A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against vessels operating in the Caribbean Sea or the Eastern Pacific Ocean that have not been authorized by Congress.

This joint resolution seeks to reassert congressional authority over military operations by mandating the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in specific maritime regions. The resolution targets ongoing or potential military engagements against vessels operating in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean that lack explicit congressional authorization. The measure represents a direct exercise of Congress's constitutional war powers, establishing that military operations in these designated waters must cease unless Congress has provided specific authorization for such actions. This resolution addresses the fundamental constitutional question of which branch of government holds the authority to commit American military forces to hostile engagements, particularly in maritime contexts where executive branch discretion has historically been broad.

The resolution contains a single operative provision requiring the mandatory removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities conducted against vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean. The withdrawal requirement applies specifically to military engagements that have not received explicit congressional authorization. The resolution establishes congressional authorization as an absolute prerequisite for continued military operations in these maritime zones, effectively creating a geographic and operational constraint on executive military action. The provision does not establish a timeline for withdrawal, suggesting immediate compliance is required upon passage. The resolution makes no distinction between different types of vessels or the nature of the hostilities, applying broadly to all unauthorized military engagements within the specified maritime boundaries.

The United States Armed Forces bear direct responsibility for implementing this resolution through immediate cessation of unauthorized maritime hostilities. The resolution does not establish a specific administrative agency or oversight body to monitor compliance, placing the burden on military command structures to identify which operations lack congressional authorization and to terminate those operations. No funding mechanisms are specified, as the resolution requires cessation of activities rather than initiation of new programs. The absence of explicit reporting requirements or compliance deadlines suggests that implementation is expected to be self-executing upon passage. The resolution provides no detailed enforcement mechanism beyond the inherent authority of Congress to oversee military operations and potentially withhold appropriations for non-compliant activities.

The resolution directly affects United States military personnel currently engaged in or assigned to maritime operations in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly those involved in vessel interdiction or engagement activities. Naval commanders and operational planners face immediate constraints on their authority to conduct hostilities without explicit congressional approval. Vessels operating in these waters, whether commercial, civilian, or foreign military, become subject to reduced American military intervention absent congressional authorization. The resolution imposes significant operational limitations on the executive branch's ability to respond rapidly to maritime threats or incidents in these strategic waters. No cost estimates are provided, though implementation could result in cost savings from reduced military operations or increased costs if congressional authorization processes delay necessary responses to genuine threats. The resolution contains no sunset provision, establishing a permanent requirement for congressional authorization of hostilities in these maritime zones.

The resolution rests on Congress's constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8 to declare war and regulate the Armed Forces. It directly invokes the constitutional separation of powers doctrine, asserting legislative supremacy over the commitment of military forces to hostilities. The resolution operates within the framework established by the War Powers Resolution, though it does not explicitly cite that statute. By requiring congressional authorization for specific military operations, the resolution challenges expansive interpretations of executive authority under Article II that permit unilateral military action. The measure does not preempt state or local law, as military operations fall exclusively within federal jurisdiction. No explicit judicial review provisions are included, though affected parties could potentially challenge implementation through existing federal court procedures. The resolution's effectiveness depends on whether courts would view it as a binding constraint on executive military authority or as a non-justiciable political question.

The resolution raises significant constitutional questions about the balance of power between Congress and the President in military affairs, particularly whether Congress can mandate withdrawal from specific operations without providing alternative authorization. Implementation challenges include defining what constitutes 'hostilities' versus routine military operations, determining which existing authorizations might apply to Caribbean and Eastern Pacific operations, and establishing who decides whether congressional authorization exists for particular engagements. The resolution provides no mechanism for emergency situations where immediate military response may be necessary to protect American lives or interests. The geographic specificity raises questions about why these particular waters warrant special congressional oversight while other regions do not. Opposition arguments likely center on executive authority as Commander in Chief, the need for operational flexibility in responding to threats, and the practical difficulties of obtaining congressional authorization for time-sensitive military operations. The resolution could create operational confusion if military commanders receive conflicting guidance from executive and legislative branches, potentially endangering personnel or mission success. The absence of definitions for key terms like 'hostilities' and 'authorization' creates interpretive ambiguity that could undermine effective implementation.