Liberty Can Be Hard To Explain

Adam Weinberg

Adam Weinberg

Goldwater Republican
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T1

A federal measure authorizing the government to retain a sex offender indefinitely after their sentence has already ended has been upheld by the court with a 7-2 vote.

You might wonder, who are these two crazy, liberal, activist judges who want dangerous sex offenders out on the streets?

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Nobody wants dangerous people on the streets, but does anyone else see the inherent danger in the federal government having the power to indefinitely detain prisoners after their sentence has expired?

If that danger is clear at sentencing, wouldn't the judge assign a longer sentence, or couldn't a judge order additional probation or other guidelines for after their release to mitigate the danger they pose to others?

Remember, this is a measure fought for and defended by President Obama's "liberal" solicitor general and Supreme Court nominee.

Nobody wants these people walking the streets, but nobody should want to open up the possibility that any one of us could rot in prison indefinitely and unconstitutionally on account of being "too dangerous".

It's worth remembering that in an authoritarian country, it would be easy to accuse dissidents of sexual crimes in order to undermine their resistance to the government.
 
Last edited:
Sex offenders are not necessarily "insane" (although obviously almost all of them have mental problems), and we can't detain someone just because they're dangerous. Unless they were sentenced before hand to life with or without parole, there is no method to detain them permanently, and they should absolutely be released. If you have a problem with that, amend the constitution.
 
Mr. Spite said:
Sex offenders are not necessarily "insane" (although obviously almost all of them have mental problems), and we can't detain someone just because they're dangerous. Unless they were sentenced before hand to life with or without parole, there is no method to detain them permanently, and they should absolutely be released. If you have a problem with that, amend the constitution.
Click to expand...

did you forget to read the article? yes, now you can be detained indefinitely after serving your complete sentence if you are deemed too dangerous to let out. This means that anybody at any time can be held after serving a sentence now that the mighty USSC has deemed it necessary and proper.

It should definitely be noted here that EVERY LIBERAL JUDGE deemed this law constitutional.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/17/scotus.sex.offenders/index.html?hpt=T1

A federal measure authorizing the government to retain a sex offender indefinitely after their sentence has already ended has been upheld by the court with a 7-2 vote.

You might wonder, who are these two crazy, liberal, activist judges who want dangerous sex offenders out on the streets?

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Nobody wants dangerous people on the streets, but does anyone else see the inherent danger in the federal government having the power to indefinitely detain prisoners after their sentence has expired?

If that danger is clear at sentencing, wouldn't the judge assign a longer sentence, or couldn't a judge order additional probation or other guidelines for after their release to mitigate the danger they pose to others?

Remember, this is a measure fought for and defended by President Obama's "liberal" solicitor general and Supreme Court nominee.

Nobody wants these people walking the streets, but nobody should want to open up the possibility that any one of us could rot in prison indefinitely and unconstitutionally on account of being "too dangerous".

It's worth remembering that in an authoritarian country, it would be easy to accuse dissidents of sexual crimes in order to undermine their resistance to the government.
Click to expand...


You made quite a nice hash of what the Court actually decided. The case solely concerned a question of federalism and the breadth of Congressional authority. The statute was upheld as within the scope of Congressional power.

The Court did not address whether the statute violated the equal protection clause, the due process clause or any other challenge to the actual substance of the law. Basically, the Court decided that Congress was authorized to pass this type of law, but did not decide whether the particular substance of this particular law passes constitutional muster

Scalia and Thomas dissented on the grounds that, in their view, federal criminal statutes that do not fall within specific enumerated powers (i.e. crimes against the mails, crimes involving interstate commerce) are all unconstitutional. Both Thomas and Scalia would presumably hold that the states can enact such laws, but that Congress cannot.

On the Elena Kagan reference, it is the obligation of the Solicitor General to argue in favor of any act of Congress that is challenged, regardless of the Solicitor General's personal view of the matter. She is the attorney for the United States of America and is obligated to argue on behalf of the government. Even if it were a challenge to DADT, the Solicitor General would have to argue in favor of the law.

