Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is this the Supreme Court case that will drain the swamp?
American Thinker ^ | 30 Nov, 2022 | Paul Dowling

Posted on 11/30/2022 4:59:32 AM PST by MtnClimber

"The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES."

—Question of Law in the Supreme Court case known as Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress)

They Broke Their Oaths

Loy, Raland, Deron, and Gaynor Brunson all witnessed what they believed to be the theft of the 2020 election and decided to file suit. However, the interesting approach that they have taken is not to make a formal complaint that the election was stolen; instead, they have chosen to sue members of the U.S. Congress who voted not to investigate whether any election irregularities may have occurred that could have affected the outcome. In other words, the Brunson Brothers were motivated to sue because these elected officials broke their oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States.

The Brunson Brothers believed that, to support and defend the Constitution, an investigation into possible fraud needed to take place. Otherwise, how could anyone know with certainty whether the election had been secure?

What shocked the Brunson Brothers was that only 147 members of the US Congress voted in support

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: electionintegrity; elections; oathofoffice; oathsofoffice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last
To: Dr. Franklin

You have picked a poor example to use. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled — in multiple cases — that the enforcement of the Guarantee Clause is a “nonjusticiable political question,” to be determined by Congress or the executive branch, not the Federal courts.


61 posted on 11/30/2022 12:12:05 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("It's midnight in Manhattan. This is no time to get cute; it's a mad dog's promenade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

The Guarantee Clause requires the “United States,” not “any State,” to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” How would it provide one state standing to sue another state?

Also, the Supreme Court has held for more than a century that there is no justiciable claim under the Guarantee Clause. Any question as to whether a state has a republican form of government is a political one and the power to determine it is vested solely in Congress.

Your invasion hypothetical is covered by the next clause of Article IV Section 4, “shall protect each of them against Invasion.”


62 posted on 11/30/2022 12:18:10 PM PST by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: C210N
The Brunson case effectively calls Treason on POTUS, congress, and arguably against itself.

Treason is defined in the Constitution. Other than making the bare, and ludicrous, assertion that the defendants committed treason, Brunson fails to allege any facts amounting to any defendant "levying War against" the United States or "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Also, treason is a federal felony, and prosecution for it may only be instituted through indictment by a grand jury.

I'm more of the thinking that SCOTUS will either deny cert or accept cert with plans to argue against Brunson's case. This is required for the next steps to proceed to take the country back for The People.

The petition is frivolous and requests relief SCOTUS is plainly without jurisdiction to grant. There is zero chance SCOTUS actually wastes anyone's time by ordering merits briefing or argument.

My point about an invading army was just to discern what's the difference in result between an obvious invasion from one that was covert - answer? None.

You asked about the difference between a federal government installed by an invading army and the "current" result. The current result is a President who was elected by a majority vote of the electoral college in December 2020, a Congress elected by the voters of their respective districts and states, and a Supreme Court whose justices were appointed by Presidents with the advice and consent of the Senate. Regardless of what you think about whether those elections were clean, I'm not seeing any parallel between that and the installation of a government by an invading army.

63 posted on 11/30/2022 12:57:45 PM PST by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sarcazmo

By tradition, it is prohibited at FR to read beyond titles.


64 posted on 11/30/2022 4:05:06 PM PST by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson