[T]he language of the Clause ... protects  individuals from being twice put in jeopardy 'for the same offence,' not for the same conduct or actions," Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 529 (1990), as Justice  Scalia wrote in a soon-vindicated dissent, see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (overruling Grady). ... As originally understood, then, an "offence"  is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. So where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws, and two "offences." See Grady, 495 U.S., at 529 (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("If the same conduct violates two (or more) laws then each offense may be separately prosecuted")