Brunson v. Adams: Read This Most Interesting Case

[Anti Globalist]

Case was denied about an hour ago.

I’m shocked. Completely shocked by this revelation.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I’m shocked. Completely shocked by this revelation.

Yes this is all very shocking. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!

 

[ClaytonB]

Am I miss misinterpetstanding something here? It isn't one of the jobs of SCOTUS to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed into law?

I wouldn't think that a vote by Congress which legalized slavery, for example, would be outside the purview of SCOTUS to adjudge unconstitutional...?

*sigh -- Before I retype what I typed before, can you first address what it is about the example of swearing-in that you're not understanding? Any Constitutional or procedural obligation of a member of Congress cannot be evaded without dereliction of duty or, at least, becoming liable to impeachment. But no member of Congress can have an "obligation" or be "required" to vote Yeah or Nay in any vote that comes before the body because the entire purpose of the Congress is to represent We the People. SCOTUS doesn't get to second-guess that. Suppose that a Libertarian gets elected to Congress and he's known as Mr. No... he has literally campaigned on the promise that he will always vote NO on everything without exception. If that's what the people of that district want, that's their Constitutional right to send Mr. No to Congress. SCOTUS has zero authority to question Mr. No's votes, on any construction! The same applies to the vote to certify the 2020 election. We may sadly realize that the process itself is corrupted but, as a question of Constitutional authority, each member of Congress had full authority to vote Yeah or Nay as they saw fit. So, the vote and its outcome stands.

The problem with our Republic is bigger than a vote in Congress. it's bigger than Mike Pence. If you ask me, that is the entire lesson to be learned here...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

*sigh -- Before I retype what I typed before, can you first address what it is about the example of swearing-in that you're not understanding? Any Constitutional or procedural obligation of a member of Congress cannot be evaded without dereliction of duty or, at least, becoming liable to impeachment. But no member of Congress can have an "obligation" or be "required" to vote Yeah or Nay in any vote that comes before the body because the entire purpose of the Congress is to represent We the People. SCOTUS doesn't get to second-guess that. Suppose that a Libertarian gets elected to Congress and he's known as Mr. No... he has literally campaigned on the promise that he will always vote NO on everything without exception. If that's what the people of that district want, that's their Constitutional right to send Mr. No to Congress. SCOTUS has zero authority to question Mr. No's votes, on any construction! The same applies to the vote to certify the 2020 election. We may sadly realize that the process itself is corrupted but, as a question of Constitutional authority, each member of Congress had full authority to vote Yeah or Nay as they saw fit. So, the vote and its outcome stands.

The problem with our Republic is bigger than a vote in Congress. it's bigger than Mike Pence. If you ask me, that is the entire lesson to be learned here...

I'm asking a genuine question so you can dispense with the snark.

If congress passes a bill, and that bill is signed into law... that's it? SCOTUS has no role in determining whether or not that law is constitutional? So congress can approve a bill which legalizes slavery, and the president signs that bill into law, and SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating as to whether that law is constitutional? That seems tenuous, to me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. I'm just asking. I may not be understanding the role of SCOTUS correctly.

That seems like a horribly vulnerable system to me - all it would take is for a party to capture the presidency, house majority and senate majority by one seat each for some really bad sh!t to get signed into law with no chance of oversight, if SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating bills signed into law by the legislative and executive branches...

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm asking a genuine question so you can dispense with the snark.

If congress passes a bill, and that bill is signed into law... that's it? SCOTUS has no role in determining whether or not that law is constitutional? So congress can approve a bill which legalizes slavery, and the president signs that bill into law, and SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating as to whether that law is constitutional? That seems tenuous, to me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. I'm just asking. I may not be understanding the role of SCOTUS correctly.

That seems like a horribly vulnerable system to me - all it would take is for a party to capture the presidency, house majority and senate majority by one seat each for some really bad sh!t to get signed into law with no chance of oversight, if SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating bills signed into law by the legislative and executive branches...

There is no snark, but I do tire of re-explaining things when you're breezing right past the explanation, and then claim to be asking a "genuine question".

