Sounds like this US v. Comstock case could be a real litmus test to see which Justices are basically willing to throw out the rule of law and endorse fascist tyranny when it's politically popular to do so.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
So, following up on my earlier post, here is an article about the oral arguments in the Supreme Court over this case.
The "Necessary and Proper Clause" referred to is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the powers of Congress. It says Congress shall have power... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Although Justice Scalia rightly recognizes that "there is no constitutional power on the part of the Federal Government to protect society from sexual predators," he sadly appears to believe that their incarceration by the Feds remains justified by some other constitutional power, perhaps the power "to constitute Tribunals" (Article 1, Section 8). But that power does not give the Feds the authority to use those tribunals (courts) for any purpose it pleases, because federal judicial power is essentially limited to cases arising under the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or cases involving foreign countries, controversies between states, maritime law, and controversies to which the U.S. is a party (Article 3, Section 2). Sex crimes committed within a state do not fall under these categories and the Feds have no proper constitutional authority to prosecute them in the first place.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))