In other Supreme Court news, the Court decided today that it is unconstitutional for minors to be sentenced to life without parole in non-homicide cases. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts dissented.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You made quite a nice hash of what the Court actually decided. The case solely concerned a question of federalism and the breadth of Congressional authority. The statute was upheld as within the scope of Congressional power.
Click to expand...

you failed to expound on what clause this constitutional power exists. was that on purpose in order to be an apologist for your liberal usurpers on the bench?

This case is yet one more expansion of federal power using a clause that was not designed to give a power to congress, but define the parameters of the enumerated powers.

By referencing the 'necessary and proper' clause, illegitimately, the federal government can now enact any statute it wants in order to permanently imprison members of groups they don't like or agree with.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you failed to expound on what clause this constitutional power exists. was that on purpose in order to be an apologist for your liberal usurpers on the bench?

This case is yet one more expansion of federal power using a clause that was not designed to give a power to congress, but define the parameters of the enumerated powers.

By referencing the 'necessary and proper' clause, illegitimately, the federal government can now enact any statute it wants in order to permanently imprison members of groups they don't like or agree with.
Click to expand...


I wasn't attempting to give a full explication of what the Court decided and why. I was merely attempting to correct some inaccuracies in the OP regarding what the Court did and (more importantly) did not decide.

If you want to read the opinion, just go here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf
 
SmarterThanYou said:
other than the tongue-in-cheek comments about thomas and scalia, what was inaccurate?
Click to expand...


Well, most of it. The OP assumes that the merits of the law were assessed when the Court declined to reach the merits. The sole issue decided was one of Congressional authority to act at all, not the merits of the specific legislation.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, most of it. The OP assumes that the merits of the law were assessed when the Court declined to reach the merits. The sole issue decided was one of Congressional authority to act at all, not the merits of the specific legislation.
Click to expand...

The OP assumes quite correctly, since the USSC is on record dozens of times stating that they must assume that any law written by congress is constitutional, therefore, unless they strike down the whole law, or even parts, the merits need not be looked at. Since the majority opinion states that this statute is 'narrow in scope', i'm guessing that this provides you all the comfort you need in order to believe that it will never be used for nefarious purposes nor will the courts attempt to stretch this ruling to apply to, say 'enemy combatants', after any of their sentences that may be handed down finally end.

Do you really believe that this ruling won't be used in the future to indefinitely detain any other individuals of other groups?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The OP assumes quite correctly, since the USSC is on record dozens of times stating that they must assume that any law written by congress is constitutional, therefore, unless they strike down the whole law, or even parts, the merits need not be looked at. Since the majority opinion states that this statute is 'narrow in scope', i'm guessing that this provides you all the comfort you need in order to believe that it will never be used for nefarious purposes nor will the courts attempt to stretch this ruling to apply to, say 'enemy combatants', after any of their sentences that may be handed down finally end.

Do you really believe that this ruling won't be used in the future to indefinitely detain any other individuals of other groups?
Click to expand...


Look, I'm not interested in arguing simple facts with you. If you read the opinion, the scope of their review is quite clear:

We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondents are free to pursue those claims on remand, and any others they have preserved.
Click to expand...

Basically, the Court said that Congress had the authority to enact the statute, but did not decide whether the substance of the statute itself was unconstitutional.

If you want to pretend that the Court did something other than what it did because you like to get upset about everything the Court does, feel free.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Look, I'm not interested in arguing simple facts with you. If you read the opinion, the scope of their review is quite clear:



Basically, the Court said that Congress had the authority to enact the statute, but did not decide whether the substance of the statute itself was unconstitutional.

If you want to pretend that the Court did something other than what it did because you like to get upset about everything the Court does, feel free.
Click to expand...

feel free to continue your ignorance then. The court did indeed determine that the substance of teh statute is constitutional. how did you miss that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top