Michael Rozeff argues that the dual sovereignty doctrine invoked by the Supreme Court in allowing a person to be tried for the same offense twice, once in a state court and once in a federal court, in violation of the 5th Amendment, is senseless:
To be sovereign is to have the final word. There is no appeal beyond a sovereign. Word over what? Over the matters, actions and areas of activity that the sovereign has been designated and allowed to wield authority over.
There simply cannot be two sovereigns over the very same realms of human action.
I agree: the 10th Amendment says that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively…”
The enumerated federal powers are denied to states; all non-enumerated Constitutional powers belong to states and are denied to the feds. Or they would be, if the Supreme Court cared about human rights other than abortion and homosexual marriage.