Walsh and Grossman also argue that crime data from New York City and Boston from the 1990s and early 2000s show that local police “make impressive gains against crime” when given primary responsibility. Federal responsibility often reduces the accountability of local officials because they seek to “pass the buck to federal law enforcement authorities,” according to Heritage.
Despite growing opposition from fellow conservatives, the Southern Baptist Convention is standing firm.
Duke draws analogies to the Civil War-era issue of slavery.
“One hundred and [fifty] years ago we fought slavery as if it was a state’s right and we found out it was not,” he said, emphasizing that human trafficking is a nation- and worldwide problem that needs to be solved.
The differing views have boiled down to a clash over whether the trafficking bill violates the Constitution.
“The Constitution says that federal responses sometimes are necessary,” said Duke. “We have had examples of [federal] laws that have trumped state rights.”
But Heritage thinkers believe the Constitution does not empower the federal government to intervene in what are essentially local matters.
“Federal criminal law should be used only to combat problems reserved to the national government in the Constitution,” wrote Walsh and Grossman, who argued that the Founding Fathers expressly assigned for federal enforcement crimes such as counterfeiting, not local prostitution.
Other groups also have sided with the Department of Justice and Heritage.
The National District Attorneys Association and the Fraternal Order of Police have written to the Senate Judiciary Committee to object to the bill.
The legislation has been referred to Senate Judiciary, but its fate is unclear. Growing opposition will likely place various obstacles in its path.
On the House side, only Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Paul Broun (R-Ga.) voted against the measure in December.
It was one of the last bills introduced by Lantos, who died in February.
|
