OT: USA: Big Supreme Court case about double jeopardy

[John Doe]

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
that wasn't raised in oral argument.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 14:50:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
that wasn't raised in oral argument.

Some hick town court could prosecute a mass murderer, find him
innocent after 10 minutes of deliberation, and then he's free.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 10:50:55 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
that wasn't raised in oral argument.

What I'd like to know is why has it taken nearly 250 years for this to come before the court?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:44:52 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2019 14:50:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
that wasn't raised in oral argument.

Some hick town court could prosecute a mass murderer, find him
innocent after 10 minutes of deliberation, and then he's free.

So you don't believe hick towns should have the right to make laws and prosecute mass murderers? Oh, wait, they don't. Murder is a state crime.

--

Rick C.

- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be
within a month. The question is whether the practice of the
federal government, re-prosecuting people after they have been
tried by the state, should continue. The case name is Gamble v.
United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a
race to the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal
government can prosecute for a particular crime, then that
theory is there will be a state-federal government race to the
courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting)
against double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double
prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered
by "that right can be given to the arresting authority", in
either the judgment or the dissent. In other words... If state
officers make the arrest, then they have dibs on the prosecution,
and vice a versa. I'm surprised that wasn't raised in oral
argument.

What I'd like to know is why has it taken nearly 250 years for
this to come before the court?

Probably to do with "incorporation". Try searching for
(incorporation) in the oral argument. You can even do that search in
the audio at Oyez...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-646

On the left, there is a link to ORAL ARGUMENT.

When the container shows and loads, just do a control-F search for
(incorporation). Then you can F3 through each instance of the oral
argument to do with that word. Do not click outside of the container
or it will drop the container and you will have to click on the ORAL
ARGUMENT link again.

That Oyez page works for me in Firefox.

But even knowing the keyword to search for might be very difficult
without listening to the whole thing. I listen to some many times
over. You gotta love semantics.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be
within a month. The question is whether the practice of the
federal government, re-prosecuting people after they have been
tried by the state, should continue. The case name is Gamble v.
United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a
race to the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal
government can prosecute for a particular crime, then that
theory is there will be a state-federal government race to the
courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting)
against double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double
prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered
by "that right can be given to the arresting authority", in
either the judgment or the dissent. In other words... If state
officers make the arrest, then they have dibs on the prosecution,
and vice a versa. I'm surprised that wasn't raised in oral
argument.

What I'd like to know is why has it taken nearly 250 years for
this to come before the court?

Probably to do with "incorporation". Try searching for
(incorporation) in the oral argument. You can even do that search in
the audio at Oyez...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-646

On the left, there is a link to ORAL ARGUMENT.

When the container shows and loads, just do a control-F search for
(incorporation). Then you can F3 through each instance of the oral
argument to do with that word. Do not click outside of the container
or it will drop the container and you will have to click on the ORAL
ARGUMENT link again.

That Oyez page works for me in Firefox.

But even knowing the keyword to search for might be very difficult
without listening to the whole thing. I listen to some many times
over. You gotta love semantics.

Wow! This stuff makes circuit design look like kindergarten. The intricacies of so many laws dating back so many years all required to be considered because of the idea of abiding precedence is just mind-blowingly complex. I got about half way through before my head started to hurt.

I still don't know what incorporation is really about. Apparently is refers to a Federal law jurisdiction incorporating the state law jurisdiction so that a state prosecution prevents double jeopardy prosecutions by the Feds, but not the other way around.

But the answer to my question seems to be that this issue *has* been raised before. That's why Elena Kagan refers to a 170 year old rule and 30 justices. The present case seems to be suggesting not that the rule should be overturned, but that there is a 51st shade of grey that makes this case different.

I think this is the first time I have actually seen just how complex it is to argue a case before the Supreme Court. There are angles within angles and levels of knowledge needed about not just the law, but about the justices.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be
within a month. The question is whether the practice of the
federal government, re-prosecuting people after they have been
tried by the state, should continue. The case name is Gamble v.
United States.

What I'd like to know is why has it taken nearly 250 years for
this to come before the court?

Here is a more specific answer (argument) to your question. I would
remove some stuff, but you can probably do that as well.

Neil Gorsuch spoke:

Well, you know, I wonder about that because, in our prior cases,
we hinged on two things, in Bartkus, among other places.

