A Constitutional civics class

An oversight hearing in North Carolina produced one of those moments that was equally viral and revealing. When Rep. Chesser asked Mecklenburg County Sheriff McFadden a basic civics question, “Which branch of government does his office operate under?” McFadden struggled to answer and later identified the judicial branch.” The correct answer, the executive branch. For a sheriff, it was not exactly a trick question

But beyond the viral moment, it revealed a deeper concern: If there's uncertainty about which branch of government enforces the law, how well do we understand the constitutional framework on which our institutions rest?

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, we should remember that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed liberty, but the Constitution was designed to preserve it. The Founders' challenge was creating a government powerful enough to govern yet limited enough to protect the freedom it existed to secure.

That view was grounded in a realistic understanding of human nature. As Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Because neither citizens nor officials are angels, the Founders divided power among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, each designed to check the others.

The result was a government that was never intended to be fast or efficient. Delays, hearings, appeals and judicial review are not flaws; they are features. The Constitution deliberately creates friction because concentrated power is dangerous. Freedom endures when government must justify its actions and remain within constitutional limits.

This matters because police officers operate within a system designed to protect liberty as well as enforce the law. The Fourth and Sixth amendments embody a central principle: it is better to risk letting some guilty people go free than to grant the government unchecked power over the innocent. The goal is justice, not simply punishment, because the same power used against the guilty today can be used against the innocent tomorrow.

That principle remains relevant today. In different ways, debates over policing after George Floyd's death, emergency powers during COVID-19, and immigration enforcement have all tested the same question: Should constitutional limits give way when the stakes feel especially high? The Founders' answer was no. The Constitution was designed to hold even when passions run strongest.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, we should remember that the Constitution is not preserved by trusting those in power. It is preserved by limiting their control.

The answer is to respect the process, even when it is slow, frustrating and imperfect for everyone. The Founders built a system based on distrust of concentrated power. Two hundred-and-fifty years later, that remains one of America's most important ideas.

That reality is not merely theoretical. In recent years, states and local governments have considered measures placing officers in legally conflicting positions. Whether involved in immigration enforcement or other politically charged issues, officers have sometimes been asked to carry out duties that exceed their lawful authority. Police officers are not statutory-free agents. Constitutional limits do not expand or contract with the issue of the day. Whether the controversy involves masks, immigration or the next public emergency, officers remain bound by law, not political winds.

When government officials attempt to assign powers that officers do not lawfully possess or require actions that cannot be constitutionally enforced, they undermine the very system they are sworn to uphold. Constitutional government works only when each level respects the limits of its authority. The Constitution does not trust any single person or institution with unchecked power. That is why it has endured for 250 years.

– Durango Police Chief Brice Current