Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
A theory I recently read in an opinion piece is that urban political officials are upset with stepped-up federal law enforcement in Washington, D.C., in part because the rapid reduction in crime statistics there reveals that urban crime can be reduced, and that continued widespread crime in urban areas is a choice made by the politicians governing those urban areas.
The experience in Washington, D.C., may illustrate that if the urban politicians wanted to, they could implement policies that would reduce crime. That they don’t do so indicates that they are choosing to allow crime to continue.
President Trump instructed the federal government to take control of the District of Columbia police, and supplemented that force with the National Guard to implement policies he thought would help. Many politicians objected on the basis of "federal takeover," apparently having forgotten (or never learned) that the District of Columbia is explicitly established as a territory of the federal government.
And one of the roles specified for the president of the United States is to ensure (federal) laws are faithfully enforced.
Now President Trump is talking about setting up National Guard groups to undertake urban crime control in several U.S. cities. He is also specifically talking about first sending National Guard troops into Chicago.
I do not, off the top of my head, follow the legal foundation for these proposed actions. And explaining the detailed legal bases for his actions is not one of Donald Trump's strengths. The federal government does not have general police powers outside of federal territories such as the District of Columbia.
Sending troops to Los Angeles several weeks ago made sense, as doing so was specifically to protect federal law enforcement personnel during their enforcement of explicitly federal law (national immigration). But the announcements so far about sending troops to Chicago (and potentially other places) sound like they are to be sent for general law enforcement. Now, if a mayor asks the federal government to assist the local police with crime control, then there's a clear basis for federal government involvement. But so far, the large city mayors are actively rejecting any idea of asking for assistance.
I am merely a retired corporate intellectual property and business transaction lawyer, and do not closely study constitutional and government law. My job was to keep my corporate clients on absolutely solid legal ground, and far away from “on the edge” legal theories. So I'm not experienced at coming up with "on the edge" legal theories, especially related to government powers. But, I have seen enough “on the edge” legal theories develop that I can imagine that lawyers working for the Trump administration have developed or are developing theories to support what is being proposed. Maybe there's some theory about effects on interstate commerce, or about local officials abandoning their jobs, or something else. Since there are very good lawyers working for this second Trump administration, we will hear the reasoning eventually, but I'm not seeing it right now.
But, in the meantime, if local officials really wanted to reduce crime, we now know that it would be possible to do so. That they don’t do so demonstrates a choice on their part. A choice to allow crime to continue.
Discussion (17)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I am hearing that it has happened routinely before, Colin Powell calling HW to say him and the boys were going to go deal with Los Angeles. I am also curious as to the legal underpinnings. I have heard that the "police power" belongs to the states, but there are obvious circumstances, Gov. George Wallace's "stand on the schoolhouse door." against Kennedy's 2nd Infantry Division being a vivid example.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes, as you said, it is a choice to allow crime to continue. The question is, why would they make such a destructive choice? And the answer all boils down to one thing: race. People of color commit a wildly disproportionate amount of violent crime in all these cities. In order to control crime, they would have to lock up too many people of color and that just wouldn't look good, particularly in the post-George Floyd era.
I don't know if Trump has the legal right to send in National Guard troops without an invitation, but one thing is clear. Most of the leaders of these cities would rather see their cities destroyed than to allow Trump to help them clean up the mess. It really is remarkable.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes, exactly.
Just like President Trump demonstrated that the border problem was a choice on Biden's part.
And we knew it all along; burning Minneapolis, the Antifa riots, the BLM riots, millions of illegal aliens, few arrests, and those were released without bail.
And the next question is, "Why?"
I think any economist would tell you that people are making money off of this.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
FBI statistics on violent crime in metropolitan areas clearly indicate that it is predominantly Black perpetrators.
The logical solution is to add police to those high-crime/Black neighborhoods. But in today's Democrat world-view that is clearly racist and beyond the pale. So valuable resources are squandered on feel-good projects hyped to address the root causes of crime but which ultimately have little impact. For example. Former NYC Mayor Bill DiBlasio's wife was charged with spearheading a mental-health effort geared at reducing the root causes of crime. A coupl'a hundred million bucks vanished without a trace. Until Democrats have a clear=eyed view of who commits crime in the cities they run, expect no changes.
MODERATOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I think it is more evil than that. Just wanting to make money, that I could understand. There is something strange and corrupt in letting crime flourish and your. city burn. It is something more evil than greed. There are cleaner, easier ways to make money.
You're seeing five of 17 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.