An overwhelming 81% of Americans believe crime in our major cities is a significant problem. A new poll, taken in the wake of the federal takeover of Washington D.C.’s police force, now shows that a majority of the country – 53% – approves of the President’s aggressive methods for combating it.
This is a powerful public mandate. But it also creates a profound constitutional dilemma. What happens when a popular solution to a real and pressing problem runs contrary to the fundamental principles of our constitutional design? This is a test of whether we are a republic governed by the rule of law, or by the passions of a fearful majority.
A Mandate For Action
The public’s anxiety is not an abstraction. It is born from real tragedy and a palpable sense of disorder. The poll numbers are a direct reflection of the powerful, personal stories of crime victims, like the two female reporters in D.C. who have come forward to share their traumatic experiences of being attacked and pistol-whipped.
When citizens feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods, their demand for action is legitimate and powerful. The administration’s federal intervention in D.C., which has resulted in over 1,100 arrests in two weeks and has earned the support of the city’s own Police Union, is seen by a majority of the country as a necessary response to this crisis.
The Constitutional Firewall of Federalism
Despite this powerful national sentiment, our constitutional system places a firm and deliberate firewall between the federal government and local law enforcement. The 10th Amendment reserves the “police power” – the authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public – to the states. The policing of Chicago belongs to Illinois; the policing of Los Angeles belongs to California.
The President’s actions in Washington D.C. are only legally possible because the capital is a federal district, not a sovereign state. A similar federal takeover of a police force in any of the 50 states would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
The Framers’ Fear: Public Opinion vs. the Rule of Law
This is where the poll numbers become constitutionally dangerous. The framers of the Constitution were deeply fearful of what they called the “tyranny of the majority.” They knew that a passionate majority, driven by fear or anger, could demand actions that trample the rights of a minority or override the structures of government.
They deliberately designed a constitutional republic – not a pure majoritarian democracy – to prevent this. The Bill of Rights and the principle of federalism are counter-majoritarian checks on power. They exist precisely to ensure that fundamental rights and the sovereign power of the states cannot be erased by a 53% vote in a national opinion poll.
While the majority’s approval of the President’s methods is a powerful political fact, it is not a constitutional justification for overriding the 10th Amendment in other cities.
The new polling has given the President a powerful political mandate for his tough-on-crime agenda. It has also created a perilous moment for our republic. The desire for safety is the most powerful human impulse, but the framers of our Constitution created a system of divided powers because they knew that the greatest long-term threat to liberty is often a popular solution to a short-term crisis. The real test of our system is not whether the President’s methods are popular, but whether they are constitutional.