You're not even wrong, you're just conflating two separate things. The content of a congressional vote (to pass a bill, for example) is absolutely within the purview of SCOTUS if that bill (or other action) violates the Constitution, or is otherwise an illegal action for Congress to take. But the lawsuit that is the subject of this thread was trying to sue the members of Congress for what they voted. Maybe it will help if I use a third metaphor that you can ignore so you can ask more genuine questions: it's like the movie Minority Report where they were charging people with "pre-crime". Even if you suppose that SCOTUS would overturn a bill, resolution or other action of Congress based on the Constitution, the votes for that bill, resolution or other action cannot themselves be unconstitutional because the entire purpose of Congress is for the members of Congress to vote in whatever way they deem their constituents to want them to vote! So, under no construction can the votes of the members of Congress to certify the 2020 election be considered unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous or anything else along those lines. Even if the election had been 100% provably stolen with full camera footage of all illegal actions taken and the footage delivered to Congress 7 days ahead of time, it still wouldn't be unconstitutional for any member of Congress to vote to certify the election. Reprehensible? Yes. Immoral? Yes. A treachery against all the values, history and heritage of our country? YES! But not unconstitutional or illegal in any other sense.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Perhaps I'm just particularly thick tonight, but what 2 things am I conflating?

And it seems to me like you're saying that SCOTUS has the authority to adjudicate bills passed and/or votes by congress, but... also doesn't have that authority?

I'm legitimately trying to understand your argument here. That's all...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Perhaps I'm just particularly thick tonight, but what 2 things am I conflating?

And it seems to me like you're saying that SCOTUS has the authority to adjudicate bills passed and/or votes by congress, but... also doesn't have that authority?

I'm legitimately trying to understand your argument here. That's all...

I think he's saying that SCOTUS can rule that a given thing is unconstitutional, but cannot rule that voting in favor of that thing is unconstitutional.

Thus, those in Congress who voted in favor of certifying the 2020 election results cannot be punished for having done so (regardless of whether the results were legal/legitimate or not).

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I think he's saying that SCOTUS can rule that a given thing is unconstitutional, but cannot rule that voting in favor of that thing is unconstitutional.

Thus, those in Congress who voted in favor of certifying the 2020 election results cannot be punished for having done so (regardless of whether the results were legal/legitimate or not).

Ah, I see... I never would have thought that was in question. I must have missed that in the posts I replied to.

See how simply a point can be made, though? Take a hint, Clayton...

 

[jbnevin]

There is no snark, but I do tire of re-explaining things when you're breezing right past the explanation, and then claim to be asking a "genuine question".

You're not even wrong, you're just conflating two separate things. The content of a congressional vote (to pass a bill, for example) is absolutely within the purview of SCOTUS if that bill (or other action) violates the Constitution, or is otherwise an illegal action for Congress to take. But the lawsuit that is the subject of this thread was trying to sue the members of Congress for what they voted. Maybe it will help if I use a third metaphor that you can ignore so you can ask more genuine questions: it's like the movie Minority Report where they were charging people with "pre-crime". Even if you suppose that SCOTUS would overturn a bill, resolution or other action of Congress based on the Constitution, the votes for that bill, resolution or other action cannot themselves be unconstitutional because the entire purpose of Congress is for the members of Congress to vote in whatever way they deem their constituents to want them to vote! So, under no construction can the votes of the members of Congress to certify the 2020 election be considered unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous or anything else along those lines. Even if the election had been 100% provably stolen with full camera footage of all illegal actions taken and the footage delivered to Congress 7 days ahead of time, it still wouldn't be unconstitutional for any member of Congress to vote to certify the election. Reprehensible? Yes. Immoral? Yes. A treachery against all the values, history and heritage of our country? YES! But not unconstitutional or illegal in any other sense.

On the other hand, what accountability would there be for a Congress that passes a law that, for instance, nullifies the Constitution? They have the authority to pass laws. SCOTUS has the authority to strike them. But are those responsible for such an attempted overthrow by infiltration, in direct violation of their oaths of office, accountable only to the next publice vote... even when rigging the vote is the primary question? Is there no such thing as a legislative duty that, due to circumstance, amounts to a criminal act?

If not, what are any viable legal routes to accountability for those derelict and in violation of oath?

 

[ClaytonB]

On the other hand, what accountability would there be for a Congress that passes a law that, for instance, nullifies the Constitution? They have the authority to pass laws. SCOTUS has the authority to strike them. But are those responsible for such an attempted overthrow by infiltration, in direct violation of their oaths of office, accountable only to the next publice vote... even when rigging the vote is the primary question? Is there no such thing as a legislative duty that, due to circumstance, amounts to a criminal act?

