yes, a treaty — if self-executing, which we generally don't believe in — supersedes state law.
Interesting - I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. So the heirarchy would go as follows, right?
1 - US Constitution
2 - Federal statute (which therefore includes any non-self-executing treaty that has an enabling law)
3 - self-executing treaty (if any such are recognized)
4 - State constitution
5 - State statute
6 - Municipal statute
99 - Random internet opinion OR non-self-executing treaty without an enabling federal law
David, the primary purpose of the supremacy clause (as the Preamble, Article VII and nearly all of Article VI emphasize) is to emphasize the status of the sovereign people and our Constitution above all our public servants, state and federal. The supremacy clause states the primary rule of law in the U.S. It emphasizes that our Constitution is one law to rule them all.
That's also necessarily the explicit purpose of the provisions in Article II and VI expressly requiring particular speech by our public servants. All "Senators and Representatives" and all "Members of [all] State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States [including the President], shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." "Before [the President can even] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take [an] Oath or Affirmation" to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
David, the mistake you're making was highlighted (and rebutted) by James Madison repeatedly in The Federalist Papers and it's highly relevant to the current consideration of the limited powers of the President to involve us (the People) in an unconstitutional war.
In one of Madison’s earliest and most important elaborations on our Constitution, in January 1788 in The Federalist No. 46, he emphasized the reason for federalism, i.e., the division of jurisdictions or powers between state and federal governments. Madison emphasized that truth and decency require all public servants to bear in mind that the power of all public servants is subject to the sovereignty of the people.
"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments [federal and state governments], not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments [state versus federal], whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."
In February 1788 in Federalist No. 51, Madison emphasized that our nation was constituted as a “compound republic” with the people as sovereign. Madison clarified how and for what purpose our public servants represent us and how we govern them as much as they govern us:
"In the compound republic of America, [the supreme power is in the sovereign people and only] the [portions of] power surrendered [vested] by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [national and state (a.k.a., federalism], and then the portion allotted to each [is] subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive and judicial (a.k.a. separation of powers). By means of federalism and separation of powers] a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other [federalism], at the same time that each will be controlled by itself [separation of powers]."
Did you go to the same school of substituting logorrhea for relevance that Stephen Lathrop went to?
David, feel free to try to prove me wrong with something at least resembling law or logic. I show why I think what I think so someone can try to show me how to think better. If you can do that, please do.
As you prove again and again, it takes little knowledge to say something concise that is devoid of merit in law or logic. Proving what our Constitution means requires a more effort and more words.
David, the rhetorical question of Martinned2 was much more relevant and much more correct than your purported correction. I was only trying to help you see that you're making a mistake so that you don't keep making the same mistake. The primary mistake you're making is thinking that you can learn to understand our Constitution by relying on the writing of judges instead of thinking for yourself.
The primary, overarching point of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, the Preamble, the Vesting Clauses (the first sentences) of Articles I, II and III, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I was what Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS expressly emphasized in Marbury v. Madison: “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”
"The constitution is" necessarily the "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." So "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," and "courts" cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law." "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Any "act of the legislature" (any purported law purportedly granting the President unconstitutional powers) "repugnant to the constitution, is void." So any "act of" any other purported public servant "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any purported doctrine (e.g., the invocation of the so-called Monroe Doctrine to support Trump's Venezuela invasion) by which the President usurps powers "repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Any other purported theory or "doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory."
Martinned2, are you going to pretend that you cannot see that Article II expressly and emphatically deprived the President of ALL power " to make Treaties" except to the extent that "two thirds of the Senators present concur" and Article I expressly and emphatically deprived the President of ALL power to start a war in the manner in which Trump is doing so?
"We the People of the United States” expressly and emphatically “vested in a Congress of the United States” absolutely “All legislative Powers” that were “granted” by our Constitution. The People expressly and emphatically delegated the power to involve us in a war (in the manner Trump is doing so) only to our representatives in Congress. We expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” included the legislative powers “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
The People explicitly identified and emphatically restricted the foregoing powers because those power implicitly had the power to involve the People in a war. An illegal (unconstitutional) war obviously is one of the fastest, harshest ways for people to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That’s exactly why the People by our Constitution famously and expressly outlawed that very form of unconstitutional conduct with one of the first, essentially immediate, amendments to our Constitution. That’s also exactly why, immediately after the extremely destructive Civil War, the People famously and expressly re-outlawed that very form of unconstitutional conduct in a second such amendment.
