Senate Confronts Presidential War Powers in a Pivotal Vote After Maduro’s Ouster, Testing

Kaine framed the moment as a constitutional test, invoking America’s approaching 250th anniversary to underscore the stakes. He warned that unilateral action risks normalizing executive-led warfare and reviving a troubling history of interventionism in Latin America. In his view, bypassing Congress undermines democratic accountability and weakens the safeguards built into the Constitution.

This concern fits a broader historical pattern. Over decades, presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on expansive interpretations of their commander-in-chief powers. Congress, once sidelined, has often struggled to reclaim its authority. Kaine’s resolution seeks to halt that drift before it becomes further entrenched.

Opponents argue that requiring congressional approval could slow responses to fast-moving threats, potentially endangering U.S. interests. Supporters counter that deliberation is not a flaw but a constitutional feature designed to prevent reckless use of force.

As the vote approaches, its outcome will shape not only U.S. policy toward Venezuela but the future of war powers governance. At stake is whether Congress will assert its role—or continue yielding ground to an ever-stronger executive.