Department of National Homeland Security Would Usurp Local Responsibilities

Right after the September 11 attacks, President Bush created by executive order a federal Office of Homeland Security. Congress is now considering the creation of a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. The best-known of various bills to bring this about, S. 2452, was introduced by Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Homeland security is, of course, the primary responsibility of government at all levels. We certainly don't want the federal government to neglect this duty. Yet for several reasons I believe the proposed new cabinet department would be a bad approach.

Recent revelations by FBI agents and others have shown that intelligence information about imminent terrorist attacks became bogged down in the federal bureaucracy. For example, turf competition between the FBI and CIA brought about lack of communication of crucial leads between agencies. It is even possible that the attacks could have been prevented if the leads had all been available to the same intelligence analysts.

The proposed Department of National Homeland Security is expected to improve communication by serving as a clearing house for such leads. Critics say that all the new department will do is pile on another layer of bureaucracy to stifle the necessary inter-agency cooperation. The goal could be better served by cleaning up the existing agencies.

More important in the long run is the effect of the new department on our federal system. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge obviously expects to be the new Secretary of National Homeland Security. He doesn't beat around the bush on the issue of federalism. Ridge boasts that the homeland security strategy is to be "national;" and that it would specifically not be "federal."

Why is this important? The United States is a constitutional federated republic, not a national system. In a federal system, the state and local governments have sovereign responsibilities – things like police and fire departments – and are the first line of homeland defense. In a national system, the most important state responsibilities would be under the control of the national government.

In arguing for the creation of a federal rather than national system, Alexander Hamilton had this to say, "An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts: and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the [constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States."

The cabinet-level homeland security department would usurp the sovereignty of state and local governments over anything related to security. Ridge has already proposed that local police receive nationally standardized training, and local departments be subjected to national standards. This would bring their responses to incidents "up" to the standards of the people who brought us the Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzales excesses.

We need locally accountable, autonomous state and local police departments, not nationally trained and oriented puppets who are "only following orders" whenever an abuse occurs. Americans should say "no" to the Department of National Homeland Security and nationalization of local law enforcement.