Gamble v. US, regarding double jeopardy

The Gamble decision means that any man can be prosecuted any number of times for the same offense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States

For once again the Court has shunned the citizen, telling him to take a hike, and be happy for having to twice been prosecuted for the same offense, after a conviction in the first effort.

So James Madison's fond hope that the judiciary would be the last bulwark against tyranny has been soundly crushed. Goodness, conservatives can be so authoritarian.

Can we get back to the previous condition under the Constitution?

 

No, it means that if he has broken both state and federal law he can be prosecuted under both statutes. There is a difference.

 

So you are one of those guys who subscribes to "I don't say what I mean and I don't mean what I say" ?

The language in the document is quite clear if a person speaks English.

What practical function is served for society when a man who has served time in prison for violating the law is then imprisoned again upon his release? How does society benefit from such a policy? How do tax payers benefit from such a policy?

 

The law is the law. Perhaps this person should have thought twice before carrying a gun it waas illegal for him to possess.

 

So profound is your post.

To borrow from Dickens, presuming you know who he is, "The Law sir, is an ass".

 

I do indeed know who Dickens is. I am surprised you chose to quote him in this instance. How did you miss that he thought very of little of criminals (Fagin) than of people who tried t do the right thing? This is where he thought the law was an ass.

 

Who is doing the right thing in this contemporary case?

 

The prosecutors. Mr. Gamble was clearly in the wrong. He was in possession of a firearm as a felon. How did this escape your attention?

 

He probably had body odor too, but that and the weapons charge are beside the point.

The point is the English language and the meaning of words as written in the US Constitution.

 

He committed a crime at both the federal and state level. Just as if he had killed someone in the commission of a felony, he should be tried for both crimes.

 

My problem is that I support the US Constitution, and that includes this specific language of the 5th Amendment: ";...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

Do you understand English well enough to grasp the meaning of those words? Can you find any part of the Constitution that makes exceptions to that part?

The bureaucrats will rationalize it many ways, but that's what bureaucrats and authoritarians do--they disregard the rights of the individual.

 

But more than one offense may be committed in a single act. Unfortunately your guy committed multiple offenses with his action

Do you understand logic well enough to grasp the point I have just made?

 

I understand the law well enough to know that any indictment may and usually does include different counts to deal with such an issue as you raise.

Do YOU understand the language of the 5th Amendment, and do you respect it or not?

Do you often buy into legal sophistry, or only in this case?

 

Since the offenses were indictable in different jurisdictions, they were tried separately. This is really simple.

I understand the fifth. He was tried once on each charge. Apparently you do not understand the amendment.

I buy into the idea that one can break multiple laws with one action and that each count should be tried in the proper court. You seem to be claiming that ince the charges have the same name, they are the same crime. I claim otherwise: one action, multiple crimes.

 

You understand the 5th, but you do not honor it. That strongly suggests you might be a Congressperson. That shows we very much have the government we deserve.

 

Wait. Let me grasp this. You understand that multiple crimes may be committed with a single act, but you do not think anyone should be tried for all the crimes (s)he committed? And you think I resemble a congressman? You do understand that the DDems re trying to open our suthern border and make undocumented immigration no crime, right?

If, in fact, the law worked the way you think it does, it would be the work of a first year lw student to get your boy off. since that's not happening, I suggest you take another look at the laws involved and the jurisdictions.

 

Wherever you really are, please understand this--I read, speak and understand the English language, and I understand what the words of the Fifth Amendment clearly state, AND I am a strong supporter of constitutional governance.

The sophistry you advocate strikes against constitutional governance, and therefore it is easy to understand that you are a domestic enemy of the US Constitution.

Is that clear enough for you to understand, wherever in hell you might be?

 

That seems pretty convenient. So now a state can also convict on the same charge that a municipality asserted. So, isn't this ruling like welfare for lawyers? Seems to me that it is..

 

Evidently you don't. Your boy committed two crimes. One was against the feds and one was against the state. the fact that those crimes bore the same name is immaterial. He was indicted for both and he should stand trial for both.

 

The fact that the charges hve the same name doesn't make them the same charge. It's a way for states to enfore stricter laws than the feds.

 

Translation, fundamentally violates the concept of double jeopardy. Fueled by folks, like you, who create minute differences, like jurisdictional differentiation, to charge folks with the same offense in different venues.

 

The fact that you (and the court) disregard completely the letter and spirit of the Fifth Amendment shows how pathetic your "argument" is.

Yours is an argument without merit, and in conflict with the US Constitution.

 

Really? then explain why this case is going forward in spit of such legal 'scholars' such as yourself and drluggit. There are many who like to make their name by defending a client from double jeopardy. You don't need the facts. Unfortunately this is the real world. It is possible to break two laws with one act. Apparently that happened here.

 

The main issue I have with the Gamble decision is federal jurisdiction.

He was already prosecuted by the state, so what jurisdiction does the federal government have under the Constitution to be enforcing this law? Forget the double jeopardy issue for a moment, this is another example of the federal government overstepping its original intended Constitutional bounds.

 

The case is going forward for the same reason Manning is in prison for remaining silent, right here in the land o' the free and home of the brave. Right here in this "democratic republic" some people see.

The case is going forward for the same reason the Central Park Five case went forward--rotten prosecutors and judiciary.

The same reason Assange sits in prison--rotten prosecutors and judiciary.