Seeking Co-sponsors for motion to adopt a Resolution Re: Venezuela military action.

Kenneth Feagins

SLEC Member
Fellow SLEC members,
I am seeking co-sponsors for a motion to adopt the resolution below.

Over the weekend, the United States escalated its actions in Venezuela, including the capture of the Venezuelan head of state, Nicolás Maduro. Subsequent public statements from President Trump suggest the potential for further expansion of this approach.

Additional comments from Senator Rubio indicate an intent to compel Venezuela to act in U.S. interests, raising serious concerns about the use of military force to advance US political or economic objectives.

-------------------

Motion:
I move that LPTexas adopt the following resolution and authorize its release through all appropriate media channels, as determined by LPTexas staff.

-------------------


Resolution:
Reaffirming Constitutional War Powers and Condemning Unauthorized Military Action

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution vests the power to declare war exclusively in Congress under Article I, Section 8; and

WHEREAS, the authority of the President as Commander in Chief under Article II is limited to directing military forces once Congress has lawfully authorized hostilities, and neither that authority nor the War Powers Resolution permits the President to initiate hostilities independently; and

WHEREAS, constitutional authorization for hostilities requires affirmative congressional action, cannot be inferred from congressional silence or inaction, and no declaration of war or specific Authorization for Use of Military Force has been enacted authorizing military action in Venezuela; and

WHEREAS, the executive branch, acting through the Office of the President, has initiated, directed, or authorized the use of military force or military-backed operations on multiple occasions absent congressional authorization, thereby removing institutional restraint and increasing the risk of regional destabilization, escalation, retaliation, asymmetric warfare, and prolonged conflict; and

WHEREAS, the use of the U.S. military to abduct or forcibly remove foreign officials on foreign soil, outside the jurisdiction of the United States and absent congressional authorization, constitutes the initiation of hostilities and an act of war undertaken without constitutional authority; and

WHEREAS, Congress has failed to exercise and enforce its constitutional duty to declare war and restrain unauthorized military action, including by continuing to fund such hostilities, which constitutes acquiescence to unconstitutional action and must be remedied through explicit statutory restraint; and

WHEREAS, these constitutional principles apply equally to past, present, and proposed uses of military force, regardless of geographic location, stated justification, or partisan alignment, and opposition to unconstitutional uses of force does not constitute support for any foreign government, regime, official, or alleged criminal conduct; and

WHEREAS, permitting the executive branch to unilaterally determine when constitutional war powers apply renders constitutional limits meaningless and erodes the constitutional structure of the Republic;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas unequivocally condemns, as a violation of the non-aggression principle, individual liberty, and constitutional limits on power, the initiation of hostilities by the executive branch absent a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization, including the use of the United States military for extrajudicial seizure, regime change, or law-enforcement objectives abroad; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas unequivocally condemns, as a failure of constitutional duty and a violation of the separation of powers essential to liberty, Congress’s abdication of its Article I responsibility to declare war and restrain unauthorized military action; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Libertarian Party of Texas calls upon the Texas congressional delegation to reassert Congress’s exclusive war powers, prohibit funding for unauthorized hostilities, and place constitutional duty and the liberties of the people above partisan loyalty or political expediency, while demanding transparency and constitutional compliance from the executive branch; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution applies irrespective of political party, administration, or individual officeholder, and reaffirms the Libertarian Party of Texas’s commitment to peace, non-intervention, separation of powers, and constitutional governance.

In short: Presidents will continue to exceed constitutional limits so long as Congress refuses to do its job. Liberty demands that Congress reclaim its war powers and restrain executive overreach, regardless of party.
 
I have many issues with this, not the least of which is compounded by what I consider to be a very delicate and complicated issue. I think we should tread very carefully in what we say and how we say it. I'll try my best to raise my concerns, and I hope that this is taken as the discussion it is intended to be.

There are many good and valid points raised in this resolution. I am 10,000% behind calling out the failings of our government, in both the Executive and the Legislative branches. In fact I don't think this resolution goes far enough in condemning the dereliction of duty that is required by ALL of our elected representatives. I think we should be absolutely incessant as we scream at the top of our lungs about how the government has transformed the supreme law of the land into a mere Parchment Constitution, as Madison put it.