Martinned2, the analysis of Goldsmith reminds me of the truism that "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail." So Goldsmith bizarrely argued "in practice the only normative legal framework for presidential war powers that matters derives from executive branch precedents and legal opinions." It's telling that someone who writes about executive power almost entirely ignored the primary practical constraint on executive power, i.e., our Constitution.
In Article II, the People emphatically “vested in a President of the United States” only the power to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and that meant primarily the power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” That Article II text expressly underscored the Article VI text establishing that the President has no power to violate "the supreme Law of the Land," which, as you highlighted includes "all Treaties," as well as our "Constitution" (as the paramount law) and all federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution. All the foregoing language expressly underscored that the President has no power to violate our Constitution by violating or usurping the legislative powers of Congress.
As Article I emphasized, "All legislative Powers" that were "granted" by our Constitution "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," and that includes the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." That clearly covers everything Trump has been doing to try to start a war with Venezuela since he issued his mid-March Proclamation that the U.S. is the victim of a Venezuelan invasion.
The power that the People vested in the President of the United States to wage war is necessarily (and self-evidently) the same limited power that the People reserved to individual states to wage war: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
It is amazing how even supposed law experts get the WPR wrong. It does not authorize the president to use military force absent Congressional authorization. It allows that only when absolute necessary.
"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations 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."
It is amazing how supposedly educated people get basic logic wrong. When presented with evidence both through Congress' explicit action and Congress' deliberate inaction, that Congress granted the president great discretion to determine what counts as "possible", you remain determined to pretend that no discretion exists.
Congress was terribly unwise to grant that discretion in the first place and criminally irresponsible not to cabin that discretion as it's been used and abused. But that's a Congress problem, not a president problem.
Congress cannot do more than the People empowered Congress to do. Congress cannot "grant" the President powers unless the People granted Congress the power to do so. That was one of the primary principles highlighted by Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison.
"The constitution is" necessarily the "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." So "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," and "courts" cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law." "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any "act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Any "act of" any purported public servant "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any other purported theory or "doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory."
The simple, self-evident truth is that the People never granted Congress any power to "grant" the President the power to take actions that could start a war in the manner in which Trump is doing. The People expressly and emphatically delegated the power to involve us in a war (in the manner in which Trump is doing so) only to our representatives in Congress. We expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” included the legislative powers “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
So you're arguing that all delegations of authority that cross separation-of-powers lines are unconstitutional? I'm sympathetic to that view but I'm afraid that you and I were both born far, far too late to be making that argument successfully. Examples go back to congressional actions by the founders themselves. Then they got put on steroids a hundred years ago during the New Deal era. I don't see a viable way to turn back the clock to the constitutional standard you are advocating.
Rossami, often changes of direction come when someone shows the current arc has swung too far. Too many people today presume or pretend that past "practices" or "doctrines" somehow clarified (liquidated) the meaning of our Constitution. The truth is that past practices or doctrines (of presidents and judges) were mere violations of our Constitution. Present practices are shining a light on that truth.
Now isn't the time to think it's too late for a correction. Now is the time to say it's past time for a correction. SCOTUS said something similar in Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291 (1995): “age is no antidote to clear inconsistency with a statute” (and far less so to the Constitution). “Breath spent repeating dicta does not infuse it with life." Any contentions to the contrary are “neither authoritative nor persuasive.”
You have used the word "discretion" four more times in your brief comment than the War Powers Resolution uses in its entire text.
Jack Goldsmith, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under President George W Bush, is concerned about executive power. Fine.
Congress can respond, up to and including by impeachment, to help put us on another path.
Professor Goldsmith is a bit of a unicorn -- an intellectually honest Republican.
This action should be viewed in the context of prior hostilities with Venezuela. It is evident that President Trump -- despite having a constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed -- has no intention of seeking Congressional authorization for continued use of forces as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Congress should impeach him, remove him from office and disqualify him from holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
I encourage you to die on this hill.
If the attack is justified by protecting law enforcement, why is it not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?
I distinguish Panama more than Goldsmith. In Panama the state of war justified military action. While the executive declared it had the power to arrest Noriega, it did not need to rely on the arrest warrant to use the armed forces.
If it wasn't, it would probably because it fell under the exception created by the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act of 1981 for drug law enforcement.
Have you actually read the statute? It does not create any such exception. It allows for things like training and the sharing of equipment and facilities. It still expressly forbids the use of the military for law enforcement:
Mostly that act does not authorize blowing stuff up. There is an exception in 10 USC 282 for "an emergency situation involving a weapon of mass destruction." Trump declared fentanyl to be a weapon of mass destruction.
The three problems with that are that (a) Congress defined WMD and did not authorize the president to declare anything a WMD; (b) fentanyl doesn't come from Venezuela; and (c) fentanyl does not pose an "emergency situation."
