Is this the Supreme Court case that will drain the swamp?

American Thinker ^ | 30 Nov, 2022 | Paul Dowling

[Alberta's Child]

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 Pack Knight]

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.”

[The Pack Knight]

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.

[Jacquerie]

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