double jeopardy

According to SCOTUS, that would not be double jeopardy. 

The SCOTUS ruled it's ok to be convicted of something, pardoned, and re-convicted for the same offense?

They have as long as once is by a state and once is by the feds (or different state). And they've upheld that multiple times. States right for the win! 

United States vs. Lanza (a guy convicted of a prohibition crime by the state of Washington, and then later by the feds for the same crime) wasn't the first time they ruled this, but some of the quotes from the ruling wrap up the reasoning pretty well and the last quote actually showing why this is not a bad idea.

"We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. 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. The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L. Ed. 672), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Here the same act was an offense against the state of Washington, because a violation of its law, and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendants thus committed two different offenses by the same act, and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against that state is not a conviction of the different offense against the United States, and so is not double jeopardy."

"If Congress sees fit to bar prosecution by the federal courts for any act when punishment for violation of state prohibition has been imposed, it can, of course, do so by proper legislative provision; but it has not done so. If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from federal prosecution for such acts would not make for respect for the federal statute or for its deterrent effect. But it is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation; it is enough for us to hold that in the absence of special provision by Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court under a state law for making, transporting and selling intoxicating liquors is not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States under the federal law for the same acts."

A more recent example is Heath vs. Alabama. The guy picked up his wife in Alabama, drove to Georgia and killed her. He was arrested and tried in Georgia, and plea bargained guilty in exchange for life in prison. Then Alabama tried him for her murder and he got the death penalty. Alabama fried him.

states rights! except when our guy is in office!

consistency tuwood, consistency.

OK, I see where you're going but can't they do that already?  Why the law change?

correct, and vis versa.  State can't pardon a federal offense.