Gamble v. United States

[TahoeHorn 107]

How will SCOTUS rule?  How should they rule?  Will it be significant if the law changes?  Will I get any replies that have anything to do with the case?

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

 

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

 

 

[David Dennison 18655]

States rights folks in a jam on this one.

[SKJ 1305]

How should they rule?

That depends on if you think double Jeopardy is good or bad. I'm sure there will be lots of mental gymnastics involved for the tough on crime side...

[Earl Haffler 584]

I'd be more interested in abolishing the right of someone to be sued in civil court for something they were acquitted of in criminal court...

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Earl Haffler said:

I'd be more interested in abolishing the right of someone to be sued in civil court for something they were acquitted of in criminal court...

Different standards of liability make that untenable.

Just because you're found not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it. See: OJ Simpson.

Edited June 15, 2019 by David Dennison

[SDG 3319]

So many questions so thanks for posting.  Was the Alabama year sentence added to the 46 month federal sentence?  How are the states and fed considered separate sovereigns when one doesn’t exist without the other?  When it comes to felons and guns; how often do both governments prosecute?  

My my gut tells me this is double jeopardy/punishment because he committed 1 crime or action but I’m not a legal eagle so hopefully our legal mafia weigh in here soon.  

[SDG 3319]

1 minute ago, Earl Haffler said:

I'd be more interested in abolishing the right of someone to be sued in civil court for something they were acquitted of in criminal court...

How much did OJ pay you to post this?   

(Kidding really).  

[TwiceHorn 31269]

I do not like the dual sovereign rule one little bit.  The feds have minimal interest in prosecuting crime, that's a state matter, yet there is a companion federal crime for just about every state crime on the books.  There are a few uniquely federal crimes, but they should be the exception not the rule.

In fact, DOJ generally has a policy to restrain itself where there is a state prosecution for the same offense, which makes good sense to me.

Besides, it's easy enough, if it's really appropriate to have dual prosecutions, to find a different crime to prosecute.

 

[Earl Haffler 584]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Different standards of liability make that untenable.

Just because you're found not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it. See: OJ Simpson.

Well, then, at least make the jury standard unanimous instead of majority for all civil trials. 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

4 minutes ago, Earl Haffler said:

Well, then, at least make the jury standard unanimous instead of majority for all civil trials. 

Almost no place has a simple majority jury verdict.  Pretty sure the lowest is 9/12 or 5/6.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I do not like the dual sovereign rule one little bit.  The feds have minimal interest in prosecuting crime, that's a state matter, yet there is a companion federal crime for just about every state crime on the books.  There are a few uniquely federal crimes, but they should be the exception not the rule.

In fact, DOJ generally has a policy to restrain itself where there is a state prosecution for the same offense, which makes good sense to me.

Besides, it's easy enough, if it's really appropriate to have dual prosecutions, to find a different crime to prosecute.

 

To clarify:  the federal government, by and large, has no business prosecuting the same crimes that the states prosecute.  In a rare case where there is an overlapping jurisdiction, prosecution should come from one or the other, but never both.

[Bookman 4610]

Is there really a companion federal crime for just about every state crime?

[TwiceHorn 31269]

16 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Is there really a companion federal crime for just about every state crime?

Just about, yeah. Murder on down.  Commerce clause, bro.  Look at this one:  felon in possession of a firearm.  Why does there need to be a federal offense here?  Why is there even a prospect of dual prosecution?

Among criminal types, it's become a joke that nobody really knows how many federal crimes there are, which is a serious fact.  And a huge number of them are criminally prosecutable civil or regulatory offenses outside of 18 USC (which has plenty) that lack a clear mens rea requirement.  So there's a periodic push to enact a general mens rea requirement for federal crimes.

Its mostly because the federal congress critter douchebags, instead of legislating on difficult truly federal issues facing the nation, can always curry favor with the idiots with some new criminal law, preferably named for a minor celebrity victim.

Edited June 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Bookman 4610]

The only thing I know about federal criminal law is U.S. v. Lopez.

[David Dennison 18655]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just about, yeah. Murder on down.  Commerce clause, bro.  Look at this one:  felon in possession of a firearm.  Why does there need to be a federal offense here?  Why is there even a prospect of dual prosecution?

Among criminal types, it's become a joke that nobody really knows how many federal crimes there are, which is a serious fact.  And a huge number of them are criminally prosecutable civil or regulatory offenses outside of 18 USC (which has plenty) that lack a clear mens rea requirement.  So there's a periodic push to enact a general mens rea requirement for federal crimes.