The idea of representative government is that "throw the bums out" is supposed to solve this problem. If there is a specific corrupt act (or acts) that has occurred, then there could be a DoJ investigation to aid in airing out the facts. Criminal charges are possible if any member of Congress breaks the law (e.g. campaign finance, bribery, etc.) Even if their vote has been bought, however, the cast of the vote itself is not the point at which the law was broken, it was the taking of consideration in exchange for that vote. The vote itself was merely a necessary condition to receive the consideration, which is where the law was broken. It's like if a corrupt cop is being paid per ticket by the mafia for operating a speed-trap at a specific location. The traffic stops themselves are not what is illegal (as long as the cop does abide by the law in performing them), it's the receipt of consideration that is what breaks the law.

If not, what are any viable legal routes to accountability for those derelict and in violation of oath?

2024. I know that's not a satisfactory answer, especially because we have effectively undeniable evidence that our elections are corrupt and rigged. However, we should not focus on the corruption and lose our will to fight. Rather, we should look for our strength still held in reserve, and muster that strength to resist evil. RPF is proof that there are plenty of us out here who will not bow to this unspeakable evil. And we're just the tiny few who are crazy or stupid enough to keep posting online. For every one of us on this forum, there are a thousand silent Americans who are just as well-informed and mad as hell about what is going on. We are outnumbered by the corrupt, no doubt, but never forget that corruption is weakness incarnate.

The real problem, as I keep saying, is spiritual anyway. Yes, we need legal remedy, but the legal remedy will be the final step in any real change. The first step is spiritual. People need to awaken to the danger of sin in their hearts and homes, and eradicate it. We need to rally around Jesus as the only true King (he's not just "figuratively" King, he's literally King). When we realign our mindset this way, it will become possible for us to unite our strengths together in a way that is effective, and which the invader can do nothing to stop. To be clear, the invader is the devil... this is GOOD and EVIL....

 

[jbnevin]

The idea of representative government is that "throw the bums out" is supposed to solve this problem. If there is a specific corrupt act (or acts) that has occurred, then there could be a DoJ investigation to aid in airing out the facts. Criminal charges are possible if any member of Congress breaks the law (e.g. campaign finance, bribery, etc.) Even if their vote has been bought, however, the cast of the vote itself is not the point at which the law was broken, it was the taking of consideration in exchange for that vote. The vote itself was merely a necessary condition to receive the consideration, which is where the law was broken. It's like if a corrupt cop is being paid per ticket by the mafia for operating a speed-trap at a specific location. The traffic stops themselves are not what is illegal (as long as the cop does abide by the law in performing them), it's the receipt of consideration that is what breaks the law.

2024. I know that's not a satisfactory answer, especially because we have effectively undeniable evidence that our elections are corrupt and rigged. However, we should not focus on the corruption and lose our will to fight. Rather, we should look for our strength still held in reserve, and muster that strength to resist evil. RPF is proof that there are plenty of us out here who will not bow to this unspeakable evil. And we're just the tiny few who are crazy or stupid enough to keep posting online. For every one of us on this forum, there are a thousand silent Americans who are just as well-informed and mad as hell about what is going on. We are outnumbered by the corrupt, no doubt, but never forget that corruption is weakness incarnate.

The real problem, as I keep saying, is spiritual anyway. Yes, we need legal remedy, but the legal remedy will be the final step in any real change. The first step is spiritual. People need to awaken to the danger of sin in their hearts and homes, and eradicate it. We need to rally around Jesus as the only true King (he's not just "figuratively" King, he's literally King). When we realign our mindset this way, it will become possible for us to unite our strengths together in a way that is effective, and which the invader can do nothing to stop. To be clear, the invader is the devil... this is GOOD and EVIL....

Great post, thanks for the explanation. I conceive of my source differently but we're in agreement.

"never forget that corruption is weakness incarnate"

+rep


As for the rest, "we have effectively undeniable evidence that our elections are corrupt and rigged" does not seem to square with the idea that here is no viable legal solution.

Do you see this as a fault of the Constitution? A lack of legal recourse like that? Is it a problem of corrupt judges, where you believe there is nowhere a case could be successful, even if perfect? Or do you believe there literally is no such thing as a winning case, even though there is undeniable evidence?

