After the Supreme Court of the United States initially declined to hear Brunson v. Adams on January 9, 2023, the Court has announced a change of heart, saying it will reconsider the legal claim that failure to investigate fraud in the 2020 presidential election — despite a request to do so made by 154 members of Congress — constitutes unconstitutional oath-breaking by congressional members who refused to look into the matter.  Raland Brunson's petition for a rehearing argues that oaths of office are binding and that, because of this fact, there has to be a penalty exacted upon each member of Congress who refused to honor his oath to protect the Constitution.

Powerful Words

In his most recent petition for redress of grievances, Raland Brunson puts the following question before the Court: "If one of the purposes of war is to put into power its victor, and since a rigged election accomplishes the same thing, which is to put into power its victor, then isn't a rigged election an act of war?" 

Brunson's petition to the Court continues:

The Oath of Office requires that aid and comfort cannot be given to those levying war through a rigged election.

A Presidential rigged election is a threat to the Constitution, therefore, when members of Congress become aware of such allegations an investigation into these allegations is required or they become violators of their Oath of Office.

If a person who takes the Oath of Office owes allegiance to the United States, and if under 18 U.S. § 2381 it states that whoever owing such allegiance violates this allegiance shall be incapable of holding office, then wouldn't it be fitting that they shall be removed from office as well?

Obviously the allegiance to the United States requires the necessary steps to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Isn't it proper and fitting that any interpretation of the Constitution that is used to give aid and comfort to such an enemy is nullified?

Brunson's complaint also asks the following question: "When a case like this one comes forward under a petition for writ of certiorari claiming that there exists a serious national security breach, and that this breach is an act of war, and that it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately — to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents, doesn't this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?"

Brunson, in his original legal filing before the Court, presented the following line of reasoning: "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?"  The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit makes the claim that lawmakers broke their oaths to protect the Constitution by reneging on sacred promises as they ignored the possibility of corruption in the 2020 presidential election.

Will the Court Take a Mulligan?

Bill Markin has pointed out in "A Mulligan for the Supreme Court" that "this court has demonstrated that it is a far different body than it was in 2020.  It has shown that it is willing to take such bold actions as overturning Roe v. Wade."  So is it possible that this Court might opt for taking a mulligan — a do-over — with respect to Brunson v. Adams?  More surprising things than this have happened in recent days.

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

Image: Picryl.