Its mostly because the federal congress critter douchebags, instead of legislating on difficult truly federal issues facing the nation, can always curry favor with the idiots with some new criminal law, preferably named for a minor celebrity victim.

Federal criminal law also allows the United States to step in when states refuse to prosecute. See: the South.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Federal criminal law also allows the United States to step in when states refuse to prosecute. See: the South.

That's fine.  Doesn't implicate dual sovereignty doctrine.  And, currently, "civil rights deprivation" being a federal crime seems perfectly adequate for that purpose without having a federal counterpart to every state law crime.

 

The classic example of overlapping state and federal crimes is, of course, the drug laws, and you see what a clusterfuck that's become with state legalization of marijuana.  You can claim that the drug war is sort of a special case of federal overreach, but it's really not, it's just the same ol shit.

And, in the case of criminal laws, the sad fact is that they are enacted not because there's really any good reason to have a national law on the subject matter, but just because it's good political theater for the laws' sponsors.  "This is bad an I'ma gonna do sumfin bout it."

There are fucking federal DWI laws.  We managed to exist as a country for 224 years without them, but post-MADD circa 2000, there are federal DWI laws.  Admittedly only on federal property, but still.

Edited June 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TahoeHorn 107]

When I become King we'll go back to the Founders' intent of the Tenth Amendment.   Any federal law or program which isn't explicitly spelled out as a federal power would be unconstitutional.

If a Michigan car company sells cars across the US the feds can regulate that interstate commerce (the sale of cars).  They can't tell them how to pay workers or how to treat workers.  They can't have social security for the workers.  They can't have a federal healthcare program for the workers.  They can't say anything about unions.  That's Michigan's power. If they borrow money from a New York bank they are involved.  If they buy a computer from California they are involved.  If they borrow money from a Michigan bank the feds don't have anything to say about the loan.  They can't insure the depositors.  They can't say who can or can't get a loan.   If the car company sells to a Michigan distributor the feds don't regulate that.  They regulate the distributor's sale to other states.

The feds could have an EPA (air and water cross state lines), a NASA, or an FAA.  They could even have a Secret Service and an SEC.  They could have a Federal Reserve. They could not have an OSHA or a NLRB.  They could have an FBI which investigated multi-state criminal activity, or criminal activity of illegal aliens.  It could even investigate crime against the federal government.  But it could not prosecute crime (there wouldn't be such laws) for crimes committed locally.  A drug dealer selling drugs localls gets prosecuted by the state.  If he bought the drugs from another state, that crime could be prosecuted by the feds, but if he bought the drugs in the state from a dealer who transported them, then that's the state's law.  The feds would have no role in education unless it's something like West Point or training air traffic controllers - training for a federal employee.

They get involved if the activity is inherently national.  If it's inherently local then the state rules.  If it's a hybrid the feds get the aspects that are national (e.g. selling across state lines or emitting clean air) and the states get the parts that are basically local (e.g. paying workers).  The courts would decide if something was a national activity or a state activity.

A plaintiff would be able to argue that a state law was a violation of the Constitution but there wouldn't be a federal agency dealing with it.

If any of this results in too little power for the feds a Constitutional Amendment can grant them additional specific powers.  For example, I'd want an amendment to empower them to regulate food and drugs, even if produced in the same state as the sale.

A ruling in favor of Gamble would help but as long as the feds and the states are in each others' underwear we have a problem.  We need clarity of roles to fix the problem.

Edited June 16, 2019 by TahoeHorn

[Bookman 4610]

22 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

When I become King we'll go back to the Founders' intent of the Tenth Amendment.  

You mean the Tenth Amendment that's just a truism?

[RDCanecutter 26252]

24 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

When I become King we'll go back to the Founders' intent of the Tenth Amendment. 

 

So you won't be a George III type of king.

[Gil Bang 25897]

40 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

When I become King we'll go back to the Founders' intent of the Tenth Amendment.   Any federal law or program which isn't explicitly spelled out as a federal power would be unconstitutional.

If a Michigan car company sells cars across the US the feds can regulate that interstate commerce (the sale of cars).  They can't tell them how to pay workers or how to treat workers.  They can't have social security for the workers.  They can't have a federal healthcare program for the workers.  They can't say anything about unions.  That's Michigan's power. If they borrow money from a New York bank they are involved.  If they buy a computer from California they are involved.  If they borrow money from a Michigan bank the feds don't have anything to say about the loan.  They can't insure the depositors.  They can't say who can or can't get a loan.   If the car company sells to a Michigan distributor the feds don't regulate that.  They regulate the distributor's sale to other states.