I think the crux of my unease comes from the plea to the non-aggression principle. It highlights to me what I consider to be a moral conundrum that I find myself--a described anarchist--wrestling with as I try to place my philosophies of civic life against the real world in which I live. Center in that turmoil is the debate on whether any government is valid on any level, and if so for what purpose and to what extent. Or rather: to what extent is my anarchism a Utopia in my mind, and can that Utopia balance with the reality we currently have?

I do not like war. I do not like the US being the World Police. I do not like our shady history in stirring up trouble around the world and then using that trouble as a justification for military action. I do not like that this trouble often leads to continued interventionist involvement.

But I can also NOT ignore that Nicolas Maduro is an evil tyrant, and I am not the least bit saddened that he has been removed. Clearly I wish he had been removed by other means. But I can also not ignore that those "other means" WERE used--successfully in principle--but impotently in actuality due to the murdering, cheating, totalitarian tyrant usurping the entire system that keeps him, and other very evil people in power.

I cannot ignore the tide of the Venezuelan diaspora--mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters--many separated from their families held hostage by narco cartel monsters, and the worst of Marxist/Socialist tyrants who always find themselves at the front of every breadline without concern for the powerless they tyrannize. The Venezuelan reaction to the ousting of Maduro has been overwhelmingly positive. Regardless of the means used, I cannot remove myself from sharing in their happiness and optimism about Maduro's downfall.

The man sat on national Venezuelan television eating a burrito when over 40% of the people in Venezuela were killing and eating their pets, and breaking into the Caracas zoo to slaughter and eat the tigers out of sheer desperation.

I think saying "abduct or forcibly remove foreign officials on foreign soil" while a very true statement for someone who is "official," I find it insultingly laughable to apply to Maduro. I think it is going to make us look like the Marxist/Communist sympathizers protesting all over the world Maduro's removal and demanding his immediate reinstatement. I think it makes us look extraordinary myopic and ignorant.

Is Marxism compatible with Libertarianism? I don't think that it is. In speech, yes. Ideas are not aggression. But in action, it is absolutely not compatible.

I object to throwing out the NAP on every occasion of intervention as if it has somehow become a suicide pact of pacifism. At what point do we as libertarians have a moral obligation to intervene in the active oppression of others? The NAP is an advocacy of action during NORMAL interactions. And it IMPLIES that when someone is aggressing you that you have the RIGHT and the AUTHORITY to defend yourself. But in abnormal circumstances, like when you are witnessing someone who has and will never value the NAP aggressing on others who are defenseless, it also implies that you have the right and authority to act in the defense of others. Watering the tree of liberty is not a violation of the NAP.

So I am asking: What is the Libertarian line in the sand for when it is appropriate for society to take offensive matters in the defense of others? This isn't the same thing as Desert Storm, or Afghanistan, or Iraqi Freedom. I won't ignore our aggressive warlike history, and I'm not saying we should not have or voice concerns. But in this instance, I do think some more nuance and distinction is called for.

I want the Libertarian Party to appeal to those whose values are in alignment with our party. I don't give a DAMN about aligning with or not offending Socialists and Marxists, and I would like a resolution that condemns Maduro's murderous kleptocracy as much as it condemns what has become a runaway Congress and Executive branch that is used by Neocon warmongers. I would like a resolution that one of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan refugees could read and say, "Hey, the Libertarians are on my side and have some good ideas about how to fix my home country so that I can go home and be with my family and live in prosperity." MANY of those Venezuelans are NOT Trump supporters--they're liberals--who are praising Trump for his actions in removing Maduro. Do we have an opportunity to capture their support? Or are we just going to throw ourselves in opposition because we view Trump and everything he touches as toxic? I, for one, do not want us to behave like the reactionary leftists and democrats. I would appreciate some sound wisdom for a change.

