Assignment task: McCulloch v. Maryland + United States v. Comstock
In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in an effort to keep dangerous sexual predators off the street following the completion of their federal prison sentences. A provision in this law gives the Department of Justice the authority to detain a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date the prisoner would be otherwise released. There is an extensive process to determine which federal prisoner should be a part of the civil commitment program following the end of their sentence.
Four men, who were confined two years passed the end of their federal prison sentences, challenged this law. They claimed that their constitutional rights were violated based on the grounds of double jeopardy, the ex post facto clause, and the sixth and eighth amendments.
In the ensuing case, United States v. Comstock, The Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 ruling that Congress had the authority to enact the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act provision that allowed for the continued confinement of prisoners that the Department of Justice found "sexually dangerous". The Court recognized that Congress had good reason to pass the statute as it has the power to protect nearby communities from the danger prisoners may pose.
Q1. Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both United States v. Comstock (2010) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Q2. Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of McCulloch vs. Maryland led to a similar holding as that of United States v. Comstock.
Q3. State an argument that members of the public who disagree with the Court's ruling on United States v. Comstock could make and defend the argument using at least one constitutional principle.