 

[ClaytonB]

Great post, thanks for the explanation. I conceive of my source differently but we're in agreement.

"never forget that corruption is weakness incarnate"

+rep


As for the rest, "we have effectively undeniable evidence that our elections are corrupt and rigged" does not seem to square with the idea that here is no viable legal solution.

Do you see this as a fault of the Constitution? A lack of legal recourse like that? Is it a problem of corrupt judges, where you believe there is nowhere a case could be successful, even if perfect? Or do you believe there literally is no such thing as a winning case, even though there is undeniable evidence?

Well, the ultimate problem is that the State-principle in human government is a living-contradiction. It is abomination for one man to bow down and subjugate himself to another. The President is just a human being. The cop who pulled you over and wrote your speeding ticket is no superhuman being or angel, he just took a dump 20 minutes earlier. The entire way of thinking of governance as "necessary em-privileging" of a specially-designated class of people is absolutely irrational, it is collective insanity, but we all just "act as if" it's normal. Under natural law (from which we have common law), if I cannot assault you, then neither can a police officer. The police department may be willing to risk a lawsuit where I will not. But the fact is that, if you are assaulted, you have legal remedy under natural law no matter who assaulted you. Under political law (legislative statutes), the State imposes arbitrary limitations of liability in its own case (it is judge in its own case, as Hans Hoppe points out), and this is why it can commit criminal acts -- including open-air corruption and violation of the Constitution -- without repercussions.

The Constitution itself is not the problem. We The People are free to institute a government to sweep the streets, carry away the trash, check municipal codes, and so on, and so forth. Many of the boring things that governments do are not excluded by natural law (but many of them are, and they are accepted by We the People due to acclimation to tyranny over time.) However, the manner in which governments operate -- always relying on the police billy-club as a crutch and short-cut to revenues, evasion of liability, and so on -- is always infected with the State-principle. The State-principle is, in a word, privilege. There are two laws under the State: one for us, and another for "them". The stage-magic trick of "democracy" is that we are supposed to believe that, since any of us could be elected dog-catcher or councilman or whatever, that therefore "the State is open to all, and fair." Rather, the State-principle is in full-operation and adheres to the office instead of the individual. That it inheres in the office is little comfort. For the overwhelming majority of State officials, the individual is the office for the duration of their entire career. The distinction between office and individual only exists so that the State can sacrifice any of its members who go on too much of a power-trip and place the entire edifice of State-power at risk. In this way, smart State officials keep their power-trips within the limits of "what the market of public opinion will bear." We read about the ones who give in to their petty tyrant temper-tantrums in the headlines every day. Those are the ones that the State sacrifices on the altar of "power is in the office, not the individual" in order to preserve itself. But it's for damn sure not because the State believes in any limits upon its own powers, or even the powers of its officials, except insofar as its officials exceeding those powers puts itself at risk.

Ultimately, the only solution is going to be spiritual. You cannot cast out all the demons of the State by human methods. No matter how deeply and broadly you purge and purify, there will be more demons when you finish than when you started. That is why a global exorcism is required, and that is one of the reasons that the end of the world must come. Only God has enough power to cast out all the demons, so that we can start with a clean slate. That's what the book of Revelation is all about. I realize that not everybody on RPF is spiritual, but there is coming a time when everyone is going to come to the fork-in-the-road, and they will be forced to choose between GOOD and EVIL. You'll know it when you see it.

In the short term, if you want to know what I think is the most pressing issue, see my recent thread on information/psychological warfare. Until we (liberty-lovers, American-heritage lovers) understand that we are at war (real war, the kind with tanks and bombs, but using information and psychological manipulation as the bullets), the liberty movement is going to remain pinned. We don't need to shoot back with bullets, in fact, bullets just make things worse... they are the enemy's home turf (see Jan 6). At a minimum, secular movements that intend to facilitate the cause of liberty must make themselves compatible with the Gospel, even if they do not themselves actively promote it. Again, any other path is doomed. Understanding the unprecedented organizational complexity imposed by our current situation, and facilitating the forward movement of the Gospel will simultaneously promote the liberty movement in the most effective and rapid way possible. I hope that makes sense.

