Maduro Arrested: Why is the left so angry about something so good for so many people?
- Charles "Ghost" Coutts
- 1 minute ago
- 7 min read
(Opinion)
Facts over feelings! The actions taken by President Donald Trump regarding Venezuela have sparked intense debate. Yet, the core fact remains clear: what Trump did was fully legal and constitutional. Period! No congressional approval was necessary for his decisions. This post explores the legal basis for Trump's actions in Venezuela, the constitutional framework supporting them, and the significant impact these moves had on Venezuela and the United States.
Understanding the Legal Framework for Presidential Actions Abroad
The U.S. Constitution grants the president significant authority in foreign affairs. As commander-in-chief and chief diplomat, the president can act decisively to protect national interests and promote democracy abroad. This authority includes imposing sanctions, recognizing foreign governments, and supporting democratic movements.
In the case of Venezuela, Trump’s administration used executive powers to:
Impose economic sanctions targeting Venezuelan officials and entities
Recognize opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim president
Support efforts to restore democracy without direct military intervention
These actions fall within the president’s constitutional powers, especially under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act. These laws allow the president to respond swiftly to threats without waiting for congressional approval. Marco Rubio explained this.
Not to mention everything Trump tells Congress seems to immediately end up in the hands of the press. Congress leaks like a sieve.
Why No Congressional Approval Was Needed
Some critics argue that Congress should have authorized Trump's moves in Venezuela. However, the Constitution clearly assigns the president the role of managing foreign policy and national security. Congress holds the power to declare war, but does not control all foreign policy decisions. I know they think they do, but we have the separation of powers for a reason.
Trump’s actions did not involve declaring war. Instead, they focused on diplomatic recognition and economic pressure, which are executive functions. The use of sanctions and diplomatic recognition is a well-established presidential prerogative.
Congress has supported similar actions in the past, often deferring to the executive branch on foreign policy matters. This precedent reinforces the legality of Trump’s approach.
So why all of a sudden have they done a 180 on this? The only difference is the name of the person doing it, and THAT is what people need to get through their heads. If Biden had done this, he would go down in history as a hero, the savior of Venezuela and its people, but since Trump did it... Can't you see the pattern yet?
The Impact on Venezuela’s Political Landscape
Trump’s recognition of Juan Guaidó and the imposition of sanctions aimed to weaken Nicolás Maduro’s regime, which many consider tyrannical. These moves helped:
Bolster the opposition’s legitimacy internationally
Increase pressure on Maduro’s government to negotiate or step down
Encourage Venezuelans seeking democratic change
The people of Venezuela have expressed gratitude for the support that helped them push back against authoritarian rule. While challenges remain, these actions contributed to a shift in the political dynamics of the country.
Effects on Drug Trafficking and U.S. Security
Venezuela has long been a hub for drug trafficking, often with government protection shielding traffickers. By targeting the regime and its networks, Trump’s policies disrupted these operations. This disruption is expected to:
Reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the United States
Save countless American lives affected by drug abuse and violence
Undermine criminal organizations benefiting from Venezuelan government protection
This outcome aligns with U.S. national security interests and public health goals.
Examples of Legal Precedents Supporting Executive Action
Historical examples show presidents acting decisively in foreign affairs without congressional approval:
President Ronald Reagan’s support for anti-communist movements in Central America through sanctions and aid
President Barack Obama’s use of executive orders to impose sanctions on Iran and Russia
President George W. Bush’s recognition of new governments and imposition of sanctions in various conflicts
These cases demonstrate a consistent pattern of presidential authority in managing foreign relations and responding to international crises.
Addressing Common Misconceptions
Some misunderstandings about Trump’s actions include:
Claiming the president overstepped constitutional bounds: The Constitution grants broad foreign policy powers to the president.
Suggesting military action was involved: No direct military intervention occurred.
(This is the crux of the matter. Was it a military operation against the nation of Venezuela, which would make it an act of war, or was it a police action using military personnel for the simple fact that US law enforcement cannot operate in Venezuela? The only people who could make the arrest are the US military. For reference, Vietnam was considered a "police action" even though no law enforcement was involved, only the military. This selective outrage is getting quite tiresome, is it not? The courts will have to decide this.
