logo
Mass. gave the U.S. its Constitution. Why it matters more than ever

Mass. gave the U.S. its Constitution. Why it matters more than ever

Yahoo21-04-2025
Good Monday morning, all.
If you were up early and found yourself in Lexington over the weekend, you might have mistakenly thought you'd fallen into a tear in the space-time continuum, what with all the folks in Revolutionary War cosplay, and all.
The reenactment of the battle that sparked America's fight for independence is an annual occurrence on Lexington's Battle Green. And this year, with the nation's 250th birthday looming, it comes freighted with some additional meaning.
And with this Monday being Patriots' Day here in the Bay State (and Marathon Monday!), it seemed like a good idea to review another of Massachusetts' key contributions to the founding of the Republic.
Namely, that the Bay State's Constitution, drafted in 1780 by Quincy's own John Adams, was the template for the U.S. Constitution, written seven years later, by James Madison.
For that refresher, MassLive turned to Jerold Duquette, a Central Connecticut State University professor, who tracks Massachusetts politics. Here are 3 things to know about the Bay State's founding document, and why we wouldn't be the country we are now without it.
Duquette, the co-editor of 'The Politics of Massachusetts Exceptionalism,' took a few minutes to share his thoughts last week. This conversation has been lightly edited for content and clarity.
Q: It's Patriots' Day in Massachusetts. What's the one big thing we need to know about the Massachusetts Constitution?
Duqette: 'Given what we're now experiencing in [the] state and nation ... the most significant thing about the Massachusetts Constitution that should be heralded from the top of Beacon Hill is the very clear existence of legislative supremacy, both … in theory and in practice .... legislative supremacy was invented in Massachusetts. The framers of the Massachusetts Constitution had spent a century-and-a-half as legislators beating the s**t out of royal governors.'
Q: Why does that matter?
A: 'In Washington today, we're seeing the [poison] fruits of legislative supremacy, [it] having been dashed incrementally. Basically, for our last 100 years, Congress has gradually, sometimes not so gradually, surrendered power to the executive. And now we have an executive running all over the Constitution and a [legislative branch] doing nothing.'
Q: If you're looking for through-lines between the Massachusetts and U.S. constitutions, what are the most obvious drop-and-drags?
A: 'The most important things, I would contend, are these two concepts, which are legislative supremacy and separation of powers."
'Now, not a lot of people want to talk about legislative supremacy ... it's kind of tricky, right? If you're talking about legislative supremacy, I'm talking about a concept of principle. And I'm certainly talking about how it has worked out in Massachusetts.'
'But what you hear lawyers and even constitutional law professors sometimes say is that the Constitution of Massachusetts, as well as the Constitution of the United States, envisioned separation of powers [and] coequal branches.'
'However, they're always careful to say that only one of the branches is really completely independent and is preeminent — or the first among equals — and that is the legislature. I call that legislative supremacy."
'Lots of American historians and constitutional experts in the 20th century did as well, but it's clearly not the case in the United States. Right? The American Constitution has, in fact, no longer has legislative supremacy, because the Congress and the courts have essentially ceded authority to the president.'
Q: What do you think the framers would make of this creep of the unitary executive, which has been a bipartisan phenomenon?
A: 'They would be terrified ... There were two ... big fears. Well, maybe it's the same fear, but it's two sides of the coin.
'They were very much afraid of the average person. In a sense, they were afraid of any kind of direct democracy. But they were also afraid of the kind of person who would be able to exploit the opinions of those masses, and that would be the demagogue. They were afraid of demagogic leaders being able to inflame the passion. So, mob rule is a fear of the people. But it's also a fear of the people who would strike fear in the people.'
'You don't really have to be a scholar to recognize that we have a demagogic president who is taking full advantage of the power of public opinion .... Executives are very, very comfortable now claiming an electoral mandate. That's not really something the framers would ever have wanted. They would not have wanted any president ... to be claiming that they are the people's president.'
Q: What should people be reflecting on today? What will you be reflecting on during Patriots Day?
A: 'I think I'll be reflecting on the dangers of the unitary executive theory, and how we're seeing it at the national level. You know that danger is imminent.'
