[Smokin' Joe]

Taken together, these considera-tions lead us to conclude that the statute is a “necessary and proper” means of exercising the federal authority thatpermits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to pun-ish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the securityof those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.

So unless I am misreading this, essentially, anyone the Congress declares a threat to the safety and well-being of the public can be incarcerated indefinitely.

I wonder if they had 'potential domestic terrorists' in mind?

While I am not, would not, and cannot argue for the release of dangerous sex offenders, that should be covered by their sentence, not at the whim of the Congress. For that matter, that should be the case for any offense, and considered by the jury when they hand down a verdict.

[Still Thinking]

So unless I am misreading this, essentially, anyone the Congress declares a threat to the safety and well-being of the public can be incarcerated indefinitely.

[ichabod1]

WE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO HEREBY COMMAND ALL ABLE CITIZENS TO APPREHEND REPUBLICANS, AND TO DO THEM HARM, SET THEREUNTO UNDER OUR HAND THIS DAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF MAIA IN THE YEAR OF THE COMMON ERA TWO THOUSAND TEN.

[Talisker]

"...and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others."

So unless I am misreading this, essentially, anyone the Congress declares a threat to the safety and well-being of the public can be incarcerated indefinitely.

Yep. Scary isn't the word for this - SCOTUS just crumpled up the entire Constitution and flung it into the fire.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I didn’t think this case was about whether dangerous persons can be held indefinitely. I thought this case was only about who can do the holding. I thought it is perfectly legal for states to hold dangerous persons indefinitlely.

I thought the only issue in this case was whether the US government can hold dangerous persons indefinitely where a state fails to step up and do so upon release of said dangerous person from a Federal institution.