The law teaches via hypotheticals. U.S. receives intelligence report confirming concentration camps in foreign country possibly housing American citizens. Executions verified. President consults lawyers seeking authority to initiate surprise military actions to rescue hostages which may necessitate engagement with foreign state operatives including elected officials.
Assume Congress has a history of leaking and opposition party opposes every presidential initiative.
What say legal experts who opine so freely with no skin in the game?
In truth, your opinions lack any moral authority, compassion, sense of justice.
"Assume Congress has a history of leaking and opposition party opposes every presidential initiative."
I thought this was supposed to be a hypo?
Assume the Secretary of Defense has a history of texting operational details to journalists.
Whataboutism.
The process leading to a result that you don't want is not a reason to ignore the process. Otherwise we'd just jettison the 4th amendment and all others that make it harder to arrest and convict "the bad guys".
Reading and engaging with Shakespeare's profound dramatizations of legal and moral dilemmas would make all of us better lawyers and wiser people.
Where is the evidence that this is not what the framers had in mind? I've studied the constitutional debates, and I don't see it.
Maybe that time when they gave the power to declare war to Congress, and not the President?
Archibald, look first to the plain meaning of the plain text of our Constitution.
In Article II, the People emphatically “vested in a President of the United States” only the power to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and that meant primarily the power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” That Article II text expressly underscored the Article VI text establishing that the President has no power to violate "the supreme Law of the Land," which consists of our "Constitution" (as the paramount law) and all federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties." All the foregoing language expressly underscored that the President has no power to violate our Constitution by violating or usurping the legislative powers of Congress.
As Article I emphasized, "All legislative Powers" that were "granted" by our Constitution "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," and that includes the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." That clearly covers everything Trump has been doing to try to start a war with Venezuela since he issued his mid-March Proclamation that the U.S. is the victim of a Venezuelan invasion.
The power that the People vested in the President of the United States to wage war is necessarily (and self-evidently) the same limited power that the People reserved to individual states to wage war: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
"We the People of the United States” expressly and emphatically “vested in a Congress of the United States” absolutely “All legislative Powers” that were “granted” by our Constitution. The People expressly and emphatically delegated the power to involve us in a war (in the manner in which Trump is doing so) only to our representatives in Congress. We expressly emphasized that “All legislative Powers” included the legislative powers “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
The People explicitly identified and emphatically restricted the foregoing powers because those power implicitly had the power to involve the People in a war. An illegal (unconstitutional) war obviously is one of the fastest, harshest ways for people to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That’s exactly why the People by our Constitution famously and expressly outlawed that very form of unconstitutional conduct with one of the first, essentially immediate, amendments to our Constitution. That’s also exactly why, immediately after the extremely destructive Civil War, the People famously and expressly re-outlawed that very form of unconstitutional conduct in a second such amendment.
Why do "experts" like Goldsmith not denounce the legions of lawyers who defend the imperial executive? They are members of the same cartel, and they very likely work and socialize together. Do they want to jeopardize handsome incomes?
For Operation Just Cause in 1989 the military's intervention in capturing a Federal fugitive was upheld. Wikipedia stated "The Washington Post disclosed several rulings of the Office of Legal Counsel, issued shortly before the invasion, regarding the U.S. forces being charged with making an arrest abroad. One ruling interpreted an executive order which prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders as suggesting that accidental killings would be acceptable foreign policy. Another ruling concluded that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the armed forces from making arrests without Congressional authorization, is effective only within the boundaries of the U.S., such that the military could be used as a police force abroad—for example, in Panama, to enforce a federal court warrant against Noriega."
What happened Saturday is no different.
Relevant Dem precedents:
1: Clinton: Kosovo
2: Obama: Libya
The fundamental stupidity of hte Left is you people can't seem to figure out that we are, always and everywhere, going to use the precedents you create against you. You are essentially mental midgets incapable about considering the consequences of your actions.
It's like you never made it past age 3.
O like you can't even conceive of he possibility that someone who disagrees with you could be a human being with agency.
So Trump is going to do whatever he wants, you're going to rant and rave over it, and what you do simply won't matter.
Because you sat back and did nothing when your side created the precedent
Greg, presidents don't create precedent. Precedent is a decision about the law that is legally binding on lower courts. Nothing any president does can constitute any type of precedent that binds a subsequent president unless it's part of the supreme law of the land (defined by the People in Article VI). A prior violation of our Constitution clearly cannot be precedent, and nobody who understands and respects our Constitution would say that a violation of our Constitution by anyone (including a judge) can somehow constitute precedent.