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