Ok. Thanks for the explanation! I remember you had earlier mentioned that the case should be decided in favor of Brunson but will probably not be because of other factors. If Congress did not have authority on the issue and the 388 defendants can claim that to defend themselves, then on what basis can the Supreme Court rule in favor of Brunson assuming they are not influenced by other factors?
I should also add that even professors who are teaching law such as Tim Canova are supporting the Brunson case!
The only legitimate grounds would be Congress's failure to protect national security, and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Interference of our elections is invasion. Moreover, if members of Congress knowingly aided and abetted such attacks, they are guilty of treason.
But it's absurd to argue that Congress violated a nonexistent "due diligence obligation" to exercise judicial powers that the US Constitution doesn't explicitly give to them. Granted, if the progressive argument is that laws on the books that haven't been challenged, are enforceable (I disagree in principle with this theory) then if all of 3 USC is legally binding, yes, Congress failed to follow the procedures detailed within.
Again, I contend that much of 3 USC (built off the now defunct ECA 1887) is unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to give itself such judicial authority, and so it Brunson only focuses there, I would not rule in their favor, and suspect the Court won't either. Perhaps they will do something on the national security angle. I hate to say it, but expect no more than 2 justices being willing to grant review. I to some extent speculate that this case is just noise, while the NC case is really quite huge, considering it's already being heard... yet I don't think I've seen a single post about it on GAW for months, while Brunson keeps picking up attention. Wonder why that is?
Ok. But don't you think that Article IV, Section 4 violation that you mention is also linked to investigation? I mean this invasion (election interference) could have only been verified through investigation and by killing this investigation proposed by 100 fellow members of Congress and that also backed by evidence, these 388 defendants aided election interference and are therefore guilty of treason and liable to be removed from holding office?
I agree that NC case is huge but I guess the outcome proposed in this case is what is attracting ordinary citizens. Also, this Brunson case is relatively easy to understand and on face of it, looks an open and shut case!
Congress only possesses investigatory power in matters directly relevant to the creation of legislation. Counting Electoral certificates has nothing to do with passing new legislation. Investigation and prosecution of potential sedition, rebellion, insurrection and treason isn't within the purview of the Legislative branch.
The Executive branch is solely responsible for enforcing national security, whereas Congress is just responsible for passing appropriation legislation to fund the defense system. All investigations should have been done by the DOJ, DOD, Homeland, military intelligence etc... Executive branch... Headed by, POTUS Trump. Hate to have to say it, but it was Trump's responsibility to protect our elections and arrest those who acted or aided attacks against us. Yet here we are, 2 years later...
If the last two years should be a good indicator of anything, a wise betting man wouldn't put any eggs in Brunson. But then again stranger things have happened so who knows 😂
Ok. Thanks for the explanation! I remember you had earlier mentioned that the case should be decided in favor of Brunson but will probably not be because of other factors. If Congress did not have authority on the issue and the 388 defendants can claim that to defend themselves, then on what basis can the Supreme Court rule in favor of Brunson assuming they are not influenced by other factors?
I should also add that even professors who are teaching law such as Tim Canova are supporting the Brunson case!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
The only legitimate grounds would be Congress's failure to protect national security, and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:
Interference of our elections is invasion. Moreover, if members of Congress knowingly aided and abetted such attacks, they are guilty of treason.
But it's absurd to argue that Congress violated a nonexistent "due diligence obligation" to exercise judicial powers that the US Constitution doesn't explicitly give to them. Granted, if the progressive argument is that laws on the books that haven't been challenged, are enforceable (I disagree in principle with this theory) then if all of 3 USC is legally binding, yes, Congress failed to follow the procedures detailed within.
Again, I contend that much of 3 USC (built off the now defunct ECA 1887) is unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to give itself such judicial authority, and so it Brunson only focuses there, I would not rule in their favor, and suspect the Court won't either. Perhaps they will do something on the national security angle. I hate to say it, but expect no more than 2 justices being willing to grant review. I to some extent speculate that this case is just noise, while the NC case is really quite huge, considering it's already being heard... yet I don't think I've seen a single post about it on GAW for months, while Brunson keeps picking up attention. Wonder why that is?
Ok. But don't you think that Article IV, Section 4 violation that you mention is also linked to investigation? I mean this invasion (election interference) could have only been verified through investigation and by killing this investigation proposed by 100 fellow members of Congress and that also backed by evidence, these 388 defendants aided election interference and are therefore guilty of treason and liable to be removed from holding office?
I agree that NC case is huge but I guess the outcome proposed in this case is what is attracting ordinary citizens. Also, this Brunson case is relatively easy to understand and on face of it, looks an open and shut case!
Congress only possesses investigatory power in matters directly relevant to the creation of legislation. Counting Electoral certificates has nothing to do with passing new legislation. Investigation and prosecution of potential sedition, rebellion, insurrection and treason isn't within the purview of the Legislative branch.
The Executive branch is solely responsible for enforcing national security, whereas Congress is just responsible for passing appropriation legislation to fund the defense system. All investigations should have been done by the DOJ, DOD, Homeland, military intelligence etc... Executive branch... Headed by, POTUS Trump. Hate to have to say it, but it was Trump's responsibility to protect our elections and arrest those who acted or aided attacks against us. Yet here we are, 2 years later...
If the last two years should be a good indicator of anything, a wise betting man wouldn't put any eggs in Brunson. But then again stranger things have happened so who knows 😂