I agree with the realistic approach to calling Brunson what it is, and acknowledging the way it's been exploited into HoPiuM.

However... where I disagree...

the Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself

Under normal conditions, yes. But not during a state of war. Courts, in particular military tribunals, could certainly order the removal of traitors. Why? Because such trial and punishment are of a judicial nature and...

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Congress does not have the power to judge cases of treason. That's a matter for the Judiciary.

Congress always has the final say in who is or is not the President.

Says where in the Constitution? Congress, without any constitutional authority, claimed for itself power to adjudicate Electoral disputes, usurping the explicit judicial power of the Court. Just because Congress has operated under such unconstitutional procedures, doesn't make them lawful. The House does have the authority and responsibility to run a contingent election for POTUS and Senate for VP, when no candidate receives the majority required. However, they NEVER had the final say over claims of election fraud, constitutional violations or treason. Again, that is the jurisdiction of the Court.

If SCOTUS did have that power, then we don’t live in a constitutional, representative republic. We are governed by an all-powerful ruling counsel of five unelected government officials—with lifetime appointments—who are accountable to no one.

Actually, it would only reaffirm that our system is a constitutional, representative republic. By this writer's own logic, while dumping on the idea that the Court should have any role at all in Electoral disputes, he ironically posits that one branch, the Legislature, does or should hold exclusive authority over elections. Talk about violating the separation of powers. Justices must be nominated by an elected POTUS and must be confirmed by Elected Senators. Hell, under the original Constitutional plan, before Senators became elected by direct democracy (a bad idea), it was the states, representatives of the people of each state, who therefore approved of SCOTUS appointments. While the process may not be strictly democratic, it is certainly representative republicanism, which is what the author claims to defend. And yes, SCOTUS is subject to accountability, CONGRESS, which can impeach and remove Justices, which the author previously noted. Ah, the beauty of built in checks and balances, with processes and mechanisms already built into the Constitution.

Again. Mostly solid write-up in the analysis of Brunson, but wanting in terms of analysis of the Constitution when it comes to Electoral dispute adjudication.

I agree with the realistic approach to calling Brunson what it is, and acknowledging the way it's been exploited into HoPiuM.

However... where I disagree...

the Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself

Under normal conditions, yes. But not during a state of war. Courts, in particular military tribunals, could certainly order the removal of traitors. Why? Because such trial and punishment are of a judicial nature and...

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Congress does not have the power to judge cases of treason. That's a matter for the Judiciary.

Congress always has the final say in who is or is not the President.

Says where in the Constitution? Congress, without any constitutional authority, claimed for itself power to adjudicate Electoral disputes, usurping the explicit judicial power of the Court. Just because Congress has operated under such unconstitutional procedures, doesn't make them lawful. The House does have the authority and responsibility to run a contingent election for POTUS and Senate for VP, when no candidate receives the majority required. However, they NEVER had the final say over claims of election fraud, constitutional violations or treason. Again, that is the jurisdiction of the Court.

If SCOTUS did have that power, then we don’t live in a constitutional, representative republic. We are governed by an all-powerful ruling counsel of five unelected government officials—with lifetime appointments—who are accountable to no one.

Actually, it would only reaffirm that our system is a constitutional, representative republic. By this writer's own logic, while dumping on the idea that the Court should have any role at all in Electoral disputes, he ironically posits that one branch, the Legislature, does or should hold exclusive authority over elections. Talk about violating the separation of powers. Justices must be nominated by an elected POTUS and must be confirmed by Elected Senators. Hell, under the original Constitutional plan, before Senators became elected by direct democracy (a bad idea), it was the states, representatives of the people of each state, who therefore approved of SCOTUS appointments. While the process may not be strictly democratic, it is certainly representative republicanism, which is what the author claims to defend. And yes, SCOTUS is subject accountable, CONGRESS, which can impeach and remove Justices. Ah, the beauty of built in checks and balances, with processes and mechanisms already built into the Constitution.

Again. Mostly solid write-up in the analysis of Brunson, but wanting in terms of analysis of the Constitution when it comes to Electoral dispute adjudication.

I agree with the realistic approach to calling Brunson what it is, and acknowledging the way it's been exploited into HoPiuM.

However... where I disagree...

the Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself

Under normal conditions, yes. But not during a state of war. Courts, in particular military tribunals, could certainly order the removal of traitors. Why? Because such trial and punishment are of a judicial nature and...

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Congress does not have the power to judge cases of treason. That's a matter for the Judiciary.

Congress always has the final say in who is or is not the President.

Says where in the Constitution? Congress, without any constitutional authority, claimed for itself power to adjudicate Electoral disputes, usurping the explicit juridical power of the Court. Just because Congress has operated under such unconstitutional procedures, doesn't make them lawful. The House does have the authority and responsibility to run a contingent election for POTUS and Senate for VP, when no candidate receives the majority required. However, they NEVER had the final say over claims of election fraud, constitutional violations or treason. Again, that is the jurisdiction of the Court.

If SCOTUS did have that power, then we don’t live in a constitutional, representative republic. We are governed by an all-powerful ruling counsel of five unelected government officials—with lifetime appointments—who are accountable to no one.

Actually, it would only reaffirm that our system is a constitutional, representative republic. By this writer's own logic, while dumping on the idea that the Court should have any role at all in Electoral disputes, he ironically posits that one branch, the Legislature, does or should hold exclusive authority over elections. Talk about violating the separation of powers. Justices must be nominated by an elected POTUS and must be confirmed by Elected Senators. Hell, under the original Constitutional plan, before Senators became elected by direct democracy (a bad idea), it was the states, representatives of the people of each state, who therefore approved of SCOTUS appointments. While the process may not be strictly democratic, it is certainly representative republicanism, which is what the author claims to defend. And yes, SCOTUS is subject accountable, CONGRESS, which can impeach and remove Justices. Ah, the beauty of built in checks and balances, with processes and mechanisms already built into the Constitution.

Again. Mostly solid write-up in the analysis of Brunson, but wanting in terms of analysis of the Constitution when it comes to Electoral dispute adjudication.