[justlurking]

There has been some discussion about creating a petition on Whitehouse.gov to stop harassing George Zimmerman. D.S. from Florida has already done so.

However, it only has 299 signatures, and needs 100,000 by 8/13.

No, I don't think it will make any difference. But, here's a chance for your to express your opinion.

[Don Corleone]

I don’t believe this is “Double Jeopardy” Its a civil injury trial. Burden of proof is markedly different. Remember they did this with O.J. too? Am I wrong?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

#327

[ntnychik]

Just giving more info to Axelrod’s political data base. Do you think the petition will sway 0’s political motivations regarding this case?

[freeangel]

bttt

[freeangel]

Hey—368 now. Wouldn’t it be great to get millions? An “Arab Spring” on line. Do they have that many drones to take us all out?

[Bigg Red]

And it’s also a chance for the WH to easily get a list of those who oppose its race war. Sorry, not making it more convenient for them.

[JohnGerald]

While the case against Zimmerman was definitely a political witch hunt stoked by race hustlers and should never have been field, it remains a fact that from a purely legal standpoint, the double jeopardy rule does not apply when either there are different elements for the crime that the State or Feds wish to charge (Blockburger Rule) OR when different Sovereigns are involved (Dual Sovereignty Doctrine).

Please see; Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) and Heath v Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) for a discussion of the Blockburger Rule and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine.

[marsh2]

Not a 5th Amendment violation. It is called the doctrine of dual sovereignty.

Justice Brennan in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959,) cites Chief Justice Taft in the early case of Fox v. Ohio:

“...[T]wo sovereigns had, within their constitutional authority, prohibited the same acts, and each was punishing a breach of its prohibition. A unanimous Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, held:

“We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. . . . 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....”

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)

As summarized by Justice Stewart in U.S. v. Wheeler, 435 US 313 (1978):

“Bartkus and Abbate rest on the basic structure of our federal system, in which States and the National Government are separate political communities. State and Federal Governments ‘[derive] power from different sources,’ each from the organic law that established it. United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382. Each has the power, inherent in any sovereign, independently to determine what shall be an offense against its authority and to punish such offenses, and in doing so each ‘is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.’ Ibid. And while the States, as well as the Federal Government, are subject to the overriding requirements of the Federal Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause gives Congress within its sphere the power to enact laws superseding conflicting laws of the States, this degree of federal control over the exercise of state governmental power does not detract from the fact that it is a State’s own sovereignty which is the origin of its power.

[freeangel]

btt

[LiberConservative]

Need to register. Not me. I won’t have any part of that.