I disagree. Due process entails a hearing and a judgement. If someone is convicted of a felony in state court of a state crime, where does the federal government have standing to impose their own sentence on the person without due process of their own?
He had a hearing. It was in federal court, but he had a hearing and a judgement.If someone is convicted of a felony in state court of a state crime, where does the federal government have standing to impose their own sentence on the person without due process of their own?
I'll admit that it is interesting that the federal sentence was imposed based upon his having initially been convicted of a state crime and then committing a further offense, but I don't see where this would be a violation of the Constitution. Again, he did have due process. The law was passed by duly elected representatives, he violated it, he was haled before duly appointed authorities, had a hearing, had a lawyer, and received a judgement. How is this not due process?