It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Just an example, maybe a far fetched one that wouldn't fly in court, they could charge him for insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 which carries a maximum 10 year sentence. It would be worth it to mention however....Amy Coney Barrett is the circuit justice for the 7th circuit. In any circumstance, this will probably fall flat on its face.
This is just rigor mortis of the dying body of the Democrats.
You do realize that Amy Coney Barrett is a Supreme Court Justice now as of 10/27/2020. She no longer serves on the 7th circuit.
Nadler needs to just stop with his “opinions”; it is not helpful or desirable for the American people. The mindless Democrat drones will eat this up just as they always do. Rinse and repeat, rinse again and repeat until you have holes showing. Freaking dumb poops.
28 U.S. Code § 42 - Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits
The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation. A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.
originally posted by: musicismagic
a reply to: carewemust
Funny that we never heard more about that.
originally posted by: Brassmonkey
I totally agree with your interpretation of 5th amendment and I agree that if the feds decide to prosecute Kyle it would be in violation of the constitution.
However, my opinion or your opinion respectfully doesn’t matter. Ever since SCOTUS ruled in Marbury vs. Madison that their interpretation is the only interpretation because
Well because they say they have that power and they get that power because they say so.
There is a long history of Case law for the sovereign doctrine.
The double jeopardy clause generally doesn't protect a person from being prosecuted by both a state government and the United States federal government for the same act, nor does it protect a person from being prosecuted by multiple states for the same act. Because United States law considers each of the State governments to be distinct from the federal government of the United States as a whole, with its own laws and court systems, these parallel prosecutions are considered to be different "offenses" under the double jeopardy clause, and the decisions of one government on what to prosecute or not prosecute can't be considered binding on the other. This is known as the "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" doctrine.
The earliest case at the Supreme Court of the United States to address the matter is Fox v. Ohio in 1847, in which the petitioner, Malinda Fox, was appealing a conviction of a state crime of passing a counterfeit silver dollar. The power to coin money is granted exclusively to Congress, and it was argued that Congress's power precludes the power of any State from prosecuting any crimes pertaining to the money, an argument the Supreme Court rejected in upholding Fox's conviction.
A case that followed on Fox is United States v. Cruikshank, in which the Supreme Court stated that the government of the United States is a separate sovereign from any State:
This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.
In 1920 the United States was fresh into the Prohibition Era. In one prosecution that occurred in Washington state, a defendant named Lanza was charged under a Washington statute and simultaneously under a United States statute, with the federal indictment stating several facts also stated in the Washington indictment. The Supreme Court addressed the question of the Federal government and a State government having separate prosecutions on the same facts in United States v. Lanza:
We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.
It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each. The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. (EDITOR'S NOTE: the Barron precedent was superseded 35 years later by the 14th Amendment)
This separation of sovereignty is seen with the separate Federal and State trials of convicted Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were tried and convicted in Federal Court, with Nichols sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, and McVeigh sentenced to death and later executed. While the building was owned by the Federal government, serving as branch locations for multiple Federal agencies, the Federal government had criminal jurisdiction only over 8 of the 168 confirmed deaths. With the express intent of seeing Nichols also sentenced to death, while contemplating the same for McVeigh if his death sentence was overturned on appeal, the State of Oklahoma filed charges against Terry Nichols.
There may also be Federal laws that call other facts into question beyond the scope of any State law. A state may try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. The officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Courts of California, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
originally posted by: MountainLaurel
a reply to: Enduro
Only a loser like Nadler would be tasked to take up such a loser cause. The worst of the worst Know there’s no swaying public opinion on this one. Mama Bears of every color Love this kids Heart and good intentions. Let the scum portray violent psychopath / child rapists as “victims” here, cause “Hey they were protesting for Justice! “
Even when we know this will end on nothing, this needs to stop, Politics do not need to be involved in our justice system and that is what this piece of crap Rhino is trying to do.
originally posted by: imitator
The way the feds have been acting, eventually, someone will start watering that tree of liberty.
Kyle should now start protecting himself with armed patriots.
It is not double jeopardy to charge a person in state and federal court, provided that he did some act that violated both state and federal laws.
The Double Jeopardy Clause, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense. But jeopardy only attaches, or applies, to prosecutions of the same criminal acts by the same sovereign, or governments.
States are considered “separate sovereigns” from the federal government in the United States. And, according to the dual sovereignty doctrine, more than one sovereign (e.g., a state government and a federal government) may prosecute a person without violating double jeopardy, if he breaks the laws of each sovereignty.
originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
Why would anyone be using google as their search engine?
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Enduro
This Rhino is a joke and he needs to freaking retired, it seems we are getting an aging congress that love to suck the political nipple until dead.