As if we needed further confirmation that driving in Massachusetts is, indeed, a bloodsport, this new data from the folks at Insurify.com should do the trick.
First, the good news: Car accident rates declined in every state except Vermont and New York from 2023 to 2024. Those states had a 2% and 10% increase, respectively, according to the industry website's analysis.
But before Bay State drivers stop leaning on their horns long enough to take a bow, here's some sobering perspective: Massachusetts had the highest crash rate (6.07%) of all 50 states, according to that same analysis.
Insurify analysts calculated the accident rate based on the number of accidents and the total number of drivers in each state.
If it's any consolation, nearly all of our fellow New England drivers are also menaces on the road.
New Hampshire had the second-highest crash rate at 5.81%, followed by Rhode Island, which finished third at 5.63%. Maine finished fourth at 5.38%.
And while Bay Staters like to mock Connecticut, the Nutmeg State finished 29th, at 4.22%, according to the Insurify analysis.
'People are struggling, and too many of the folks in charge are out of touch or out of reach. I've seen what it's like when rent eats half your paycheck. When schools go underfunded year after year. When entire neighborhoods feel like they're being pushed out. And I know I'm not alone — that's the Boston too many of us are living in."
The call is coming from inside City Hall. Kerry Augustin, 26, a receptionist for Boston's Age Strong Commission, jumped into the crowded field of candidates who are looking to challenge incumbent Mayor Michelle Wu.
US-Canada relations tested as border library faces new restrictions | John L. Micek
Layoffs begin amid 'budget crisis' at Harvard's Chan School of Public Health
Western New England Law prof fighting Trump's ban on trans people from military
Kerry Augustin, City Hall employee, joins Boston mayoral race
Mass. House Speaker Mariano resists calls for indicted Cape Cod rep. to resign
Trump admin cancels $90 million in disaster prevention aid for 18 Mass. communities
Why Harvard was willing to risk $9B to fight Trump
Springfield Democrats huddle on May 10 at Springfield Central High School (and virtually) to pick their slate of delegates to this year's Democratic State Convention.
Democrats from the City of Firsts have home-field advantage for the party conclave, which is being held at the MassMutual Center in downtown Springfield. on Sept 13.
The May 10 event gets rolling at 10:30 a.m., with registration closing at 10:45 a.m. The caucus will also feature speeches by local elected officials and party leaders.
Japanese Breakfast, the nom de rock for singer-songwriter Michelle Zauner, plays the MGM Music Hall in Boston on May 7 (Tickets and more info here). The band has an outstanding new record out, 'For Melancholy Brunettes (& sad women),' that builds on an already impressive discography. From that LP, here's 'Orlando in Love.'
From name and likeness rights to the transfer window, the big-money business of college football has seen some equally big changes over the last few years.
Another biggie: The rise of the college football general manager. Sam Khan Jr., writing for The Athletic, explains why you need a GM if you intend to be a serious player. One caveat though: This change has been underway for years.
Here's the germane part:
Across college football, employing a general manager has become table stakes for programs that are serious about talent acquisition.
A GM's role can vary, but in most cases, that person oversees all aspects of roster construction: high school recruiting, the transfer portal, name, image and likeness compensation and — once the House v. NCAA settlement is approved — a revenue-sharing payroll.rule
Some programs have prioritized hires with NFL experience to help navigate an offseason that looks more professionalized by the day, especially with contract negotiations and NFL-style holdouts playing out in increasingly public forums.
In 2025, the GM has become one of the most important athletic department hires a school can make. But college football GMs aren't an overnight invention. They're a movement nearly 20 years in the making, with the largest roots tracing to some of the sport's most storied programs.
Major rule changes accelerated general managers' evolution from back-office grunts to one of the most influential people in the building. And their profile is only rising.
One more caveat: The full story is subscription-only.
That's it for today. As always, tips, comments and questions can be sent to jmicek@masslive.com. Have a good week, friends.
US-Canada relations tested as border library faces new restrictions | John L. Micek
3 UMass poll numbers that could worry Republicans. And 1 for Democrats | John L. Micek
Mass. Gov. Healey has a GOP challenger. 3 big questions we're asking | Bay State Briefing
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Latest: Trump planning for Putin-Zelenskyy meeting while affirming security guarantees
The Latest: Trump planning for Putin-Zelenskyy meeting while affirming security guarantees

