Senate Republicans Want to Work With Democrats on “Police Reform”

  • Post author:

Senate Republicans Want to Work With Democrats on “Police Reform”

Written by  

Is bipartisanship something to be lauded when it’s a bipartisan betrayal of the Constitution?

Democrat and Republican leaders on the Senate Judiciary Committee appear to have found common ground on the issue of police reform as cities across the nation are rocked by protests, riots, and vandalism in response to the death of George Floyd.

While Senate leadership from both sides of the aisle deny they want to defund police — the demand being made by Black Lives Matter and related groups — they say they want to work together to involve the federal government in banning certain police activities.

The Judiciary Committee on Tuesday announced that they will take a closer look at police conduct at a June 16 hearing titled “Police Use of Force and Community Relations.”

Committee Chairman Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) both addressed the “police reform” issue on Tuesday, following Democrats’ unveiling of a bill designed to restrict local police departments’ response to crime.

“It sounds like a good thing,” Graham told reporters in response to a ban on chokeholds and similar techniques.

“I think a ban on chokeholds is appropriate,” Feinstein said earlier.

Both leaders claimed to be against actually defunding police.

“I just don’t believe in that as an answer — that you take money from a department. It would have to be crippled to have effect,” Feinstein said on the matter.

Graham echoed the California Democrats’ position: “I think it’s just affected people, the cumulative effect of it all,” he said. “People responding that we can do better — not defunding the police, but reforming the police is something we can manage.”

Graham’s statement sounds nice on paper: It’s the typical appeasement language that the Republican establishment has down to a “T.” Who could object to a statement that so delicately plays to the sensibilities of both sides? Of course we won’t defund the police; that would be irresponsible! But reforming the police…

A casual observer might say Graham and Feinstein are being reasonable. But the question for constitutionalists to ask is, why is the Senate Judiciary Committee talking about any kind of action on police in the first place?

Nowhere in Article 1 of the Constitution is Congress given the power to decide on the structure or practices of local law enforcement. Of course, proponents of having the federal government step in on local policing issues will cite a litany of federal laws and statutes passed over the years that do just that. And they’re likely to find a host of activist judges more than willing to use such precedent as grounds for even more federal involvement.

But lest we forget, the Constitution is much more clear than generations of establishment lawyers and legal scholars make it out to be: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus reads the 10th Amendment in language so direct there’s no room for misunderstanding (though that’s never stopped statists with a penchant for introducing ambiguity to the most simple and straightforward texts). The Constitution does not delegate the federal government power to control local law enforcement. Therefore, that power rightly belongs to states, counties, and cities.

Allowing Congress to pass “police reform,” as innocuous as the phrase may sound, is a slower way of getting to the global elites’ goal of a national police force than the abrupt tactic of defunding and dismantling local police outright; but it is a path toward the same end nonetheless.

The role of the Lindsey Grahams has always been one of controlled opposition. “Moderates,” trying to appear bipartisan, constantly try to meet progressives halfway. But taking half-steps to Hell will still get you there eventually. The Left knows they usually won’t be able to accomplish all they want in one battle. So they get the moderates to meet them halfway today. Tomorrow, they get the other half.

A true constitutionalist would refuse to cede at all on questions of constitutional integrity. He would say “This is a matter for the states” and leave the debate at that — not schedule a hearing.

Locally controlled police are essential to ensuring our freedom. From gun confiscation to lockdowns to forced vaccinations, the Deep Staters know they need police to enforce the tyrannical policies they seek. But they need police they can control uniformly throughout the country — police who take orders from them directly rather than from every individual city or county.

If bipartisan appeasers such as Lindsay Graham are the best Republican leadership has to offer, it’s time for new leadership.

Luis Miguel is a marketer and writer whose journalistic endeavors shed light on the Deep State, the immigration crisis, and the enemies of freedom. Follow his exploits on FacebookTwitterBitchute, and at

Courtesy of The New American