[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...
And the answer is no. There was a bigger fuss in the power structure about the time he wore a tan suit, than about drone strikes.
That someone complains doesn’t mean if it matters. Plenty of people are complaining about what is going on now, also to zero effect.
And for those saying the AUMF justified Obama - it clearly didn’t justify it in Libya (not affiliated), and Congress expressly did not authorize it against ISIS - but drones were still widely used.
The biggest difference in these scenarios is if they were sold as ‘the right thing’, or as ragebait. There is plenty of precedent for presidents just droning/air striking countries with zero congressional approval - including Trump in his first term, Obama before that, etc.
Hell, Trump himself bombed Iran just a few months ago, and folks barely blinked an eye. Zero congressional involvement.
However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term.
I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
No one really asked if anyone was okay with Obama ‘droning’ random folks while calling them terrorists either.
Notably, using the same tools (social network analysis, etc) that are now apparently being aimed at domestic ‘terrorists’.