One was incorporation, and we were concerned that the federal
government would be at a disadvantage compared to states without
this rule because states were not bound then by the Double
Jeopardy Clause and could pursue a second prosecution after a
failed federal prosecution.

So why shouldn't the reverse be true, we thought. That rationale
has now disappeared with incorporation.

And we've since revisited a very similar -- similar issue in the
Fourth Amendment context in Elkins, where we used to allow federal
prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence, and now we don't.
So that rationale seems to have, in fact, changed over time.

So that might be one -- one argument.

And then -- and then the other is, again, with the -- with the --
in Bartkus, we relied on the -- on the -- and elsewhere on -- on
the promise that prosecutors wouldn't do this in routine cases.
And, you know, at least to some eyes, this might look like a
pretty routine case, where -- as did Bartkus itself.

And why shouldn't we be concerned about those two things?

I noticed that while listening to it again (while eating, the only
time I ever listen to oral argument).

 

[John Doe]

Neil Gorsuch spoke:

One was incorporation, and we were concerned that the federal
government would be at a disadvantage compared to states without
this rule

Maybe this will make it less confusing. By "this rule" he is referring
to what the case is about, that is...

The "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

That's the current rule that allows the federal government to re-
prosecute someone for the same crime, after they've been prosecuted by
the state. That is what they will decide to either uphold or overturn,
maybe by this morning, Tuesday. That argument was five months ago. But
since it's a huge case, maybe it will take longer.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 1:30:25 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be
within a month. The question is whether the practice of the
federal government, re-prosecuting people after they have been
tried by the state, should continue. The case name is Gamble v.
United States.

What I'd like to know is why has it taken nearly 250 years for
this to come before the court?

Here is a more specific answer (argument) to your question. I would
remove some stuff, but you can probably do that as well.

Neil Gorsuch spoke:

Well, you know, I wonder about that because, in our prior cases,
we hinged on two things, in Bartkus, among other places.

One was incorporation, and we were concerned that the federal
government would be at a disadvantage compared to states without
this rule because states were not bound then by the Double
Jeopardy Clause and could pursue a second prosecution after a
failed federal prosecution.

So why shouldn't the reverse be true, we thought. That rationale
has now disappeared with incorporation.

And we've since revisited a very similar -- similar issue in the
Fourth Amendment context in Elkins, where we used to allow federal
prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence, and now we don't.
So that rationale seems to have, in fact, changed over time.

So that might be one -- one argument.

And then -- and then the other is, again, with the -- with the --
in Bartkus, we relied on the -- on the -- and elsewhere on -- on
the promise that prosecutors wouldn't do this in routine cases.
And, you know, at least to some eyes, this might look like a
pretty routine case, where -- as did Bartkus itself.

And why shouldn't we be concerned about those two things?

I noticed that while listening to it again (while eating, the only
time I ever listen to oral argument).

I recall that section. But this is a good example of how the justices speak in compressed form (even though it seems like they drag it all out). They know all the details of each of those cases and the many jargon terms are clear to them and the attorneys arguing before them. So they can use these abbreviated references and convey lots of meaning. Meanwhile we are left in the dust not really grasping what they are saying. It would take significant work to learn the nuance of what they are saying, especially given the number of cases and issues being addressed in this case.

I would like to understand the law in matters like these, but often it is far too complex.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
John Doe wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be
within a month. The question is whether the practice of the
federal government, re-prosecuting people after they have been
tried by the state, should continue. The case name is Gamble
v. United States.

What I'd like to know is why has it taken nearly 250 years for
this to come before the court?

Here is a more specific answer (argument) to your question. I
would remove some stuff, but you can probably do that as well.

Neil Gorsuch spoke:

Well, you know, I wonder about that because, in our prior
cases, we hinged on two things, in Bartkus, among other places.

One was incorporation, and we were concerned that the federal
government would be at a disadvantage compared to states
without this rule because states were not bound then by the
Double Jeopardy Clause and could pursue a second prosecution
after a failed federal prosecution.

So why shouldn't the reverse be true, we thought. That
rationale has now disappeared with incorporation.

And we've since revisited a very similar -- similar issue in
the Fourth Amendment context in Elkins, where we used to allow
federal prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence, and now
we don't. So that rationale seems to have, in fact, changed
over time.

So that might be one -- one argument.

