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.
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.