Supreme Court hears arguments on detaining sex offenders

The L.A. Times reports on creeping authoritarianism in America:

A group of dangerous sex criminals who took their case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday had one clear champion: Justice Antonin Scalia.

A staunch conservative, he has not developed new sympathy for criminals. Instead, the issue before the court was whether the Constitution gave the federal government the power to lock up offenders after they had served their prison terms.

Scalia said protecting the public against sex criminals was a matter for the states, their police and their prisons. "There is no constitutional power on the part of the federal government to protect society against sexual predators," he told U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elena Kagan.

Kagan, the Obama administration's advocate, was defending a federal law that permits prison authorities to confine "sexually dangerous" people whose prison terms have run out. She won the apparent backing of liberal Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Kagan said the Constitution gives the federal government specific powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, and all other powers "necessary and proper" to carry out those laws. Because Congress can punish interstate crimes such as putting child pornography on the Internet, federal authorities can also hold onto these criminals indefinitely if they are believed to be dangerous.

"What the federal government is doing here is essentially . . . making sure these people don't fall between the cracks," she said.

But Scalia interjected: "This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything."

Breyer, Ginsburg,and Kagan seem to feel everything relates to interstate commerce. It appears there's no limiting government. The U.S. Constitution isn't far from dead.