The feds could have an EPA (air and water cross state lines), a NASA, or an FAA.  They could even have a Secret Service and an SEC.  They could have a Federal Reserve. They could not have an OSHA or a NLRB.  They could have an FBI which investigated multi-state criminal activity, or criminal activity of illegal aliens.  It could even investigate crime against the federal government.  But it could not prosecute crime (there wouldn't be such laws) for crimes committed locally.  A drug dealer selling drugs localls gets prosecuted by the state.  If he bought the drugs from another state, that crime could be prosecuted by the feds, but if he bought the drugs in the state from a dealer who transported them, then that's the state's law.  The feds would have no role in education unless it's something like West Point or training air traffic controllers - training for a federal employee.

They get involved if the activity is inherently national.  If it's inherently local then the state rules.  If it's a hybrid the feds get the aspects that are national (e.g. selling across state lines or emitting clean air) and the states get the parts that are basically local (e.g. paying workers).  The courts would decide if something was a national activity or a state activity.

A plaintiff would be able to argue that a state law was a violation of the Constitution but there wouldn't be a federal agency dealing with it.

If any of this results in too little power for the feds a Constitutional Amendment can grant them additional specific powers.  For example, I'd want an amendment to empower them to regulate food and drugs, even if produced in the same state as the sale.

A ruling in favor of Gamble would help but as long as the feds and the states are in each others' underwear we have a problem.  We need clarity of roles to fix the problem.

your country is gonna suck

[TahoeHorn 107]

16 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

So you won't be a George III type of king.

I'm just making the rules and heading for the beach.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Just for the record, I'm not a local control states rights fanatic.  But the states continue to have a very vital purpose in our scheme, notably in the courts, among a number of other places.

Federalism is a valid idea that gets ignored far too often.

And federal criminal law is just insane.

[softlynow 1783]

10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

your country is gonna suck

The fantasy of a return to 19th century laissez faire governance wets the panties of upper middle class white males who have no clue why their lives are so easy. 

[David Dennison 18655]

 

[Bookman 4610]

Just skimmed the case. Ginsburg and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Poop.  

[elfenix 34171]

guessing this means presidential pardon powers don't apply to state criminal laws. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

guessing this means presidential pardon powers don't apply to state criminal laws. 

Pretty sure that was already established.

It does mean Manafort and Teh Donald are subject to both barrels.  Although New York has a double-jeopardy statute that bars NY prosecution for previously prosecuted federal crimes.  It seems pretty narrow in operation, though.

[elfenix 34171]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty sure that was already established.

 

i thought that was still under question. 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

25 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i thought that was still under question. 

The usual basis for that thought is the wording of the Constitution itself:

 Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides:  “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

[TwiceHorn 31269]

One thing objectionable about the dual sovereignty doctrine, that goes straight to my issue with it, is the justification that an offense against the US is a different thing than an offense against a state, because, allegedly, each sovereign has an interest to vindicate.

But what if the interest is the exact same?  That is, the federal interest is no different than that of the state?  As in the case where the only justification for the federal offense is the commerce clause?

As I keep saying, federal crimes ought to be justified by some unique federal interest, not "just because we can" and the commerce clause lets us.  And only when there is a unique federal interest vindicated by a federal crime, should the defendant be subject to jeopardy from both a state and the federal government.

This "separate interest to vindicate" defers too much to congress and assumes that if there is a federal crime that overlaps a state one, there is a very good reason for it, and there usually isn't.

Again, case in point:  felon in possession of a firearm.  What interest is the federal government protecting that the state is not?  Under US v. Lopez, the only reason there can even be a federal crime here is if the firearm traveled in interstate commerce, which they all do.

Dennison's example of a civil rights violation (equal protection) when a state, for invidious reasons, refused to prosecute a crime, is a decent example of when there is a different federal interest:  prosecuting the crime itself, but also enforcment of the Constitution's equal protection of the law.  But only if the state refuses to prosecute the crime.

Edited June 17, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing objectionable about the dual sovereignty doctrine, that goes straight to my issue with it, is the justification that an offense against the US is a different thing than an offense against a state, because, allegedly, each sovereign has an interest to vindicate.

But what if the interest is the exact same?  That is, the federal interest is no different than that of the state?  As in the case where the only justification for the federal offense is the commerce clause?

