Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald And Peter King Are Wrong About Obama's New Combatant Status Review Policy (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Comstock is orthogonal (0+ / 0-)


    A federal civil-commitment statute authorizes the Department of Justice to detain a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date the prisoner would otherwise be released. 18 U. S. C. §4248. We have previously examined similar statutes enacted under state law to determine whether they violate the Due Process Clause. See Kansas v. Hendricks , 521 U. S. 346, 356–358 (1997) ; Kansas v. Crane , 534 U. S. 407 (2002) . But this case presents a different question. Here we ask whether the Federal Government has the authority under Article I of the Constitution to enact this federal civil-commitment program or whether its doing so falls beyond the reach of a government “of enumerated powers.” McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). We conclude that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact §4248 as “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers “vested by” the “Constitution in the Government of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 18.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:47:55 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  At least under (0+ / 0-)

      Comstock, as unlawful a decision as it is, prisoners have been convicted once in a court of law. Theoretically, they were dangerous once.

      That said, if Obama wanted to set up a system where it had to prove in a federal court that suspects are dangerous and if they win the decision detain him provided his home country refused to take him, that would be a step up. But they, that looks kinda like a trial.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site