The law can set the speed limit whatever it wants. If there's no police officer there enforcing the speed limit, I'll drive at whatever speed I care to.
The most important part of law, is law ENFORCEMENT. If you do not assign someone to enforce a law that is written, then it will be ignored.
It seems we need parallel executive branches. The second which is beholden to the polity, and who’s job is to police the former. That way we don’t have an automatic “regulatory capture”, which we currently have. Heck, let them go after each other: divide & conquer style.
Maybe have the top-level official be elected at a very-fine granularity, but with the power to enforce across locality lines? Like—elect at the county level, but can enforce anywhere in the State?
Frankly, the American people don't care enough to know their own President, Representative, Senator, Mayor, Governor, Sheriff, School Board, HOA committee members, county commission, and PTA board.
If anything, we need more power consolidated into fewer people. So that Americans know who to blame. In many cases, these "police brutality" issues are extremely local, caused by the local Sheriffs of each individual location. And yet, people don't know who to blame when these things happen.
There are too many positions, so officials can hide behind the confusion and avoid responsibility.
That's the whole point of elect local, enforce non-locally. I trust that there's enough people in Austin to elect a secondary prosecutorial staff to go after bad actors through Travis & its surrounding counties. The idea is to give voters a bunch of chances to enforce this stuff.
The enforcement in the US legal system comes not from the police it comes from the courts. A law that says a cop in uniform without a badge and name tag is no longer a police officer strips him of the power of the state.
The most important part of law, is law ENFORCEMENT. If you do not assign someone to enforce a law that is written, then it will be ignored.