As I keep saying, federal crimes ought to be justified by some unique federal interest, not "just because we can" and the commerce clause lets us.  And only when there is a unique federal interest vindicated by a federal crime, should the defendant be subject to jeopardy from both a state and the federal government.

This "separate interest to vindicate" defers too much to congress and assumes that if there is a federal crime that overlaps a state one, there is a very good reason for it, and there usually isn't.

Again, case in point:  felon in possession of a firearm.  What interest is the federal government protecting that the state is not?  Under US v. Lopez, the only reason there can even be a federal crime here is if the firearm traveled in interstate commerce, which they all do.

Dennison's example of a civil rights violation (equal protection) when a state, for invidious reasons, refused to prosecute a crime, is a decent example of when there is a different federal interest:  prosecuting the crime itself, but also enforcment of the Constitution's equal protection of the law.  But only if the state refuses to prosecute the crime.

I think you'd be better off limiting it to 5th Amendment than commerce clause arguments.  That way you can cabin it to crimes instead of a wholesale chipping away at commerce clause.  Shudder to think what the deep south would be like today without a broad commerce clause.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

He who pulls the donut from the fryer shall be crowned King of Bumblefuck, AL. 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

4 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think you'd be better off limiting it to 5th Amendment than commerce clause arguments.  That way you can cabin it to crimes instead of a wholesale chipping away at commerce clause.  Shudder to think what the deep south would be like today without a broad commerce clause.

That's one of those things where bad facts made bad law.  I get that wholesale chipping away at the commerce clause, given where it has gotten, may have some bad effects.  But I'd be perfectly cool with saying the reach of the commerce clause to justify federal crimes is limited to cases where the interstate nature of a crime changes its character from the ordinary, intrastate version of the same crime and thereby creates a legitimate federal interest, and/or where the criminal episode itself occurs in multiple jurisdictions making it difficult for states to prosecute.

But this nonsense of any use of instrumentalities from interstate commerce, or the phone, internet, or mail to create a federal crime where there is already a state one is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

[SKJ 1305]

On 6/16/2019 at 12:41 PM, TahoeHorn said:

When I become King we'll go back to the Founders' intent of the Tenth Amendment.   Any federal law or program which isn't explicitly spelled out as a federal power would be unconstitutional.

If a Michigan car company sells cars across the US the feds can regulate that interstate commerce (the sale of cars).  They can't tell them how to pay workers or how to treat workers.  They can't have social security for the workers.  They can't have a federal healthcare program for the workers.  They can't say anything about unions.  That's Michigan's power. If they borrow money from a New York bank they are involved.  If they buy a computer from California they are involved.  If they borrow money from a Michigan bank the feds don't have anything to say about the loan.  They can't insure the depositors.  They can't say who can or can't get a loan.   If the car company sells to a Michigan distributor the feds don't regulate that.  They regulate the distributor's sale to other states.

The feds could have an EPA (air and water cross state lines), a NASA, or an FAA.  They could even have a Secret Service and an SEC.  They could have a Federal Reserve. They could not have an OSHA or a NLRB.  They could have an FBI which investigated multi-state criminal activity, or criminal activity of illegal aliens.  It could even investigate crime against the federal government.  But it could not prosecute crime (there wouldn't be such laws) for crimes committed locally.  A drug dealer selling drugs localls gets prosecuted by the state.  If he bought the drugs from another state, that crime could be prosecuted by the feds, but if he bought the drugs in the state from a dealer who transported them, then that's the state's law.  The feds would have no role in education unless it's something like West Point or training air traffic controllers - training for a federal employee.

They get involved if the activity is inherently national.  If it's inherently local then the state rules.  If it's a hybrid the feds get the aspects that are national (e.g. selling across state lines or emitting clean air) and the states get the parts that are basically local (e.g. paying workers).  The courts would decide if something was a national activity or a state activity.

A plaintiff would be able to argue that a state law was a violation of the Constitution but there wouldn't be a federal agency dealing with it.

If any of this results in too little power for the feds a Constitutional Amendment can grant them additional specific powers.  For example, I'd want an amendment to empower them to regulate food and drugs, even if produced in the same state as the sale.

A ruling in favor of Gamble would help but as long as the feds and the states are in each others' underwear we have a problem.  We need clarity of roles to fix the problem.

One big shitty problem with interstate commerce crimes, particularly with triggering federal laws when considering telephone conversations.  If someone calls you from a cell phone out of state and discusses a marijuana transaction, it could be a federal conspiracy, even if you didn't know they were out of state when they called you. 

That's also kind of a big deal in large metroplexes that straddle state lines.