I don’t. At first I though it was the Posse Comitatus Act but that was a Act by Congress and not a SCOTUS decision. I’ll probably do a little more research now that the subjects has come up again.
This is the same case as the Brunson v Adam’s case (SCOTUS 22-380). But who knows. If the Q team has some sort of prescient technology the past tense of the question asked in 2017 may have been disinformation meant to throw the DS off.
I think it was planned by Q team to be taken up in this way and at this time. They even had a contingency plan under Rule 11 to bypass the lower court!
Funny. I began re-reading the drops in order to get a feeling about what happens atm, to try to filter the signal out of the noise and yesterday I wondered about the same thing.
No, the question was asked in 2017 and the question is in the past tense. So the question obviously refers to a SCOTUS case heard before 2017.
Do you recall which case it is?
I searched scotus-decisions-military-versus-Congressional-agencies, and this was the first hit:
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2022/11/scotus-case-surfacing-the-possible-removal-of-a-sitting-president-and-vice-president-of-the-united-states-along-with-members-of-the-united-states-congress-video-3783926.html
I don’t. At first I though it was the Posse Comitatus Act but that was a Act by Congress and not a SCOTUS decision. I’ll probably do a little more research now that the subjects has come up again.
This is the same case as the Brunson v Adam’s case (SCOTUS 22-380). But who knows. If the Q team has some sort of prescient technology the past tense of the question asked in 2017 may have been disinformation meant to throw the DS off.
I think this post is after considering the SCOTUS 22-380 decision which will then be referred in past tense!
I agree if somehow the Q team knew back in 2017 that this case would be taken up by the SCOTUS in 2022.
I think it was planned by Q team to be taken up in this way and at this time. They even had a contingency plan under Rule 11 to bypass the lower court!
Very plausible!
Other than the posse C. case, I can't recall any decision that reflects this concept.
Civil War era?
Agreed.
Funny. I began re-reading the drops in order to get a feeling about what happens atm, to try to filter the signal out of the noise and yesterday I wondered about the same thing.
I could be wrong but I believe the supreme court case referenced in drop #2 is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. - https://www.4lawschool.com/case-briefs/hamdan-v-rumsfeld
Where?
"What Supreme Court case allows for the use of MI vs Congressional assembled and approved agencies?"
Who is down doodooting this? You literally just pointed out what this thread is about.
SHILLS DONT LIKE FACTS
They never believed for a moment they (Democrats and Republicans) would lose control.
This is not a R v D battle
Name change suggestion:
Just to clarify. I think that Q#2 points to after effect of potential Brunson v Adams SCOTUS 22-380 decision
Notice that Presidency is misspelled? The N is missing.
Not bad…🤔