Well, if the States and municipalities endanger the public this way, is there nothing the executive can do about it?
The Constitution envisioned the people and the states as the primary protectors of the public good. I mean, we might not like it, but that's how the country was set up. So the Framers would say that if the states and municipalities are endangering the public good, it is up to the people of those states and municipalities to elect different politicians. Their choice because it is where they live.
It's ol' H.L. Menckgen again:
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
The more authority the federal government chooses to exercise over truly internal state matters, the stronger the argument that the federal government bears the ultimate responsibility to bail those cities/states out when they get in trouble. I think a lot of our leftist-run cities are heading towards a fiscal cliff due to pension obligations and a fleeing tax base. When that happens...whose responsibility is it going to be to clean it up?
To me, those governments/municipalities have to sink or swim on their own. It is the job of the people in those places to elect the right politicians to run those cities. And if they can't...that's on them.
I think we need to be consistent on that, and it includes crime as well as fiscal responsibility. The decision-making over their cities has to be theirs.