Posted on 05/17/2010 7:46:23 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
This morning the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in United States v. Comstock, a challenge to the federal government’s authority to civilly commit a “sexually dangerous” federal prisoner beyond the time of his sentence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the federal government lacked such authority within its enumerated powers. The Supreme Court disagreed, voting 7–2 to uphold the federal government’s commitment power under the Necessary & Proper Clause. Justice Breyer wrote for the majority. Justices Kennedy & Alito concurred in the judgment, and Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Scalia. The opinions are here. Some earlier VC posts on the case are here and here. I haven’t had a chance to read the opinions yet, but given that Justice Breyer wrote the majority — and that he is such an avowed advocate of broad federal power — I suspect this decision is a major setback for those seeking to limit the federal government to its constitutionally enumerated powers.
Those sexual offenders that ARE rehabilitated would be screwed by this - but hey, life's a bitch sometimes ...
Or, conversely, INCREASE the budgets for monitoring them once they are out ...
Allowing the government to indefinitely hold those beyond the term that the GOVERNMENT itself prescribed is Un-American. And just WHO is to say which ex-cons will re-offend ???
And when does this stop ??? Do you keep a bank robber locked up indefinitely because you THINK he's gonna rob another bank ???
That reminds me - gotta go rent "Minority Report" ...
I meant I hope the latter is right. If it is, then the Feds won't have the right to suspend habeus corpus at will.
I could care less what Breyer says in his decision, so I only read Alito’s concurrence and Thomas’s dissent.
I love Clarence Thomas. I just love the way he thinks.
Alito said, If the States won’t do their duty, then the US goverment has to step in and fill the gap when the cause is right and necessary.
Thomas said, No matter how noble or necessary the cause, no matter how sound the reasoning, no matter how just the action, if the US government lacks constitutional authority to act, then it cannot act. Period. End of discussion. It doesn’t matter how sensible, useful, just, necessary or wonderful the US government action is, it is disallowed unless the powers it is using are granted specifically in the Constitution.
I think Thomas got it right and I am VERY disappointed to see Roberts and Alito rule in favor of unconstitutional US government action.
As far as the death of Federalism, I have been calling the US government the “central government”. They are not a federal government. Federalism died a long, long time ago.
I hold Roberts in the highest esteem. He is as fair as he is brilliant and well grounded. This has me stumped and disappointed.
That the cause is just does not mean the action by the US government is authorized by the US constitution. How could Roberts and Alito get this one wrong?
I didn’t think this case was about whether dangerous persons can be held indefinitely. I thought this case was only about who can do the holding. I thought it is perfectly legal for states to hold dangerous persons indefinitlely.
I thought the only issue in this case was whether the US government can hold dangerous persons indefinitely where a state fails to step up and do so upon release of said dangerous person from a Federal institution.
For any interested in reading the opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf
I haven’t read it, which makes me as well qualified to comment as Holder and Napolitano are on AZ law...but I’ll refrain, other than to note that when Scalia and Thomas dissent, it is a bad sign for the good guys.
...a challenge to the federal government's authority to civilly commit a "sexually dangerous" federal prisoner beyond the time of his sentence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the federal government lacked such authority within its enumerated powers. The Supreme Court disagreed, voting 7-2 to uphold the federal government's commitment power under the Necessary & Proper Clause. Justice Breyer wrote for the majority. Justices Kennedy & Alito concurred in the judgment, and Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Scalia.
Who, pray tell, decides who is 'dangerous'?
What is the threshhold to be considered dangerous?
Does this dangerous person have to be suspected/arrested/convicted of a dangerous act, or is the suspicion of neighbors (or some government flunky ) enough?
For now, the standards may seem clear. For a while, the idea of "interstate commerce" was, along with "pollutant", but both have been muddled to the point the slippery slope is in action.
Every power granted to Government is a two-edged sword. One which can do righteous work in the hands of the just, or incredible evil in others.
Especially in this day and age, I am suspicious of any move the Federal government makes to garner more power to itself, as should be all people, regardless of how attractive the move may seem in the test case used to justify the taking of power.
In a percieved time of crisis, the masses will willingly give up power they would not surrender at gunpoint otherwise.
read my tagline.. before i used it humorously when Bush was POTUS to satire American hubris... Now I use it with dread over what Obama has done to America..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.