I don't think this resolution is going to do that. To me this resolution makes it sound like Libertarians are the people who will stand on the sidelines and wag our fingers at evil people as they murder and starve the very people they've disarmed and made defenseless. For what? So that we can have another Showcase Showdown of how principled we are? What good are our principles to the dead?

Maduro and his Cartel warlords don't give a damn about our principles. I think we need to start being more honest about who and what the Enemies of Liberty are, and what actions we should be taking in defense of liberty for everyone.
 
I have many issues with this, not the least of which is compounded by what I consider to be a very delicate and complicated issue. I think we should tread very carefully in what we say and how we say it. I'll try my best to raise my concerns, and I hope that this is taken as the discussion it is intended to be.

There are many good and valid points raised in this resolution. I am 10,000% behind calling out the failings of our government, in both the Executive and the Legislative branches. In fact I don't think this resolution goes far enough in condemning the dereliction of duty that is required by ALL of our elected representatives. I think we should be absolutely incessant as we scream at the top of our lungs about how the government has transformed the supreme law of the land into a mere Parchment Constitution, as Madison put it.

I think the crux of my unease comes from the plea to the non-aggression principle. It highlights to me what I consider to be a moral conundrum that I find myself--a described anarchist--wrestling with as I try to place my philosophies of civic life against the real world in which I live. Center in that turmoil is the debate on whether any government is valid on any level, and if so for what purpose and to what extent. Or rather: to what extent is my anarchism a Utopia in my mind, and can that Utopia balance with the reality we currently have?

I do not like war. I do not like the US being the World Police. I do not like our shady history in stirring up trouble around the world and then using that trouble as a justification for military action. I do not like that this trouble often leads to continued interventionist involvement.

But I can also NOT ignore that Nicolas Maduro is an evil tyrant, and I am not the least bit saddened that he has been removed. Clearly I wish he had been removed by other means. But I can also not ignore that those "other means" WERE used--successfully in principle--but impotently in actuality due to the murdering, cheating, totalitarian tyrant usurping the entire system that keeps him, and other very evil people in power.

I cannot ignore the tide of the Venezuelan diaspora--mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters--many separated from their families held hostage by narco cartel monsters, and the worst of Marxist/Socialist tyrants who always find themselves at the front of every breadline without concern for the powerless they tyrannize. The Venezuelan reaction to the ousting of Maduro has been overwhelmingly positive. Regardless of the means used, I cannot remove myself from sharing in their happiness and optimism about Maduro's downfall.

The man sat on national Venezuelan television eating a burrito when over 40% of the people in Venezuela were killing and eating their pets, and breaking into the Caracas zoo to slaughter and eat the tigers out of sheer desperation.

I think saying "abduct or forcibly remove foreign officials on foreign soil" while a very true statement for someone who is "official," I find it insultingly laughable to apply to Maduro. I think it is going to make us look like the Marxist/Communist sympathizers protesting all over the world Maduro's removal and demanding his immediate reinstatement. I think it makes us look extraordinary myopic and ignorant.

Is Marxism compatible with Libertarianism? I don't think that it is. In speech, yes. Ideas are not aggression. But in action, it is absolutely not compatible.

I object to throwing out the NAP on every occasion of intervention as if it has somehow become a suicide pact of pacifism. At what point do we as libertarians have a moral obligation to intervene in the active oppression of others? The NAP is an advocacy of action during NORMAL interactions. And it IMPLIES that when someone is aggressing you that you have the RIGHT and the AUTHORITY to defend yourself. But in abnormal circumstances, like when you are witnessing someone who has and will never value the NAP aggressing on others who are defenseless, it also implies that you have the right and authority to act in the defense of others. Watering the tree of liberty is not a violation of the NAP.

So I am asking: What is the Libertarian line in the sand for when it is appropriate for society to take offensive matters in the defense of others? This isn't the same thing as Desert Storm, or Afghanistan, or Iraqi Freedom. I won't ignore our aggressive warlike history, and I'm not saying we should not have or voice concerns. But in this instance, I do think some more nuance and distinction is called for.