Arguing that sanctions harm ordinary Venezuelans: Sanctions targeted officials and entities linked to corruption and repression, not the general population.
Understanding these points clarifies the legal and ethical basis of the administration’s approach.
What This Means for Future U.S. Foreign Policy
Trump’s actions in Venezuela set a precedent for how the U.S. can support democracy abroad within constitutional limits. Future administrations can:
Use executive authority to respond quickly to international crises
Apply targeted sanctions to pressure authoritarian regimes
Recognize legitimate governments to support democratic transitions
This approach balances respect for constitutional powers with effective foreign policy.
When all of that failed, Trump warned Maduro numerous times that he was done playing games. President Trump used his constitutional authority to arrest the man by executing a standing warrant for Maduro's arrest under charges of narco-terrorism. A warrant was issued during Trump's first term by the DOJ at the time. Biden raised the bounty and a couple of other cosmetic things, in my opinion, but made no actual efforts to execute the warrant or arrest and extradite Mauduro under that standing warrant. Despite the rising death toll among US citizens caused by the drugs that Maduro was sending into our country.
Why? He could have done it just as easily as Trump did, and a whole lot of people would still be alive today if he had.
The thing is, the courts will eventually straighten all of this out on the political/legal side, and that is out of my hands, so I prefer to focus on the psychology behind all of this stuff. Let's leave the legal debates to the suits and talking heads. There is more going on here than that.
Now that you know all of this, it seems to me that you should be asking the same question I did. This is a good thing for everyone except Maduro, his wife, and the people who may be getting kickbacks from their corrupt dealings with the man. Those are the only people who should be angry about this. Know what I mean?
Which begs another question. Why are the Democrats and RINOs, the uniparty here in the United States, so angry about something that will only result in positive outcomes for the people of Venezuela, but also American citizens dying from drug overdoses?
Removing a narco-terrorist dictator from power and liberating the people from that tyranny is supposed to be considered a good thing, right? Other presidents have done similar, so why are the Democrats so angry at Trump for doing the same thing with the same constitutional authority as those before him?
If we ever want to stop pissing into the wind, guys, these are the questions we need to be asking and demanding answers to.
Bottom line. Trump is using/used his full constitutional authority to arrest a dictator tyrant who was flooding our nation with drugs that are killing our friends and family, who oppressed his people with poverty, driving many to seek garbage dumps as their only source of nutrition, while he dined at 5 star restaraunts. He is on the same level as Hitler, Stalin, Castro, or Lenin, meaning the man is not a good person; he is evil by all definitions.
Nicolas Maduro is the poster boy for a modern tyrant who needs to be removed from power, and President Donald Trump had the balls to do it, saving an untold number of lives in the process, freeing the people of Venezuela from tyranny, and they are celebrating in the streets by the way, praising Donald Trump for giving them hope again. Something Maduro had crushed under his collectivist heel.
Refugees see hope in being able to go back to their real homes since Maduro is gone, and they thank Donald Trump for that. The gratitude of the Venezuelan people towards President Trump and the United States is overwhelming in its raw emotion. Take a minute to put yourself in their shoes right now. Your first taste of freedom, your first glimmer of hope in decades, and then look over at the left here in the states demonizing the man who liberated you. If I were them, I would consider those people idiots, and I imagine the Venezuelan people have a similar opinion. Just saying.
And people here and abroad are angry at him for that, very angry in fact. So it seems to me the real question we need to find an answer to is why? Why are so many people so angry over something that is going to benefit so many other people positively?
As I said, we have a process for this, and it will run its course through the courts until a final decision is made on its legality and whether or not President Trump actually overstepped his authority. As it stands right now, he didn't. So why not just start that process and let the courts do what they are there to do? Why all of the anger, the hatred, and vitriol? Why is it necessary to drag the United Nations into it when the UN has no authority over the United States? Why turn the best thing that could have happened for an entire nation of people into a hate campaign against the very person who just liberated them?
I mean, come on, guys, does this shit really make sense to you?
Something to think about, until next time. ~Ghost