>You've GOT to be kidding me. This gives the federal government powers that are so far beyond those enumerated in the Constitution it is shocking. If it were to be legal it should be done at the state level, not the federal level (as it was prior to 2006). This is one more step towards breaking the decentralized structure of the federal government established by our founders. That is the case without even considering the even more important issue of criminal law and the Bill of Rights (which I already mentioned in the other message re locking folks up for crimes they might commit in the future and extending sentences beyond those imposed legally by the judicial system instead of changing the sentencing options for those crimes). Your supporting this shows that you are willing to step way outside of the decentralized federal government and 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution when the bill or new law is one you personally agree with.
>
>Update: due process? double jeopardy? punishment disguised as treatment? it's a movement towards a federal police state. if you are convicted of any federal crime you could fall into this category.

Note : As was pointed out in Thomas' dissent, an individual does not have to be convicted of a federal crime to fall into federal custody under this law.

See my response here for more : Message #1464949

>>I disagree STRONGLY. Tough on crime doesn't mean arbitrarily changing sentences and holding people beyond their sentence. Tough on crime means being tough at the time of sentencing and within the law.
>>
>>Oh, cry me a river - you have GOT to be kidding me. I expected this from others, but not you.
>>
>>Considering the high amount of corruption in the legal process that leads to soft treatment of these sexually violent predators, I'm glad the Supreme Court decided to tilt things back the other way. If you want to disagree strongly, you know as well as I do where the source of corruption is.