The U.S. Supreme Court has made a number of head-scratching opinions over the years.

It has ruled that farmers growing grain for their own use — where the product never leaves the farm — are engaged in interstate commerce. It has ruled that people growing their own medicinal marijuana — in states where such a practice is allowed by state law — are also restricted by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Let’s not forget the Kelo v New London case where the court ruled local governments are permitted use the power of eminent domain to take privately owned property and give it to commercial developers for a higher tax revenue, instead of for public use.

Now the court has taken a shot at the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

The clause in the Constitution reads: “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...”
As reported by Adam Liptak of the New York Times, that guarantee is now questionable.

“The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a criminal defendant may be retried even though the jury in his first trial had unanimously rejected the most serious charges against him,” Liptak wrote.

The vote was 6-3. Apparently, some justices have difficulty with the English language.

The original case was from Arkansas in 2007 where a 1-year-old boy died from a head injury suffered while under the care of his mother’s boyfriend, Alex Blueford. In question was whether Blueford smashed the boy’s head or whether the child was accidentally knocked to the floor.

There were four theories for the jury to consider: capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.

The jury ruled out the first two, but was unable to reach a verdict on the others, voting 9-3 in favor of manslaughter. After further deliberation with no unanimous decision, the local court declared a mistrial.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.— a George W. Bush appointee to the court — wrote in the majority opinion, “’Mr. Blueford could be retried on all of the charges because ‘the foreperson’s report was not a final resolution of anything.’ When the jurors returned to their deliberations after the forewoman spoke they could have changed their minds about the two more serious charges,” as reported in the Times.

The Fifth Amendment is clear and direct without any exemptions. The Roberts court is reading into the amendment things that aren’t there.

But such is the case with not only the legislative branch, but with the executive and legislative branches of government as well.

The Fifth Amendment also says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, yet the president now has the power to order the extrajudicial execution of American citizens and Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act that allows for indefinite detention.

The United States has come a long way, and not always for the better. While restrictions on liberty based on race and gender have been lifting, the promised guarantees, such as due process, have become more limited.

What’s being reflected by repressive laws and court rulings is the degradation of liberties by politicians and parties, the political factions, left and right, that place themselves above the law that the government must follow.