SC Rules U.S. Can Hold Sex Offenders After Their Sentences Expire

Originally posted by no1marauder
This type of argument has been rejected consistently by the Supreme Court since McCullough v. Maryland (that's about 200 years ago) and was rejected again today.

The idea that Congress is barred from "acting to protect the general welfare of the people" would have been found amusing by the Framers.

McCullough was not about Congress acting for the general welfare. It was about allowing Congress to do things (like establish a federal bank) that are necessary and proper to carry into execution its other enumerated powers (in that case, to coin money and regulate commerce). It was not a carte blanche for Congress to do whatever it feels is a good idea.

Congress' powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. Congress isn't "barred" from acting to protect the general welfare of the people. But it is limited to acting in accordance with the powers afforded to it by the Constitution. what about Lopez? What about Morisson?

Originally posted by sh76
[b]Essentially, the theory is that sexual predators are equivalent to whose who are criminally insane.

Surely, if they do not respond to treatment, and remain a threat to others, that is just what they are.

Originally posted by sh76
Try saying that if you're running for office.

The Chinese emperors of the Ch'ing, and former dynasties, had an effectual treatment for their male palace servants which ensured the safety of their women.

Originally posted by Palynka
Hopefully society will evolve beyond lobotomies and castration as "treatments".

Oh, yes, I forgot. It's voluntary...you just have to spend more years in jail. And since you refused "voluntary" castration I guess you aren't really penitent enough for probation, are you? Have you really learned your lesson? Maybe you should accept castration now and we'll give you early freedom. Do ex-thieves without hands steal as often?

I wouldn't oppose offering thieves such an option, in principle. I think, however, that very few would use it, as opposed to castration, so I don't think it's a meaningful comparison.

Originally posted by sh76
McCullough was not about Congress acting for the general welfare. It was about allowing Congress to do things (like establish a federal bank) that are necessary and proper to carry into execution its other enumerated powers (in that case, to coin money and regulate commerce). It was not a carte blanche for Congress to do whatever it feels is a good idea.

Con ...[text shortened]... e with the powers afforded to it by the Constitution. what about Lopez? What about Morisson?

You're being disingenuous as well as using a "strawman" argument. No one EVER claimed that Congress had "a carte blanche ......... to do whatever it feels is a good idea." But since it seems to be uncontested that Congress can pass laws regarding sexual predators and run prisons wherein they are housed just like the States can for the same reasons, it is senseless to claim that the Feds can't do what 20 States are doing and keep them in prison after they have served their sentence. Neither you nor Thomas have come up with a rational argument why this would be so. I can't divine any actual relevant points from your remarks and Thomas relies , as usual, on a crabbed reading of the literal wording of the Constitution that is inappropriate. The Framers did not mean for the Constitution to be read in the same manner as Fundies read the Bible.

You might also consider, for later reference, that the Constitution meant to, and did, vastly expand Federal power.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being disingenuous as well as using a "strawman" argument. No one EVER claimed that Congress had "a carte blanche ......... to do whatever it feels is a good idea." But since it seems to be uncontested that Congress can pass laws regarding sexual predators and run prisons wherein they are housed just like the States can for the same reasons, it is or later reference, that the Constitution meant to, and did, vastly expand Federal power.

Is there a real difference between doing "whatever it feels is a good idea" and acting for the "general welfare" of the people?

Of course the Constitution can't be read exactly and narrowly; but there's a far cry between the powers actually enumerated in Article I section 8 and civilly committing a sexual abuser for fear that he might attack some other undefined person at some point in the future.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Surely, if they do not respond to treatment, and remain a threat to others, that is just what they are.

I don't think I agree with that. Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you're criminally insane. Just because you have an urge to commit a crime doesn't mean you need to be committed indefinitely. It's a matter of degree of course, but the fact that one has an urge to commit a sexual crime and once gave into that urge does not mean that he or she is criminally insane.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I wouldn't oppose offering thieves such an option, in principle. I think, however, that very few would use it, as opposed to castration, so I don't think it's a meaningful comparison.

Why is the proportion of takers relevant? You don't find it barbaric to treat mental illnesses by mutilation?

Originally posted by sh76
Is there a real difference between doing "whatever it feels is a good idea" and acting for the "general welfare" of the people?

Of course the Constitution can't be read exactly and narrowly; but there's a far cry between the powers actually enumerated in Article I section 8 and civilly committing a sexual abuser for fear that he might attack some other undefined person at some point in the future.

So, in your opinion, there's some enumerated power for the Feds to imprison sexual predators but that enumerated power draws the line at civilly committing them after their sentence is served even though the States can do so?

Be serious.

Originally posted by sh76
It's a matter of degree of course, but the fact that one has an urge to commit a sexual crime and once gave into that urge does not mean that he or she is criminally insane.

Speaking for myself, sometimes really wicked sex drives me crazy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So, in your opinion, there's some enumerated power for the Feds to imprison sexual predators but that enumerated power draws the line at civilly committing them after their sentence is served even though the States can do so?

Be serious.

Yes.

The power to regulate interstate commerce allows the federal government to criminalize and punish actions that have an interstate commerce element.

The power to regulate interstate commerce does not give Congress the authority to civilly commit people on the grounds that they are a general threat to society in general.

Hair splitting, perhaps. But, analysis of federal authority is all about hair splitting.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think I agree with that. Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you're criminally insane. Just because you have an urge to commit a crime doesn't mean you need to be committed indefinitely. It's a matter of degree of course, but the fact that one has an urge to commit a sexual crime and once gave into that urge does not mean that he or she is criminally insane.

Well no matter what you choose to call them, such individuals need to be incarcerated so long as they continue to pose a threat to society.

Originally posted by sh76
Yes.

The power to regulate interstate commerce allows the federal government to criminalize and punish actions that have an interstate commerce element.

The power to regulate interstate commerce does not give Congress the authority to civilly commit people on the grounds that they are a general threat to society in general.

Hair splitting, perhaps. But ...[text shortened]... of federal authority is all about hair splitting.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

I'll make you happy:

The person in question was arrested for possessing child pornography which is presumably "interstate commerce". Since he's still a "threat" to purchase child pornography, civilly committing him has an "effect" on interstate commerce and is thus a legitimate use of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

More simply, the purposes of incarcerating people for committing crimes which make them sexual predators is exactly the same as the purposes for civilly committing them. If the Feds incarcerating them for the protection of society is constitutionally permissible then civilly committing them for the same purposes raises no real separation of power issue.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll make you happy:

The person in question was arrested for possessing child pornography which is presumably "interstate commerce". Since he's still a "threat" to purchase child pornography, civilly committing him has an "effect" on interstate commerce and is thus a legitimate use of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

In today's world of modern electronics and tansportation, is there any aspect of life that is NOT in some way connected with "interstate commerce"? Seems like that clause could be (and has been) used to justify almost any federal action.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
In today's world of modern electronics and tansportation, is there any aspect of life that is NOT in some way connected with "interstate commerce"? Seems like that clause could be (and has been) used to justify almost any federal action.

(Shrug) It's hardly a shocking idea that the Framers left the terminology in the Constitution sufficiently vague in some areas to make Congressional power responsive to changing conditions.