Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was an idea floated recently in a backlash against the President looking to pardon Paul Manafort. ...but it is unclear if it holds any legal water. The reality is that it is legally untested, and there's a good chance that Double Jeopardy will protect someone who's pardoned Federally, and then brought up on State charges for the same offense. I might be wrong, but I don't believe there's ever been a case of a St…
>> [the president can pardon] offences under Federal law, but not offenses under State law. > but it is unclear if it holds any legal water. The claim that POTUS cannot grant clemency for a state conviction definitely holds legal water. The plain meaning of that clause is extremely clear and its meaning is thoroughly and universally understood in the legal field. > The reality is that it is legally untested Re: POTUS…
IMO the Rodney King case was a very bad precedent. It was very bad politics for the Federal courts to do otherwise, I understand, but it was not a good decision. The SCOTUS essentially held that a) Dual Sovereignty means the Double Jeopardy clause doesn't apply, b) that the courts can use the double jeopardy condition as a mitigation in sentencing. (b) can be seen as weakening the Dual Sovereignty doctrine, but (a) can be seen as a disaster because the 5th Amendment is incorporated against the States, and the Double Jeopardy clause is in the 5A, so allowing the Dual Sovereignty doctrine to overcome Incorporation doctrine seems like a gross error that puts the entire Incorporation doctrine in... jeopardy. Shall we now say that only parts of the 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, are incorporated against the States? Which parts? This invites more litigation.
Of course, that didn't happen, IIUC. There's been no litigation arguing that if Dual Sovereignty overrides Incorporation in one case, it might in others. But it could yet happen.