San Francisco Chronicle​

time9 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

The Latest: Trump planning for Putin-Zelenskyy meeting while affirming security guarantees

President Donald Trump said he's begun arrangements for a face-to-face meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss a pathway to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Trump affirmed that the U.S. would back European security guarantees but stopped short of committing U.S. troops to a collective effort to prevent Moscow from reinvading its neighbor. Relying on the false information and conspiracy theories that he's regularly used to explain away his 2020 election loss, Trump has pledged again to get rid of both mail voting, used by about one-third of all voters, and voting machines used in nearly all of the nation's election jurisdictions. Based on the Constitution, U.S. elections are managed by the states, and there is little to no way for Trump to change this. Trump says he didn't speak with Putin with European leaders in the room The president said he thought it would have been disrespectful to handle the phone call that way since Putin and the European leaders meeting with him at the White House haven't had the 'warmest relations.' But despite that, he said during an interview on Fox News Channel's 'Fox and Friends' that he has managed to maintain a 'very good relationship' with Putin. Trump was holding talks at the White House on Monday with Zelenskyy and the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, the European Union and NATO on ending Russia's war on Ukraine The president, in a morning interview on 'Fox & Friends,' said that he's optimistic a deal can be made to bring an end to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But Trump underscored that Ukraine will have to set aside both its hope of a returned Crimea, which Russia seized by force in 2014, and its aspirations to join the NATO military alliance. 'Both of those things are impossible,' Trump said. Putin, as part of any potential deal, is looking for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. Government argued 'Alligator Alcatraz' lawsuits need a different court The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida's southern district was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state's middle district. The defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it's in compliance with federal environmental laws. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami has yet to rule on the venue question. On Aug. 7 she ordered a 14-day halt on additional construction during a hearing last week and said she plans to rule before the order expires this week. Judge dismisses part of lawsuit against 'Alligator Alcatraz' lawsuit A federal judge in Miami dismissed part of a lawsuit over the legal rights of detainees at the 'Alligator Alcatraz' immigration detention center and moved the case to a different jurisdiction. U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz's 47-page ruling late Monday says claims the detainees lack confidential access to their lawyers or to immigration hearings were rendered moot when the Trump administration recently designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard. The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility have access to their lawyers and can get a hearing. Next steps in the negotiations turn back to Putin Trump, who bragged on numerous occasions during the campaign that he could settle Russia's war in Ukraine in a day, said repeatedly Monday that it was far more complicated than he ever thought it would be. But he also suggested — likely implausibly — that the fighting that has raged for years could wind down quickly. 'A week or two weeks, we'll know whether we're going to solve this, or if this horrible fighting is going to continue,' said Trump, even suggesting the issues yet to be hammered out weren't 'overly complex.' Still, much remains unresolved, including red lines that are incompatible — like whether Ukraine will cede any land to Russia, the future of Ukraine's army and whether the country will ultimately have lasting and meaningful security guarantees. Zelenskyy says meeting with Putin should be held 'without any conditions' Zelenskyy says that if he starts to set conditions for the meeting, regarding a potential ceasefire or other matters, then Russia will want to set conditions, too, potentially jeopardizing those talks. 'That's why I believe that we must meet without any conditions,' he told reporters. Zelenskyy said Trump showed him a map of the Ukraine front lines in the Oval Office and they got into a little debate about territories it showed. But they didn't argue, he said. 'We had a truly warm, good and substantial conversation,' Zelenskyy said. NATO leader says 'Article 5 kind of security guarantees' will be discussed in coming days NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says Trump agreed that the United States would contribute to Ukraine's security following a peace deal, a development he called 'a breakthrough.' Membership in NATO is not on the table, but the U.S. and European leaders are discussing 'Article 5 kind of security guarantees for Ukraine,' Rutte said in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Article 5 of the NATO treaty says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all members, the heart of the transatlantic defense compact. Details around U.S. involvement in Ukraine 'will be discussed over the coming days,' which will give Zelenskyy the clarity he needs to decide whether Ukrainians can remain safe following a peace deal. 'It is important to also know what the situation will be with the security guarantees to prevent Vladimir Putin from ever, ever trying again to invade parts of Ukraine,' Rutte said. The possibility of U.S. troops in Ukraine was not discussed Monday, he said. DC told of intent to arm National Guard troops Washington has been informed about the intent for the National Guard to be armed, though it has not received details about when that could happen or where armed Guard members could be deployed in D.C., according to a person familiar who was not authorized to disclose the plans and spoke on condition of anonymity. It would be a departure from what the Pentagon and Army have said about the troops being unarmed. The Army said in a statement last week that 'weapons are available if needed but will remain in the armory.' Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson also said last week that troops won't be armed. In response to questions about whether Guard members in Washington would be armed in the coming days, the District of Columbia National Guard said troops 'may be armed consistent with their mission and training.' Maj. Melissa Heintz, a spokesperson for the D.C. Guard, didn't provide more details and said 'their presence is focused on supporting civil authorities and ensuring the safety of the community they serve.'

