You are here > Home > News Columns HOME > NEWSPAPER COLUMNS > Fighting Crime in Washington, DC - Be Careful What You Wish For

 

Previous Texas Eletion Law Update	Fighting Crime in D.C. Be Careful What You Wish For	Next Fighting Lawfare
Publised by The Galveston County Daily News Puboished: September5, 2025
Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a well-researched editorial about federal involvement in public safety.  He discussed Constitutional history and authority noting Trump’s efforts to subdue crime in Washington D.C.  Napolitano correctly said, “Thomas Jefferson and James Madison understood that everyone wants to be safe, but they recognized that some prices are too high to pay for safety.” Police didn’t exist in the American colonies and judges relied upon jailers to carry out common laws.  Madison understood, “government must use the least force and fewest assets necessary, and this can only be done efficiently by the government closest to the problem at hand.”   Our Constitution, much of which Madison wrote, purposely omits federal authority to enforce public safety.   Why?  He followed the principle of “subsidiarity” (seeking to empower the lowest level of government needed).   John Adams correctly observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."   A look at many of our current major cities strongly suggests morals are waning at best and sorely absent at worst.  Lack of morality fosters anarchy, the destruction of societies.  Napolitano rightfully argues Donald Trump has no constitutional authority to police cities outside our nation’s capital – a federal enclave.  He warns, “If the government can do as it wishes in the name of public safety, who will protect us from the government?”  He warns further about the loss of freedom when government seeks to “fix” and instill its own morals by going beyond its Constitutional authority. We agree the Presidenthas no constitutional police powers outside of D.C., while the failures in Democrat-controlled cities continues to lead to decline.  Should government right the ship?  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants emergency powers to protect against rebellion, invasion, or for public safety, but it’s the Congress, not the President, who is given this authority.  We don’t want any president to have the unrestrained authority to do anything he wants, there must be checks and balances. We face a difficult balance in light of a significant decline, or lack of, a moral compass within large segments of our society.  Should Congress grant the President authority to jump in and protect American lives in non-federal enclaves?   What could be the long-term damage inflicted by such actions?   What could occur if a president hell-bent on seizing absolute power tossed the protections of our freedoms out the window, using Trump’s actions as a precedent?   In 2013 Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changed Senate rules allowing judicial nominations approval by a simple majority so President Obama’s appointees couldn’t be blocked.  When Trump came into office, Reid’s rule allowed Republicans to do same resulting in a conservative supreme court.   We mention this because whatever authority we say a president who we like has, can be misused and become a disaster under a corrupt leader like Joe Biden. We need to draw a delicate balance to ensure freedoms are protected in the long run while rooting out graft, corruption and actions that endanger people’s lives.  We should not take actions that could be used against us.   In our view, the President should stay focused within his jurisdiction and successfully manage its outcome, like he's doing on Washington, D.C. crime.  We need a long-term approach, not short-term gain. COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK
	About the Author and Columnist 2025 Bill and Mansius have written over 300 guest columnsr and editorials together over the last ten years for numerous publications across the country and they continue to do so. Bill lives in Texas and Mark in Utah. Both gentlemen ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues. In addition to formerly being responsible for overseeing elections in Galveston County as Galveston's Chief Deputy Clerk for Elections, Bill has worked with the Texas State Legislature to improve and craft election legisation.
Comments and Feedback: A person from Vitginia commented: "I agree..policing is a local responsibility and local officials should be accountable to the people in their jurisdiction to provide adequately for safety.  Were those local officials to request federal assistance, the argument changes. In the current case where the local officials refuse help, and the issue is street crime, I think the Constitution would prevent it.  If it was an actual insurrection or potentially spreading anarchy, I think the federal intervention would be supportable" A person fromTexas raised a Question: Can, or should, the National Guard be used to protect federal law enforcement officers like ICE who are being attacked while enforcing federal immigration statutes? We think that the answer rests with an answer to the following question: "Are they operating in a defensive (protective) role?" [If their role is the protection of federal agents or federal property the answer is probably yes.] A person in the San Francisco Bay Area: Thanks for informing the populace.  I of course would trade remarks with you about "corrupt" Biden, but I have better things to do!   From a retired Federal Special Agent currently residing in North Carolina: I happen to approve the use of federal law enforcement, in  limited situations, where Democrat nutcase politicians are not protecting the public. I believe this should be done to protect the civil rights of potential and real victims... He didn't address the use of National Guard trrops. A retired Congressional Chief of Staff who currently lives in Arizona commented: Your article was well written and made a compelling argument for “moral and religious” people, but is that what “we” are facing today in American cities? As you pointed out, the Constitution does provide for Presidential intervention in cities outside Washington, DC in the case of an “invasion.”  Would 25 million illegals entering into the USA in the last 4 years qualifying under the invasion criteria?  BUT doesn’t Congress still have to authorize it?  Oh, but they‘re too busy focusing on passing a $25,000 per month personal security for each Member of Congress! And what happens when one judge says they can’t authorize such? What I didn’t see in the article was any mention of the role and responsibilities of the Church and the family.   [We are limited to about 500 words in each column, so often times we need to leave out some things that would otherwise be included. Thanks for mentioning the role of parents and the church.]

.