And then -- and then the other is, again, with the -- with the
-- in Bartkus, we relied on the -- on the -- and elsewhere on
-- on the promise that prosecutors wouldn't do this in routine
cases. And, you know, at least to some eyes, this might look
like a pretty routine case, where -- as did Bartkus itself.

And why shouldn't we be concerned about those two things?

I noticed that while listening to it again (while eating, the
only time I ever listen to oral argument).

I recall that section. But this is a good example of how the
justices speak in compressed form (even though it seems like they
drag it all out). They know all the details of each of those
cases and the many jargon terms are clear to them and the
attorneys arguing before them. So they can use these abbreviated
references and convey lots of meaning. Meanwhile we are left in
the dust not really grasping what they are saying. It would take
significant work to learn the nuance of what they are saying,
especially given the number of cases and issues being addressed in
this case.

I would like to understand the law in matters like these, but
often it is far too complex.

Apparently the law is not always clear to them. Otherwise there
would not regularly be cases decided along party lines. That fact is
easy to see, just by looking at charts like these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cas
es#By_term_(since_2000)

The percentage of cases when they line up according to politics
might only be 5 or 10% (a wild guess), but it's still obvious.







--

I'm not a proponent of wikishit, but those are the only such charts I
am familiar with.

 

[John Doe]

Here is a somewhat related case of federal overreach. A woman used
household chemicals against another woman (who cheated with her
husband). The feds prosecuted her, claiming she violated our chemical
weapons treaty. The judges laughed at the solicitor general...

Bond v. United States

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-158 (ORAL ARGUMENT link)

The beatings start at 00:26:26

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 12:32:00 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

Here is a somewhat related case of federal overreach. A woman used
household chemicals against another woman (who cheated with her
husband). The feds prosecuted her, claiming she violated our chemical
weapons treaty. The judges laughed at the solicitor general...

Bond v. United States

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-158 (ORAL ARGUMENT link)

The beatings start at 00:26:26

The ruling by the Supreme Court was that Bond had standing to challenge the law, not on any of the merits of the case. It was remanded back to the court of appeals and they ruled that the law was valid providing for no possibility of the law not being valid since the treaty was valid. Another shot at the Supreme Court was declined and the conviction stood.

So there is nothing to note about the court having a laugh. The justices are people too and sometimes they overstep the bounds of acceptable behavior because... there is no one to tell them they were wrong.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-158

The misguided (perhaps drugged) poster is referring to what happened
BEFORE this hearing.

These were the two questions decided...

(1) Does Congress have the authority to enact legislation that
enforces a treaty but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and
intrudes on traditional state prerogatives?

No.

(2) Can the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act be
properly interpreted so that it does not apply to ordinary poisoning
cases, which have been traditionally handled by state and local
authorities?

Yes.

Like one of the justices said... "It seems unimaginable you would
bring this prosecution."

Another... "If you told ordinary people that you were going to
prosecute Ms Bond for using a chemical weapon, they would be
flabbergasted."

Another... "Would it shock you if I told you that a few days ago my
wife and I distributed toxic chemicals to a great number of
children?"

Another... "There's chocolate all over the place."

Just search for "laughter" in the oral argument.

It was a unanimous 9-0 decision for Bond, just click on "Opinion
Announcement"...

Absent a clear statement that Congress intended this statute to
cover purely local offenses and thereby fundamentally reallocate
criminal enforcement authority between the National Government and
the States, we will not read Section 229 to authorize such a stark
intrusion into traditional state authority.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.









--

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Here is a somewhat related case of federal overreach. A woman used
household chemicals against another woman (who cheated with her
husband). The feds prosecuted her, claiming she violated our chemical
weapons treaty. The judges laughed at the solicitor general...

Bond v. United States

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-158 (ORAL ARGUMENT link)

The beatings start at 00:26:26

The ruling by the Supreme Court was that Bond had standing to challenge the law, not on any of the merits of the case. It was remanded back to the court of appeals and they ruled that the law was valid providing for no possibility of the law not being valid since the treaty was valid. Another shot at the Supreme Court was declined and the conviction stood.

So there is nothing to note about the court having a laugh. The justices are people too and sometimes they overstep the bounds of acceptable behavior because... there is no one to tell them they were wrong.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 6:09:54 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-158

The misguided (perhaps drugged) poster is referring to what happened
BEFORE this hearing.

These were the two questions decided...

(1) Does Congress have the authority to enact legislation that
enforces a treaty but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and
intrudes on traditional state prerogatives?