Trump vows to change how elections are run. The US Constitution doesn't give him that power
Trump vows to change how elections are run. The US Constitution doesn't give him that power

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump vows to change how elections are run. The US Constitution doesn't give him that power

President Donald Trump on Monday vowed more changes to the way elections are conducted in the U.S., but based on the Constitution there is little to nothing he can do on his own. Relying on false information and conspiracy theories that he's regularly used to explain away his 2020 election loss, Trump pledged on his social media site that he would do away with both mail voting — which remains popular and is used by about one-third of all voters — and voting machines — some form of which are used in almost all of the country's thousands of election jurisdictions. These are the same systems that enabled Trump to win the 2024 election and Republicans to gain control of Congress. Trump's post marks an escalation even in his normally overheated election rhetoric. He issued a wide-ranging executive order earlier this year that, among other changes, would have required documented proof-of-citizenship before registering to vote. His Monday post promised another election executive order to 'help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm elections.' The same post also pushed falsehoods about voting. He claimed the U.S. is the only country to use mail voting, when it's actually used by dozens, including Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Similar complaints to Trump's, when aired on conservative and conservative-leaning networks such as Newsmax and Fox News, have led to multimillion dollar defamation settlements, including one announced Monday, because they are full of false information and the outlets have not been able to present any evidence to support them. Trump's post came after the president told Fox News that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in their Friday meeting in Alaska, echoed his grievances about mail voting and the 2020 election. Trump continued his attack on mail voting and voting machines in the Oval Office on Monday, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The announcement signals yet another way that Trump intends to stack the cards in his favor in the 2026 midterm elections, after he already has directed his attorney general to investigate a Democratic fundraising platform and urged states to redraw their congressional districts to help the GOP maintain its majority in the House of Representatives. Here's a breakdown of Trump's latest election post and why Congress is the one entity that can implement national election rules. Trump's post Trump for years has promoted false information about voting, and Monday was no exception. He claimed there is 'MASSIVE FRAUD' due to mail voting, when in fact voting fraud in the U.S. is rare. As an example, an Associated Press review after the 2020 election found fewer than 475 cases of potential fraud in the six battleground states where he disputed his loss, far too few to tip that election to Trump. Washington and Oregon, which conduct elections entirely by mail, have sued to challenge Trump's earlier executive order — which sought to require that all ballots must be received by Election Day and not just postmarked by then. The states argue that the president has no such authority, and they are seeking a declaration from a federal judge in Seattle that their postmark deadlines do not conflict with federal law setting the date of U.S. elections. Trump also alleged that voting machines are more expensive than 'Watermark Paper." That's a little-used system that has gained favor and investments among some voting conspiracy theorists who believe it would help prevent fraudulent ballots from being introduced into the vote count. Watermarks would not provide a way to count ballots, so they would not on their own replace vote tabulating machines. While some jurisdictions still have voters use electronic ballot-marking devices to cast their votes, the vast majority of voters in the U.S. already vote on paper ballots, creating an auditable record of votes that provides an extra safeguard for election security. In his post, Trump also claimed that states 'are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes' and must do what the federal government 'as represented by the President of the United States' tells them to do. Election lawyers said that's a misrepresentation of the U.S. Constitution. It also flies in the face of what had been a core Republican Party value of prioritizing states' rights. Thousands of elections, none under presidential control Unlike in most countries, elections in the U.S. are run by the states. But it gets more complicated — each state then allows smaller jurisdictions, such as counties, cities or townships, to run their own elections. Election officials estimate there are as many as 10,000 different election jurisdictions across the country. A frequent complaint of Trump and other election conspiracy theorists is that the U.S. doesn't run its election like France, which hand counts presidential ballots and usually has a national result on election night. But that's because France is only running that single election, and every jurisdiction has the same ballot with no other races. A ballot in the U.S. might contain dozens of races, from president on down to city council and including state and local ballot measures. The Constitution makes the states the entities that determine the 'time, place and manner' of elections, but does allow Congress to 'make' or 'alter' rules for federal elections. Congress can change the way states run congressional and presidential elections but has no say in the way a state runs its own elections. The president is not mentioned at all in the Constitution's list of entities with powers over elections. 'The president has very limited to zero authority over things related to the conduct of elections,' said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Courts have agreed — no presidential involvement Parts of Trump's earlier executive order on elections were swiftly blocked by the courts, on the grounds that Congress, and not the president, sets federal election rules. It's unclear what Trump plans to do now, but the only path to change federal election rules is through Congress. Although Republicans control Congress, it's unclear that even his party would want to eliminate voting machines nationwide, possibly delaying vote tallies in their own races by weeks or months. Even if they did, legislation would likely be unable to pass because Democrats could filibuster it in the U.S. Senate. Mail voting had bipartisan support before Trump turned against it during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, but it's still widely used in Republican-leaning states, including several he won last November — Arizona, Florida and Utah. It's also how members of the military stationed overseas cast their ballots, and fully eliminating it would disenfranchise those GOP-leaning voters. The main significance of Trump's Monday statement is that it signals his continuing obsession with trying to change how elections are run. 'These kinds of claims could provide a kind of excuse for him to try to meddle,' Hasen said. 'Very concerned about that.' ___ Associated Press writer Eugene Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.

