"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 of the proposed ten-day audit of the election before certifying the ballot count of the Electoral College, while, according to the Washington Post, 377 members voted against the proposed ten-day investigation, and eight abstained.

Supreme Court Docket No. 22-380

Eventually, the case — Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner v. Alma S. Adams, et al. — ended up on the docket of the Supreme Court .  The "Questions Presented" section, in Raland J. Brunson's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, goes like this: 

A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.

This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.

In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country.  These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice.  Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.

Might the Supreme Court grant relief, not only to the Brunson Brothers, but to millions who are weary of being characterized as "election deniers" simply for wanting investigations to take place?  Is it possible that some, or all, of those named in the lawsuit might be removed from office?  Keep an eye on this one.

Paul Dowling has written about the Constitution, as well as articles for American Thinker, Independent Sentinel, Godfather Politics, Eagle Rising, and Free Thought Matters.

Image via SupremeCourt.gov, public domain.