Supreme Court upholds federal sex offender law - CSMonitor.com Justices Rule That Sex Offenders May Be Held After Their Sentences End - NYTimes.com From NYT: "WASHINGTON - In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued confinement of some sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences." "The law allows the federal government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by â€œclear and convincingâ€ evidence - a heightened standard, but short of â€œbeyond a reasonable doubtâ€ - it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or until a state government assumes responsibility for them. " "Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case, United States v. Comstock. â€œThe fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime - sex-related or otherwise - does not provide the Government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,â€ Justice Thomas wrote." From CSM: "The law requires federal officials to notify home-state authorities of a prisoner's possible release from federal detention and to turn the prisoner over to state officials if they agree to hold him. But in the absence of any transfer, federal officials are authorized to continuing holding the individual under the federal civil commitment statute." "Writing for the seven-member majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress's authority to enact the measure stemmed from the Constitution's necessary and proper clause. â€œThe statute is a â€˜necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,â€ Justice Breyer wrote. Breyer cautioned that his decision should not be read as granting to Congress a general police power, â€œwhich the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States.â€ Instead, Breyer compared the statute to federal efforts to prevent the spread of disease from released prisoners to the general population." So blades, what do we think of the high court's decision? Are we protecting society from those dangerous to others and most importantly the children, or are we expanding upon the power of the federal government and laying the framework for a future police state? Let's have at it!