Hatch files scary amicus brief which would hamper Mueller's investigation and beyond

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Sep 28, 2018.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    This is pretty scary. In short...

    "Hatch filed the brief in Gamble v. United States, which challenges an exception to the Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy clause, allowing both state and federal courts to prosecute a person for the same crime. Hatch wants that loophole closed."

    That means a federal pardon would block states from prosecuting.

    https://www.utahpolicy.com/index.ph...ase-that-could-hamper-mueller-s-investigation
     
  2. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    Of course he does. STATES RIGHTS!!!!... until it no longer serves his purpose. :(
     
  3. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #3
    Does Hatch provide a reason for filing this brief (other than to protect Trump and his criminal associates)?
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    This actually brings up a huge point. There have been multiple cases argued at SCOTUS pertaining to the 10A, in which the 10A had prevailed. If Hatch thinks that this can completely go through unscathed, there is precedent at SCOTUS that guarantees States' Rights from being overruled by the government. This will be a dangerous road for Hatch to go down, as if this case gets to SCOTUS, it won't be pretty for Hatch, let alone Trump, as this may cause the 10A to be ruled unconstitutional, setting forth an even bigger Republican crisis than they can imagine.

    Hatch is setting himself up to sacrifice States' Rights for needs of the one.

    BL.
     
  5. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #5
    Trump has already pretty much said multiple times he's okay with doing whatever he wants, law, constitution, social norms be damned. His cohorts in Washington have fallen in line.

    Which one will be the first to whisper on his death bed "grabbing genitals without permission should be legal"?

    This is getting ridiculous.
     
  6. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    So would this kind of a law be unconstitutional? Sounds like it at first blush.
    Ref link: http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment
    --- Post Merged, Sep 28, 2018 ---
    The only reason Trump is still President is because he is propped up by half the Congress. It’s not as if he has a strong moral position, because he has no morality. :(
     
  7. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    Well, yes.

    But wait, there's more...

    OK but cutting to the chase, and the almost stacked Supreme Court:


    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/
     
  8. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #8
    Well, timing aside, I can't say I am against this. If a person is tried at the state level and exonerated that should be the end of it. And vice versa at the federal level. There should be no further prosecution of them for that crime at any level. Going after someone who has already been adjudicated and absolved, using the federal courts and prosecutors is a clear violation of the Double Jeopardy clause. Any loophole that allows for a person to be tried twice, at any level, for the same crime is clearly unConstitutional and should be done away with. The 5th Amendment is pretty cut and dried.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    The problem here is that for Double Jeopardy to apply, the indictment has to be at the same level. In short, a federal crime can not be tried twice, let alone a state crime tried twice in that state. But a Federal crime and a State crime are, in essence, two separate crimes, being tried by two different entities. There can be the occasion that a person is convicted for a crime in one states, with all other states honoring that particular conviction, for something that has not been tried at the federal level. So a person may have a state conviction without having a federal-type conviction as well. or vice-versa; take marijuana: a person can have a federal conviction for marijuana, in which his state won't try him because it is legal in that state.

    BL.
     
  10. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #10
    I understand how they're doing it. I am saying that it is wrong and unConstitutional on its face. It goes against the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be done away with.

    "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

    Do you see an exception for retrying a person at a different level for the same crime? I sure don't and that is apparently how Hatch see's it, as well. I'm in agreement with him on this one.
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    Yes. Try tax fraud. A person committing the same crime at the federal level, defrauding the United States in addition to their home state (say, Iowa) would warrant having the crime tried in both the state of Iowa as well as the United States. Both the federal government and the state have been defrauded by the defendant in that case.

    BL.
     
  12. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #12
    But it would not be the same crime, in your example. The tax fraud at the federal level would be for Federal taxes only. That's where they would have jurisdiction. The state would try the person for Tax Fraud concerning state taxes. That would be two separate crimes. Not the same crime. If the state tried the person for tax fraud where state taxes are concerned, the feds would have no business retrying them for that crime. Same goes for the reverse. We do not need government weaseling its way around the Constitution. It is unConstitutional, unethical and immoral. We have a Constitution for a reason and there can be no reason to try and cherry pick what we will and will not abide by. Hatch is correct, in this instance.

    Now, where presidential pardons are concerned, which seems to be the main worry of the writer of the OP article, I can understand their reticence. But, a presidential pardon has, historically, only covered federal crimes (crimes against the United States, as covered by the Constitution). The president does not, nor should they, have the power to grant a pardon at the state level, (that is reserved to the governors of the states). I really don't see where closing this loophole will allow a president to grant a pardon at the state level. That power is pretty clearly laid out. But, prosecutors should really bear in mind that they should not be going around and trying people for the same crime at a state level if the federal level has already had a shot at them. It violates that person's 5th Amendment rights. And it doesn't matter who that person is.
     
  13. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13

    The issue here though, is that it would be a different court, in a different jurisdiction. The crime can be the same, but since it is a different place and jurisdiction handling it, it would essentially be two separate crimes being tried in two separate places. They would not be the same crime, let alone the same plaintiffs versus the defendant. one would be the United States versus the person, while the other would be the individual state versus the person.

    BL.
     
  14. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #14
    Correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution can't be ruled unconstitutional. And since the 10A is part of it, it will be fine.

    There can be some interpretations of it, but it has been so gutted by the courts in the past not really sure what it does anymore anyway.
     

Share This Page

13 September 28, 2018