I want the Libertarian Party to appeal to those whose values are in alignment with our party. I don't give a DAMN about aligning with or not offending Socialists and Marxists, and I would like a resolution that condemns Maduro's murderous kleptocracy as much as it condemns what has become a runaway Congress and Executive branch that is used by Neocon warmongers. I would like a resolution that one of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan refugees could read and say, "Hey, the Libertarians are on my side and have some good ideas about how to fix my home country so that I can go home and be with my family and live in prosperity." MANY of those Venezuelans are NOT Trump supporters--they're liberals--who are praising Trump for his actions in removing Maduro. Do we have an opportunity to capture their support? Or are we just going to throw ourselves in opposition because we view Trump and everything he touches as toxic? I, for one, do not want us to behave like the reactionary leftists and democrats. I would appreciate some sound wisdom for a change.

I don't think this resolution is going to do that. To me this resolution makes it sound like Libertarians are the people who will stand on the sidelines and wag our fingers at evil people as they murder and starve the very people they've disarmed and made defenseless. For what? So that we can have another Showcase Showdown of how principled we are? What good are our principles to the dead?

Maduro and his Cartel warlords don't give a damn about our principles. I think we need to start being more honest about who and what the Enemies of Liberty are, and what actions we should be taking in defense of liberty for everyone.
I understand the moral dilemma you’re describing, and I share the revulsion toward tyrants like Maduro and the suffering inflicted on the Venezuelan people. Those realities are precisely what make these questions so difficult and emotionally charged.

At the same time, good outcomes do not legitimize bad processes, especially when those processes predictably advance state and corporate power. Libertarianism is grounded in principle precisely because outcomes are subjective, temporary, and easily manipulated, while process determines who holds power, by what authority, and with what limits.

Principles are not meant to ignore evil or suffering. They exist because moments of moral urgency are when restraints on power are most easily abandoned. If we do not stand firm here, where do those limits hold when Colombia is next? Mexico? Greenland?
 
Our platform is clear on this issue. Instead of delaying a response by way of a motion of SLEC, this could just be rewritten as a press release and put out with little to no delay.
I understand the desire to move quickly, and our platform is clear. That said, a resolution adopted by SLEC carries more weight on an issue this serious than a standalone press release. This goes to constitutional war powers and congressional accountability, and the call to action for our Texas delegation matters. A press release can and should follow, but it is my belief SLEC action is the right place to start.
 
@Andrew Amelang - After some feedback and careful consideration, I am requesting to withdraw the motion for now so we can workshop it further and make sure the language and framing are bang on correct before bringing it forward.

For everyone else who has engaged thoughtfully on this so far, I appreciate the feedback, the discussion, and the support.

Given the seriousness of the constitutional issues involved and continued the evolving messaging out of the White House, I’d rather take the time to get this right than rush something through that could benefit from further refinement.

I would like to request that we return to the workshop thread located here:

https://forum.lptexas.org/index.php?threads/1091/

I truly appreciate everyone’s engagement and look forward to continuing the discussion to ensure we get this spot on.
 
@Kenneth Feagins - I greatly appreciate your willingness to work with the body to 'get this right' and your patience with the process.

Team, according to our rules I have a week from this past Wednesday until I'm officially expected to call a vote (although as y'all know I usually try to go ahead and bang these out once the threshold is met). I'm optimistic that a robust and positive discussion between now and then will give us a better motion and moot the present one. If not, we'll worry about how to process all this next Wednesday.
 
Kenneth has indicated to me that it is his desire at this time to withdraw the motion completely. He has indicated further that should someone argue that 'the motion belongs to the body now' and insist that we process this motion anyway, he will encourage people to vote against it. I'll leave it to Kenneth to explain his reasoning to anyone who wants to know.

So I'm not posting a vote on this motion. If someone else wants to take responsibility for trying to get this motion passed, my tactical suggestion is for you to just cut and paste Kenneth's motion and move it again, see if you get enough co-sponsors. Or you can protest the ruling of the Chair on this motion and we'll go that way. My two cents: A better strategy would be to make sure you understand why Kenneth changed his mind, then decide whether you want to workshop a new motion with different language or just let it go.

[Edited to remove a typo.]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top