 

[jbnevin]

Well, the ultimate problem is that the State-principle in human government is a living-contradiction. It is abomination for one man to bow down and subjugate himself to another. The President is just a human being. The cop who pulled you over and wrote your speeding ticket is no superhuman being or angel, he just took a dump 20 minutes earlier. The entire way of thinking of governance as "necessary em-privileging" of a specially-designated class of people is absolutely irrational, it is collective insanity, but we all just "act as if" it's normal. Under natural law (from which we have common law), if I cannot assault you, then neither can a police officer. The police department may be willing to risk a lawsuit where I will not. But the fact is that, if you are assaulted, you have legal remedy under natural law no matter who assaulted you. Under political law (legislative statutes), the State imposes arbitrary limitations of liability in its own case (it is judge in its own case, as Hans Hoppe points out), and this is why it can commit criminal acts -- including open-air corruption and violation of the Constitution -- without repercussions.

There are two laws under the State: one for us, and another for "them". The stage-magic trick of "democracy" is that we are supposed to believe that, since any of us could be elected dog-catcher or councilman or whatever, that therefore "the State is open to all, and fair." Rather, the State-principle is in full-operation and adheres to the office instead of the individual.

Am I reading you right, that sovereign immunity or other protections for the lawbreaking incumbent, are unnatural and unjustified?

In the short term, if you want to know what I think is the most pressing issue, see my recent thread on information/psychological warfare.

Will do.

Understanding the unprecedented organizational complexity imposed by our current situation, and facilitating the forward movement of the Gospel will simultaneously promote the liberty movement in the most effective and rapid way possible. I hope that makes sense.

Sure does, thanks~

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Under natural law (from which we have common law), if I cannot assault you, then neither can a police officer. The police department may be willing to risk a lawsuit where I will not. But the fact is that, if you are assaulted, you have legal remedy under natural law no matter who assaulted you. Under political law (legislative statutes), the State imposes arbitrary limitations of liability in its own case (it is judge in its own case, as Hans Hoppe points out), and this is why it can commit criminal acts -- including open-air corruption and violation of the Constitution -- without repercussions.

I think Derek Chauvin and the other cops convicted in the George Floyd case would take exception to your "without repercussion" claim.

 

[ClaytonB]

I think Derek Chauvin and the other cops convicted in the George Floyd case would take exception to your "without repercussion" claim.

You are really tiresome. It's almost like you snipped out everything I wrote about how the State sacrifices any individual within itself who goes on too much of a power-trip and puts its existence at risk, with the old "power is in the office, not the individual"-canard. Oh wait, you did snip that all out...

 

[ClaytonB]

Am I reading you right, that sovereign immunity or other protections for the lawbreaking incumbent, are unnatural and unjustified?

Either we all have "sovereign immunity", or none of us do. That would be the natural law argument. If the State has "sovereign immunity" in some matter, then, by the same argument, so does any legal entity (including private citizens). The idea that a State can get some kind of surplus of rights vis-a-vis other legal entities, just by virtue of declaring itself to be "sovereign" is ludicrous. In fact, this idea has never been tolerated in any court except in a State's own courts. Only in US courts can the US government claim to be immune. Only in California courts can the government of California claim to be immune. Only in Swedish courts can the government of Sweden claim to be immune. In all other courts, they are bound by law, whether international law, maritime law, commerce law, or whatever. Once this fact is understood, it makes the special-pleading in these kinds of legal arguments blatantly obvious.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You are really tiresome. It's almost like you snipped out everything I wrote about how the State sacrifices any individual within itself who goes on too much of a power-trip and puts its existence at risk, with the old "power is in the office, not the individual"-canard. Oh wait, you did snip that all out...

But you claim that the State's sacrificing is done solely to preserve itself. Others could argue that it's done because what the perpetrator did was a crime and wrong and that he is being punished just as anyone else who had committed the same act would have been.

The defense of sovereign immunity can be limited or eliminated entirely by the people through their elected representatives. This has already been done to some extent by the federal government and many states via legislation.

 

[ClaytonB]

But you claim that the State's sacrificing is done solely to preserve itself. Others could argue that it's done because what the perpetrator did was a crime and wrong and that he is being punished just as anyone else who had committed the same act would have been.

... And Other Fairy Tales

The defense of sovereign immunity can be limited or eliminated entirely by the people through their elected representatives. This has already been done to some extent by the federal government and many states via legislation.

 

[jbnevin]

Here's a sovereign immunity tangent tidbit:

https://www.coreysdigs.com/u-s/laundering-with-immunity-the-control-framework-part-1/