But bear in mind our founders very much understood that they were setting up a federal system and that until the 14th Amendment was adopted the federal constitution only applied to the federal government. Nothing in it restricted or regulated the states in any way. Even the first amendment was a restriction only on the federal government. States were free to restrict the press, restrict religion, etc. without violating the federal constitution. Thus, the double jeopardy restriction in the federal constitution was only applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the states at all. They could have tried defendants more than once and not violated the Constitution. Of course states generally adopted similar rights and protections into their constitutions and laws, too, but nothing in the federal Constitution required that. Given that historical background it is clear that the framers thought the federal and state governments were indeed quite distinctly different entities and that while the federal government was restricted from itself prosecuting a defendant twice, that restriction did not at all bar the state prosecution. The founders deliberately set it up that way and thus would not find the case law on this, which is longstanding, to be at all odd.
I respect your viewpoint that the prosecution by both the feds and the state should not be allowed. But I do not share your opinion on that. I think that applying your concept would encourage prosecutors to race to charge defendants in order to ensure they go first and get to vindicate the laws of their jurisdiction, and in the process blocking the legitimate interests of the other government (either federal government or that of some state as the case may be) in enforcing its laws. That would put defendants in the position of facing a race to prosecute them without perhaps taking the time to fully investigate and consider whether the charges really ought to be brought. It also raises prospects of one jurisdiction potentially acting intentionally to bar the other from enforcing its laws. Thus, from both a defendants perspective and that of the state, it could present unwanted effects to do as you suggest.
I do not see the current system as unjust since the criminal laws are public information and anyone committing a crime can figure out that what he or she is doing violates both federal and state law and that he or she may be prosecuted and punished for both. So if they commit that crime anyway, they take that risk upon themselves. I don’t know what “sneaky games” you think would be played with defendants given that the law is public and the defendant (and his/her lawyers) ought to know what the deal is.
I realize that you want to see the government for this purpose as one big entity because you feel so strongly that the dual prosecution is wrong, but the reality is that they are not the same. One only has to look at soon to be President Trump and the Republican dominated Congress on the one hand and, say, Governor Brown of California and the Democratically controlled legislature of that state on the other to understand that a state may have very different interests, policies, and outlook than does the federal government and each is entitled to enforce its laws. The prosecutors in the two cases are not the same, the federal prosecution being done by the U.S. Attorney and the state prosecution by the district attorney (or whatever the prosecutor is for that state) and they have differing policies and priorities. It is thus not at all like the case of Amy in the civil setting trying to sue Barry in state court first and then when she loses suing Barry again on the same claim in federal court. Amy is clearly the same person with the same interests and same priorities in both cases. There is no real difference in the two cases at all except the forum in which they are brought. Not so with dual prosecution. The governments prosecuting are different and the laws being applied are different, too. While the underlying act may be the basis for both prosecutions, what the prosecutor needs to prove in each case may be different. All this to say that while you strongly want the states and federal government lumped together for this purpose, you are ignoring the reality of how the our system is set up and operates by lumping them together.
The answer to that is no. Muncipalities are not sovereign entities. They are created by, and their powers prescribed by, the state legislature — the same state legislature that enacts the state criminal laws and that creates the state court system in which all crimes are tried. On this basis the Supreme Court held that double jeopardy is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in a Florida state court after a prosecution in that state’s municipal court. “Thus, Grafton, not Fox v. Ohio, supra, or its progeny, Bartkus v. Illinois, supra, or Abbate v. United States, supra, controls, and we hold that, on the basis of the facts upon which the Florida District Court of Appeal relied, petitioner could not lawfully be tried both by the municipal government and by the State of Florida.” Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1970)
By the way, while I do not support your position of applying double jeopardy to completely bar prosecution by the federal government after a state prosecution (or vice versa) there is an idea that I might well support. That is the concept of allowing the dual prosecution but requiring that the second jurisdiction credit the defendant with the punishment (if any) that was imposed as a result of the first prosecution such that the defendant would face the possibility of a combined sentence no more than most severe sentence of the two jurisdictions rather than the facing serving the maximum sentence for both offenses. For example suppose that in state court the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. The feds prosecute and the defendant is sentenced to ten years on that offense, but then is credited with the five years already sentenced by the state, so that he or she only has to serve an additional five years for the federal crime. That would have the effect of the defendant effectively only serving the amount of time for the federal crime. This approach has its problems, too, but may be the best bridge between the objections you have while still protecting the legitimate interests of each sovereign in enforcing its laws. This is sometimes now done by sentencing judges in the second prosecution by, for example, imposing the sentence in the second case to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the first case rather than consecutively. But it is not something the law currently requires in all instances of dual prosecution.
I will end by noting that frequently the federal and state governments do coordinate on these situations and often one will cede prosecution to the other, satisfied that the other prosecution is sufficient to meet its own interests (and to save money as well). No law requires that, but the feds and the state often see mutual benefit in that kind of cooperation. So in many cases where it may be possible for dual prosecution to occur, in practice that is more the exception than the rule.
And thanks for the positive comments by everyone as to the clarity of my explanations (even if you don’t agree with the substance).I have spent many years trying to explain the complex (and sometimes confusing) tax law to clients, judges, other lawyers who do not practice tax law, and others and have worked hard to develop ways to give plain English explanations of difficult or arcane legal stuff and its nice to hear when I have succeeded in doing that.

I have spent many years trying to explain the complex (and sometimes confusing) tax law to clients, judges, other lawyers who do not practice tax law, and others and have worked hard to develop ways to give plain English explanations of difficult or arcane legal stuff and its nice to hear when I have succeeded in doing that. 