I take a back seat to no one in my disdain and loathing of state-sponsored socialism.

In fact, I wrote a book, The Case Against Socialism, describing the historic link between socialism, communism and state-sponsored violence.

I wish the people of Venezuela well and sincerely hope they will not repeat the mistake of electing the type of socialist regime that has plagued that nation since the 1970s.

Whether or not socialism is evil, however, is not the debate today. The debate to about one question and one question only. Does the Constitution allow one man or one woman to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress? Full stop.

That question is bigger than regime change in Venezuela, bigger than any claims of the ends justifying the means, bigger even than the depredations and evils that multiple socialist autocrats have perpetrated upon the once great country of Venezuela.

Even those who celebrate the demise of the socialist, authoritarian regime in Venezuela, as I do, should give pause to granting the power to initiate war to one man. The power to initiate war is so vast a power that it must be confined by checks and balances.

The debate today would not be happening if our leaders read and understood the Federalist Papers. The constitutional power to initiate war is placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress.

Current congressional leaders squirm and would like to shift the burden of initiating war to the President. Less than courageous members of Congress fall all over themselves to avoid taking responsibility, to avoid the momentous vote of declaring war.

But make no mistake, bombing another nation's capital and removing their leader is an act of war plain and simple. No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the presidency.

No Supreme Court has allowed Congress to abdicate its role in the decisions of war and peace and no congressman of any self-respect will argue otherwise.

Our founders debated fully whether or not to grant the power to declare war to Congress or the president. To a man, from Jefferson to Hamilton, they all agreed with the words Madison wrote that the Executive is the branch of government most inclined to war, therefore, the Constitution with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

Founding-era arguments in support of ratifying the Constitution demonstrate that our government does not entrust the decision to go to war to just one person.

At the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney argued that uniting the war powers under a single executive would grant to the president monarchical powers.

James Wilson assured Americans at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that the proposed Constitution would not allow one man, or even one body of men, to initiate hostilities.

In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton stated the Constitution gave the presidency fewer war powers than those of the British monarch and the American president would be restricted to conducting the operations of the armies and navies. The founding generation was largely united in the opinion that the American president would not be endowed with the monarchical power to initiate war unilaterally.