No.

(2) Can the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act be
properly interpreted so that it does not apply to ordinary poisoning
cases, which have been traditionally handled by state and local
authorities?

Yes.

Like one of the justices said... "It seems unimaginable you would
bring this prosecution."

Another... "If you told ordinary people that you were going to
prosecute Ms Bond for using a chemical weapon, they would be
flabbergasted."

Another... "Would it shock you if I told you that a few days ago my
wife and I distributed toxic chemicals to a great number of
children?"

Another... "There's chocolate all over the place."

Just search for "laughter" in the oral argument.

It was a unanimous 9-0 decision for Bond, just click on "Opinion
Announcement"...

Absent a clear statement that Congress intended this statute to
cover purely local offenses and thereby fundamentally reallocate
criminal enforcement authority between the National Government and
the States, we will not read Section 229 to authorize such a stark
intrusion into traditional state authority.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Seems I found an errant web page somewhere. I stand corrected.

However, this case was decided on the scope of the law enacted. It specifically did not address the issue of the Constitutional limitation of Congress.

"On June 2, 2014, the Court issued a narrow ruling, holding that the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act does not apply to Bond’s conduct. Writing for the Court and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, Chief Justice Roberts described Bond’s conduct as an “unremarkable local offense” not covered by the Act. The Court thus declined to limit the constitutional power that gives the federal government authority to enact appropriate legislation to implement validly enacted treaties, as the Cato Institute and other conservative organizations had urged. Although Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito concurred in the judgment, each wrote a concurring opinion stating that he would have reversed Bond’s conviction on constitutional grounds."

In fact, the ruling on your point (2), that the present law can be interpreted to not include such actions that are already the purview of the states does necessarily preclude that point (1) would need to be ruled on. Look up "doctrine of constitutional avoidance".

In the end this case was decided on what the law was intended to cover, not what powers the Congress has to make laws upholding a treaty.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

Nope. The troll screwed up. Saying "my bad"
then acting like it was right only makes it worse.

--
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a37:a094:: with SMTP id j142mr3553699qke.2.1559226160843; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:615:: with SMTP id 21mr3452778qkg.64.1559226160638; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!c48no483375qtc.0!news-out.google.com!i13ni297qtr.0!nntp.google.com!c48no483368qtc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qcoa5c$mjl$1 dont-email.me
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.205.158.211; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.205.158.211
References: <qc90ca$k63$1 dont-email.me> <qcnmbs$e09$1 dont-email.me> <683a04b7-e74b-46dd-99b2-a3a72372c890 googlegroups.com> <qcoa5c$mjl$1 dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <174e7b13-5233-4319-8eb5-72dd0fb700a4 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: USA: Big Supreme Court case about double jeopardy
From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit gmail.com
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:22:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 78
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:551717

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 6:09:54 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-158

The misguided (perhaps drugged) poster is referring to what happened
BEFORE this hearing.

These were the two questions decided...

(1) Does Congress have the authority to enact legislation that
enforces a treaty but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and
intrudes on traditional state prerogatives?

No.

(2) Can the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act be
properly interpreted so that it does not apply to ordinary poisoning
cases, which have been traditionally handled by state and local
authorities?

Yes.

Like one of the justices said... "It seems unimaginable you would
bring this prosecution."

Another... "If you told ordinary people that you were going to
prosecute Ms Bond for using a chemical weapon, they would be
flabbergasted."

Another... "Would it shock you if I told you that a few days ago my
wife and I distributed toxic chemicals to a great number of
children?"

Another... "There's chocolate all over the place."

Just search for "laughter" in the oral argument.

It was a unanimous 9-0 decision for Bond, just click on "Opinion
Announcement"...

Absent a clear statement that Congress intended this statute to
cover purely local offenses and thereby fundamentally reallocate
criminal enforcement authority between the National Government and
the States, we will not read Section 229 to authorize such a stark
intrusion into traditional state authority.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Seems I found an errant web page somewhere. I stand corrected.

However, this case was decided on the scope of the law enacted. It specifically did not address the issue of the Constitutional limitation of Congress.

