“Are you not entertained?” With the country’s economy improving and other issues losing traction with the public, Democrats are increasingly turning to the one thing lacking in Washington: impeachments.

As they work to take back the House in the midterms, Democrats are again promising voters the equivalent of the Roman Games by restarting impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. For many liberal voters, impeachments are the thrilling cage matches of lawfare.

Facing a challenger on the left in New York, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., was the latest to dangle impeachment before his constituents. He insisted that Trump can be removed for his capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

The same people who introduced what I called an abusive “snap impeachment” against Trump are now suggesting that he can be impeached for an act that was previously upheld as lawful in the courts.

According to Goldman, the attack constitutes an undeclared war and is thus impeachable.

The professed shock over the attack is nothing short of comical from leaders who said nothing when Democratic presidents engaged in such attacks.

There were no widespread calls for impeachment when Clinton attacked Bosnia or Obama attacked Libya. In the latter case, I represented a few members to challenge the undeclared war in Libya. Obama (like Trump) dismissed any need to get congressional approval in attacking the capital city of a foreign nation and military sites to force regime change. Figures like then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lionized for their tough action in Libya.

Democratic members have combined a lack of memory with an equally startling lack of knowledge. Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) declared on national television that “the Constitution does not give the President the right to initiate military action.” It is, of course, entirely untrue.

Presidents cannot declare war under the Constitution, but they can certainly order the use of military forces without such a declaration. Kaine did not appear aggrieved when Democratic presidents repeatedly and routinely attacked foreign targets without prior congressional consultation, let alone approval. That includes President Barack Obama killing an American citizen who was not charged with any crime in a drone attack under his “kill list policy.”

Moreover, House and Senate Democrats have stated that they either support or do not object to the capture.

I have long opposed undeclared wars and such unilateral actions. However, as a legal analyst, I am asked whether a president has the legal authority under governing case law to carry out such operations. Trump has that authority. We lost the Libyan case and other challenges to such unilateral action have also failed.

This includes the litigation surrounding the capture and prosecution of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. That also involved an attack on a foreign country. Indeed, it was a larger military operation that took days in the country to capture Noriega, followed by a regime change.

Noriega raised the same international and U.S. authorities being cited today by pundits and lost across the board. In appeals that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Noriega lost on his head-of-state immunity and other claims.

If there are grounds for such claims, Maduro is even less credible in making them. Roughly 50 countries refused to recognize him as the head of Venezuela after he lost the last election and seized control of the country. While he proclaimed in court this week that “I am still president of my country,” he has about the same claim to that office as Rep. Goldman.

There are good-faith objections to such military attacks on foreign countries under international law. This is a claim that other nations, such as China or Russia, could use to justify their own actions. However, this is a matter that will be resolved under U.S. law. While Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum declared that the action violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, it will be Article II of the United States Constitution that will dictate the outcome of this case.

Now, back to the impeachment games.

Goldman and others are suggesting that they will impeach President Trump for a capture that is virtually identical to the one in Noriega and declared lawful by the courts. Even putting aside the criminal prosecution, they would impeach him for attacks that are legally no different from those carried out by a long list of presidents, including Democratic presidents in the last two decades.

Neither history nor the Constitution matters in the impeachment games.

In the movie Gladiator, Emperor Commodus noted to the game organizer that the recreation of the Battle of Carthage seemed to get the conclusion wrong when the barbarians won: “My history’s a little hazy Cassius, but shouldn’t the Barbarians lose the battle of Carthage?” He then said that it did not matter. After all, these are the games and “I rather enjoy surprises.”

The impulsive use of impeachment is about good entertainment, not good government. For politicians fighting to stay in power like Goldman, a flash impeachment is the same call to the mob. To paraphrase, Senator Gracchus from the movie “I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the Mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. … The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate, it’s the sand of the Colosseum. He’ll bring them [impeachments], and they will love him for it.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.

N.B.: This column also appeared on Fox.com