Skip to main content

View Diary: A New Constitition III, with Respect to the other One (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that the (0+ / 0-)

    huge proliferation of federal criminal law is excessive.  I also believe that this parallel justice system defeats the commonlaw principle of double jeapordy.  More on this later.  I must say that I have learned so much during only the first three installments in this series that I will have to do a followup after the end, incorporating all of the excellent thoughts.  Thanks for thinking!  Warmest regards, Doc.

    Sometimes I feel like Robert Louis Stevenson created me. -6.25, -6.05

    by Translator on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  yes (0+ / 0-)

      The double jeopardy issue is one reason I object.
      One case I remember involved the California police who were acquitted in state court for excessive force in arresting a black suspect but were "re-tried" in a Federal court. Although it was a egregious crime it sure seems like a double jeopardy situation.  This occurred in BUSH I administration.  

      The other reason is that Federal involvement in criminal law could properly allow for a federal "oversight" role to assure Constitutional processes and rights are observed.  With the Feds as a court of first resort one loses such a utility.

      Good luck with your project. I look forward to your future posts and hope to comment again. Ways to mitigate against the effects of excessive partisanship is one area I think needs treatment.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site