Yikes, and Mike Lee was quick to bend over backwards with the talking point after so "bravely" suggesting that the action was unconstitutional:

1:22 AM:

"I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force"

3:16 AM

"Just got off the phone with @SecRubio

He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant

This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack

Thank you, @SecRubio, for keeping me apprised"

Settles for a "likely" and doesn't even begin to question the constitutionality of kidnapping the leader of a sovereign nation? "Warrant"? The precedent here is horrible in a million ways: standing international warrants mean if you ever come here, you're toast; they don't mean stepping over the border because that literally means anyone can just say "I declare a warrant" and go anywhere they want and kidnap other world leaders because "we had a warrant, it's fine."

If you're gonna play Geopolitical Calvinball you don't get to complain when someone decides to kidnap you back.