"On June 2, 2014, the Court issued a narrow ruling, holding that the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act does not apply to Bondƒ Ts conduct. Writing for the Court and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, Chief Justice Roberts described Bondƒ Ts conduct as an ƒ ounremarkable local offenseƒ not covered by the Act. The Court thus declined to limit the constitutional power that gives the federal government authority to enact appropriate legislation to implement validly enacted treaties, as the Cato Institute and other conservative organizations had urged. Although Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito concurred in the judgment, each wrote a concurring opinion stating that he would have reversed Bondƒ Ts conviction on constitutional grounds."

In fact, the ruling on your point (2), that the present law can be interpreted to not include such actions that are already the purview of the states does necessarily preclude that point (1) would need to be ruled on. Look up "doctrine of constitutional avoidance".

In the end this case was decided on what the law was intended to cover, not what powers the Congress has to make laws upholding a treaty.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Fri, 24 May 2019 09:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:44:52 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 14:50:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
that wasn't raised in oral argument.

Some hick town court could prosecute a mass murderer, find him
innocent after 10 minutes of deliberation, and then he's free.

So you don't believe hick towns should have the right to make laws and prosecute mass murderers? Oh, wait, they don't. Murder is a state crime.

Tried in county courts.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:03:30 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

After listening to a related 1959 case (Abbate v. United States, not
easy listening) oral argument on Oyez...

In that case, the lawyer promoting re-prosecuting people said
prohibition against doing so was more justified when the first
prosecution was done by a different country as opposed to being done
by a state. That's weird! In the contemporary case, the argument was
the opposite, the promoters of re-prosecuting people insisted there
is no problem with it after a prosecution by a different country.

The decision is taking forever, but I expect it will uphold the
Double Jeopardy Clause and stop the hideous practice of
re-prosecuting people. They'd better!

Or what? They'll lose their retirement package? They'll never work in this town again? What exactly?

SCOTUS has the final say, but that doesn't mean they get it right. They are ruled on such absurdities that the owner of property doesn't have "standing" to sue the government to recover the property when seized under civil forfeiture laws because it is the property itself that is the subject of the laws. I guess the property has to hire it's own lawyer. Look up "in rem"..

Many times SCOTUS gets it wrong. I don't want to think they have ulterior motives. But sometimes I really don't get their rationale.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Doe]

After listening to a related 1959 case (Abbate v. United States, not
easy listening) oral argument on Oyez...

In that case, the lawyer promoting re-prosecuting people said
prohibition against doing so was more justified when the first
prosecution was done by a different country as opposed to being done
by a state. That's weird! In the contemporary case, the argument was
the opposite, the promoters of re-prosecuting people insisted there
is no problem with it after a prosecution by a different country.

The decision is taking forever, but I expect it will uphold the
Double Jeopardy Clause and stop the hideous practice of
re-prosecuting people. They'd better!





--

I wrote:

The oral argument was December 2018, so the decision should be within a
month. The question is whether the practice of the federal government,
re-prosecuting people after they have been tried by the state, should
continue. The case name is Gamble v. United States.

One of the main arguments for allowing re-prosecutions was "a race to
the courthouse". If you say only the state or the federal government
can prosecute for a particular crime, then that theory is there will be
a state-federal government race to the courthouse to charge the subject.

I think the vote will be anywhere from 8-1 (Alito dissenting) against
double prosecutions to a 5-4 decision for double prosecutions.

I think the "race to the courthouse" argument will be countered by "that
right can be given to the arresting authority", in either the judgment
or the dissent. In other words... If state officers make the arrest,
then they have dibs on the prosecution, and vice a versa. I'm surprised
that wasn't raised in oral argument.

 

[John Doe]

The Supremes upheld the "separate sovereigns exception" rule, ignoring
the plain text of our Constitution. The Double Jeopardy Clause was
intended for the government as a whole. Their ruling trashed a reason
for incorporation. They manufactured an excuse by misinterpreting a
single word in the clause, making the clause meaningless. It's all about
ever-expanding government. But I'm surprised they didn't give a little
back on their way to totalitarian rule.

 

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 2:52:02 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

The Supremes upheld the "separate sovereigns exception" rule, ignoring
the plain text of our Constitution. The Double Jeopardy Clause was
intended for the government as a whole. Their ruling trashed a reason
for incorporation. They manufactured an excuse by misinterpreting a
single word in the clause, making the clause meaningless. It's all about
ever-expanding government. But I'm surprised they didn't give a little
back on their way to totalitarian rule.

Without reading the whole history behind it, my initial impression is
to agree with you, that they probably got it wrong. Interesting split,
7-2, with Gorsuch and RBG dissenting.