Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU and groups aligned with strict constitutionalist views, such as the Tenth Amendment Center, often insist on a narrow reading of presidential war powers, arguing that the Constitution allows the commander-in-chief to unilaterally deploy military force only to repel an active, imminent armed attack on the United States. This interpretation, rooted in Article I’s grant of war-declaring authority to Congress and Article II’s limited defensive role for the president, views any offensive or preemptive strikes—including against non-state actors like drug cartels—as unconstitutional without explicit congressional authorization. Critics of this stance contend it renders the Constitution a “national suicide pact,” tying the government’s hands against evolving threats like fentanyl smuggling, which kills tens of thousands of Americans annually, while ignoring a century of expanded executive practice in national security and the rise of transnational dangers that blur traditional warfare.

In the current context of the Trump administration’s Operation Southern Spear, which has involved lethal military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels in international waters, organizations like the ACLU have condemned the actions as extrajudicial killings and demanded transparency on legal justifications, asserting no armed conflict exists with cartels and that such unilateral force violates domestic and international law. They frame debates over specifics—like whether boats are armed or in territorial waters—as distractions from core constitutional limits, excusing what they see as aggressive brutality. Yet this rigid view dismisses practical realities: the Coast Guard’s decades-long struggles to fully interdict high-speed drug runners, the designation of certain cartels as terrorist organizations, and the argument that poisoning Americans through narcotics constitutes a form of ongoing attack warranting robust self-defense.

Blowing up vessels laden with drugs bound for U.S. shores isn’t mere aggression—it’s a direct, decisive measure to protect American lives, disrupt cartel operations, and send an unmistakable deterrent message after years of ineffective interdiction and prosecution games. The Constitution’s eternal truths empower the executive to defend the nation vigorously against clear threats, not to wait passively for missiles or gunfire while poisons flood communities. Americans, weary of endless overdose crises, support ending the games and prioritizing survival over hyper-technical debates that have enabled a de facto techno-fascist imperium of unchecked cartel power for far too long. No more excuses—no president should be bogged down when decisive action saves lives.