Where is the Fifth Amendment?

George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of any crime involving his shooting of Trayvon Martin. The State presented its case, and in the eyes of a properly empowered jury, it came up short. The process does not involve exoneration, but Zimmerman is now free to rebuild his life. NBC news trumped up racial charges, Pres. Obama weighed in with dog-whistle racial comments, and the Sharptons of the world exploited the case for their own cynical means. The DOJ may have minimally funded protests aimed at pressuring the State to file charges against Zimmerman. Still, the Constitutional right to a jury of one's peers was the backstop against all this political pressure. Zimmerman is not a wise man, and he made many errors, but the system found him not to be a criminal. However, the political prosecution will not end, and the DOJ is considering a Federal prosecution. What value really is the Constitution?

Sadly, there are thousands of shootings similar to the Zimmerman affair each year. Some are prosecuted, and some are not, but being selected for political prosecution is akin to being hit by lightning. The Old Media, including the New York Times, NBC, and CNN changed Zimmerman's race to suit their narrative; Zimmerman certainly does not look white to this observer. One's race should not matter with regard to a regular criminal investigation, but it is critical when pursuing civil rights charges.

In an earlier case of civil rights double jeopardy, the OM and various race baiters went to extraordinary lengths to reinforce the fact that four white police officers beat Rodney King. Despite being found not guilty, officers Koon and Powell went to prison on Federal civil rights charges (largely on the orders of Pres. Bush Sr. who was fighting for re-election). The OM repeatedly showed snippets of the officers beating the hell out of King, but not the parts where he kept getting up, even after being Tased (some people believe the Taser was defective). Similarly, with Zimmerman the OM edited the 911 recording to make him sound racist, presented a black and white photo that made Zimmerman look white and disguise the blood on his face, and generally destroyed his reputation ahead of the trial. Fortunately, the free media soundly debunked all of the OM's lies and spin.

Even the FBI's own report found no evidence that Zimmerman acted as a racist. Should Zimmerman be indicted by AG Holder for civil rights crimes, the FBI will likely be Zimmerman's star witness. In short, there is no case. At least Koon and Powell were acting as agents of government power; Zimmerman was only a regular citizen. The fact that the DOJ is still considering civil rights charges demonstrates a political prosecution, which is a greater threat to society than any single crime. If the government can turn a Hispanic man white and ignore the findings of its own investigators to charge him under double jeopardy, anyone who is politically unpopular is in danger.

The notion that in extremely rare instances, and only for politically unpopular defendants, suspects may be charged twice based on the same set of actions should be abhorrent to those who support the Bill of Rights. The King and Zimmerman cases are a reversal of a Constitutional principle designed to prevent the government from punishing people based largely on their unpopularity, a common practice under abusers from King George III to Vladimir Putin. To be sure, many people were happy when Koon and Powell were imprisoned, and many people will be happy should Zimmerman be convicted as well. The problem is that anyone can be made to be unpopular, and double jeopardy means the government can take as many swings as it needs to bring down selected targets. Popular outcomes are often not just.

If the DOJ can put Zimmerman in double jeopardy, the government has too much power. If the OM, race baiters, and politicians can pluck an obscure shooting from among thousands, manipulate the facts, and elevate it to national prominence, the People need the protection of the Fifth Amendment more than ever. Unfortunately, without an involved People who understand its value, the Constitution is only a set of words that politicians can ignore.

As stated by Justice O’Connor in Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985):

“It is axiomatic that ‘[i]n America, the powers of sovereignty are divided between the government of the Union, and those of the States. They are each sovereign, with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other.’ McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 410 (1819). It is as well established that the States, ‘as political communities, [are] distinct and sovereign, and consequently foreign to each other.’ Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 54 (1838). See also Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S., at 77; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S., at 567. The Constitution leaves in the possession of each State ‘certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.’ The Federalist No. 9, p. 55 (J. Cooke ed. 1961)...”

In the application of the “double jeopardy clause,” the “doctrine of dual sovereignty” excepts laws separately prosecuted by the two domestic governments concerning the same action by an individual, on the basis that their powers eminate from separate sources, or bodies politic.

Justice Brennan in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959,) cites Chief Justice Taft in the early case of Fox v. Ohio:

“...[T]wo sovereigns had, within their constitutional authority, prohibited the same acts, and each was punishing a breach of its prohibition. A unanimous Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, held:

“We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. . . . Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

“It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each....”

As explained by Justice O’Connor in Heath:

“The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences.’ United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). As the Court explained in Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 19 (1852), ‘[a]n offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a law.’ Consequently, when the same act transgresses the laws of two sovereigns, ‘it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.” Id., at 20.’

“In applying the dual sovereignty doctrine, then, the crucial determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the two entities draw their authority to punish the offender from distinct sources of power.... Thus, the Court has uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State’s power to prosecute is derived from its own ‘inherent sovereignty,’ not from the Federal Government....

“As stated in Lanza, supra, at 382: ‘Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.”

“...The States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Their powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources of power and authority originally belonging to them before admission to the Union and preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment. See Lanza, supra, at 382. The States are equal to each other ‘in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.’ Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 567 (1911). See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941). Thus, ‘[e]ach has the power, inherent in any sovereign, independently to determine what shall be an offense against its authority and to punish such offenses, and in doing so each `is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.’ Wheeler, supra, at 320 (quoting Lanza, supra, at 382)”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.