There’s a tug-of-war playing out across America right now, and it’s not between two candidates or even two political parties. It’s between the Constitution’s two halves: federal and state power. President Trump’s latest legal battle over deploying the National Guard in cities like Portland, Chicago, and San Francisco has pulled that rope tighter than it’s been in decades. And now the Supreme Court is being asked to decide who holds the sword.

At the heart of the fight is a deceptively simple question: When can a President send troops into a state that doesn’t want them? The administration argues the President has broad authority under the Insurrection Act and his role as Commander in Chief. Opponents — including several governors and federal judges — counter that the Guard belongs first to the states unless there’s rebellion, invasion, or a breakdown of law enforcement.

In other words, this isn’t just about riot control. It’s about the reach of executive power and whether we’re comfortable giving any president, of any party, a “send in the troops” button whenever tensions flare.

Now, I believe in strong leadership and law and order. Chaos on our streets is no sign of freedom; it’s a sign of moral rot. But true conservatism also means guarding limits, because power that’s unchecked today will be abused tomorrow. As the Founders well knew, it’s not just tyrants who love control; good men can overreach in the name of good causes.

President Trump’s supporters see his push as courage, a leader taking responsibility when cities descend into disorder. His critics see it as authoritarian overreach. The truth, as usual, probably sits uncomfortably in the middle. The President does have real emergency authority, but not infinite authority. The Insurrection Act wasn’t written for stubborn governors or social-media mobs; it was written for rebellion and crisis beyond a state’s ability to handle.

The courts are right to wrestle with this one, because the precedent they set could echo for generations. If the Supreme Court sides firmly with the President, it could open the door for future administrations — say, a liberal president facing “climate protests” or “disinformation crises” — to use military resources at home with far less restraint. A power you hand to your friend will one day rest in your foe’s hands.

The Founders would be shouting from their graves right now: balance the powers! James Madison warned that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Federal authority and state sovereignty were designed to rub against each other like sandpaper to keep either side from becoming smooth and slippery with unchecked control.

Scripture teaches respect for authority — “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Romans 13:1) — but it also warns about the corrupting nature of power itself. King David was called “a man after God’s own heart,” but even he misused his authority when left unchecked. Good intentions aren’t a substitute for good boundaries.

That’s the spiritual heart of this issue. It’s not just about who commands the National Guard. It’s about whether our nation still believes that power should be limited by principle. Every time we face a crisis, we’re tempted to loosen the restraints “just this once.” But liberty never dies all at once; it’s chipped away by exceptions and emergencies.

If the Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of presidential power, we’ll have more “order” in the short run, and less freedom in the long run. If it rules narrowly, insisting that the states must consent or that clear statutory triggers be met, we’ll preserve the messy but vital balance our Republic depends on.

Either way, the justices aren’t just deciding a policy. They’re defining what it means to govern a free people in an age that craves control.

As for me, I pray the Court remembers that the sword, like power itself, is a dangerous gift. The hand that holds it must tremble with reverence.

After all, as Jesus told Peter when the soldier came for Him, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

A president — any president — would do well to remember that.