3 more GOP governors authorize deployment of National Guard troops as part of Trump show of force
3 more GOP governors authorize deployment of National Guard troops as part of Trump show of force

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

3 more GOP governors authorize deployment of National Guard troops as part of Trump show of force

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three more Republican governors authorized the deployment of National Guard troops to Washington on Monday, part of President Donald Trump's escalating show of force that he says is designed to crack down on crime and boost immigration enforcement in the nation's capital. The announcements by Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana brought the number of state troops detailed to the president's effort to more than 1,100 — and the number of states to six. Governors from the states said they were responding to requests from the Trump administration to join the operation. It was not immediately clear why the administration requested additional military support. About 800 troops have already been called up from the Washington, D.C., guard and have had a limited assigned role so far in Trump's 10-day-old attempted takeover of D.C. law enforcement. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said the descriptions of the operation needed to be more honest — and acknowledge that they weren't just about curtailing crime but about immigration enforcement, a centerpiece of the second Trump administration that has echoed across the country in recent months. During a news conference, Bowser pushed back on Trump's characterization of the city and voiced skepticism about the administration's intentions. 'I think it makes the point that this is not about D.C. crime,' Bowser said of the administration and states deploying National Guard members onto the streets of the capital. 'The focus should be on violent crime. ... Nobody is against focusing on driving down any level of violence. And so if this is really about immigration enforcement, the administration should make that plain.' Trump's executive order that launched the federal operation declared a 'crime emergency' in the District of Columbia and initiated a takeover of Washington's police department. The administration has ordered local police to cooperate with federal agents on immigration enforcement, orders that would contradict local laws prohibiting such collaboration. Federal agents have arrested 160 undocumented people in the district since the operation began, including people that White House officials allege are known gang members with prior felony offenses. Friction with local government and community continues The executive order has led to friction with the local government and heightened tensions in the community as a surge of federal agents in the capital garner praise and protest from residents. The nation's capital can govern itself through powers delegated to it by Congress, though the federal laws that grant that autonomy give wide breadth to the president and Congress to intervene when they see fit. That longstanding tension has led to a legal standoff between local officials and the White House in the current troop deployment and surge of federal officers into the district. In what could also heighten tensions on the streets, Washington has been informed about the intent for the National Guard to be armed, though it has not received details about when that could happen or where armed Guard members could be deployed in the District, according to a person familiar who was not authorized to disclose the plans and spoke on condition of anonymity. It would be a departure from what the Pentagon and Army have said about the troops being unarmed. The Army said in a statement last week that 'weapons are available if needed but will remain in the armory.' Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson also said last week that troops won't be armed. In response to questions about whether Guard members in Washington would be armed in the coming days, the District of Columbia National Guard said troops 'may be armed consistent with their mission and training.' Maj. Melissa Heintz, a spokesperson for the D.C. Guard, didn't provide more details. The stepped-up guard presence grew further Monday with the new deployments from Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee, all led by Republican governors. A spokesperson for Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said that the governor had granted a request from the Trump administration for the state's National Guard members 'to assist with monument security, community safety patrols, protecting federal facilities, and traffic control." The troops 'are ready to assist as long as needed," the governor's office said. In addition to Monday's announcements, West Virginia said it was deploying 300 to 400 troops, South Carolina pledged 200 and Ohio said it will send 150 in the coming days, deployments that built on top of Trump's initial order that 800 National Guard troops deploy as part of the federal intervention. National Guard members in the District of Columbia have been assisting law enforcement with tasks including crowd control and patrolling landmarks such as the National Mall and Union Station. Their role has been limited thus far, and it remains unclear why additional troops would be needed, though attention-getting optics have long been a part of Donald Trump's playbook. Questions remain about who is actually running the DC police On Friday, the city's attorney general sued the administration for appointing the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration as the city's 'emergency police commissioner." The administration walked back the move but then issued a follow-up order that directed local police to 'cooperate fully and completely with federal immigration authorities.' 'D.C. has been under siege from thugs and killers, but now, D.C. is back under Federal Control where it belongs,' Trump wrote on his social media website a day after issuing his order. 'The White House is in charge. The Military and our Great Police will liberate this City, scrape away the filth, and make it safe, clean, habitable and beautiful once more!' Federal agents from the DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and other agencies have patrolled high-traffic areas around the capital over the last week. ICE officers, who work under the Department of Homeland Security, have made arrests in neighborhoods across the city, dispersed some public gatherings and torn pro-immigrant signs, according to videos published by the administration. The White House has touted various arrests that local police and federal agents have made across the city since Trump's executive order. Federal agents have made 380 arrests in the week since the start of the operation and in some cases issued charges to detained people. The White House has touted the surge of agents on social media and posted pictures of people arrested by local and federal officers. 'Washington, DC is getting safer every night thanks to our law enforcement partners,' Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media. 'Just this weekend, 137 arrests were made and 21 illegal firearms were seized. In total, there have been nearly 400 arrests—and we are not slowing down.' Amid the crackdown, the administration has received criticism for the conduct of some federal agents, who in several high-profile incidents have arrested people while wearing masks that hide their identity and declined to identify themselves to media or members of the public when questioned. Bowser said Monday that she had asked D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith to seek answers from the administration about the use of masked police. 'It's very important to us that agents be identified,' Bowser said. 'There's no reason for a law enforcement official to be masked.' On Monday, dozens of protesters gathered in the U Street neighborhood of Washington, where multiple federal agents patrols and arrests had taken place over the weekend, to protest the Trump administration's actions. ___ Associated Press writers Anna Johnson in Washington, Jeff Amy in Atlanta and Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tennessee, contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store