Update: The US Constitution Requires the Supreme Court to Remove Joe Biden from the Presidency

Jan 7, 2023

Clifford Ribner
Spread the word

The Supreme Court has issued no order yet after yesterday’s conference on the case of Brunson v. Adams. If they grant CERT. that will literally be Earth-shaking – and exactly what they must do to undo all the damage they have already inflicted on the nation by permitting the Rule of Law to be trampled on in this country, providing no legal remedy to any of the damaged parties – the entire, democratic Republic of the United States. The Supreme Court accepting jurisdiction and ruling on Brunson would clearly require undoing the results of the 2020 election ab initiato.

It is now clear that it is indeed mandatory for the sake of The Rule of Law in the nation that the “presidency” of Joe Biden, resulting from massive, government-involved fraud of multiple kinds during the 2020 election, be undone, and The Rule of Law be re-established. 

The Supreme Court could have fixed this problem long ago, without the country suffering under the monstrous, anti-American (in every conceivable way) horror of the Biden “presidency,” if it had simply done its unambiguously-clear duty and accepted jurisdiction in Texas v. Pennsylvania, 292 U.S. ____(2020), the case brought, almost immediately after the election – the first time actual, identifiable, concrete injury under its defendant states’ Constitutional violations would actually have occurred (and therefore a case created) – by Texas against multiple other states, each of whose election laws had clearly been unconstitutionally-altered prior to the 2020 election – massive Constitutional problems which needed to be fixed, to preserve The Rule Of Law, even before we possessed, as we do now, the undeniable, documentary proof of federal government agency- and Joe Biden-involved fraud in all the actions disclosed by the Twitter revelations in recent weeks.

In the Texas case, seven of the Justices on the Supreme Court violated their oaths to the Constitution of office and were massively derelict in their duty in refusing to accept their mandatory, not discretionary, jurisdiction. Texas v. Pennsylvania, 292 U.S. ____(2020). 

In direct violation of the plain language of the Constitution (“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court….The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…to controversies between two or more states….In all cases … in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction [emphases added]”) seven of the Justices pretended that they were entitled simply not to bother with the case at all, that they were permitted the power to turn it down, discretionary, and not mandatory, jurisdiction over the case under their normal CERT proceedings. The fact that they were unambiguously wrong in doing so was noted explicitly by Justices Thomas and Alito alone: ”In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

The Constitution is, as it explicitly provides, the Supreme Law of The Land and, accordingly, must, if there is to be any Rule of Law at all, be enforced; but it notably has no provisions in it for who is to enforce it, and in what manner. 

The Constitution is, as its authors fully contemplated in creating it, itself a social contract subject to, and enforceable under, the Common Law of Contracts (an integral part of the Common Law which preceded it, and remained, under it, the exclusive citizen-policing laws of all the states and of the United States itself), the Common Law under which it is an absolute, fundamental principle that no defrauding party is permitted to benefit from his fraud, and it is the courts, and the courts alone, which are required to undo the damage caused by any defrauding party. 

Otherwise, there is no Rule of Law, and the only way to undo such evil and unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, acts would be by a mob (or sedition by the military), the opposite of the rule of law.

It is manifest: if the Rule of Law is to prevail, it is the courts, and the courts alone, which must enforce it; and they have no right whatsoever to refuse any jurisdiction to do so. And yet that was the precise effect of the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional action in turning down its mandatory, original (not its usual, appellate) jurisdiction over Texas v. Pennsylvania.

The Twitter files leave no doubt that, without regard to the Constitutional violations by multiple states described in the complaint in Texas v. Pennsylvania. violations which the defendant states therein did not even dispute had indeed occurred in their responses, and all of the other fraud that probably took place in the 2020 election involving the voting machines (Query: why do we need them at all, since elections were conducted so much better and quicker before we had them?), mail-in ballots, illegal ballot-harvesting, etc., the massive, coercive and collusive – against ALL SOURCES OF INFORMATION in the country that the citizens rely on – including massive instances of fraud on the public, all of which were actively participated in BY JOE BIDEN PERSONALLY, by him, most importantly, personally repeating THE SINGULAR, FBI-CONCOCTED FRAUD that the Hunter Biden laptop (which contains undeniable, documentary proof, not simply evidence, of the massive corruption of Joe Biden throughout his time in public office, including his being on the payroll of actual enemies of this country, China and Russia) was “Russian disinformation” when he addressed the nation in one of the two presidential debates – involvement of the FBI, the unconstitutional federal police force, other intelligence agencies including the CIA, and multiple other federal administrative agencies, in the 2020 election made that election completely fraudulent – and therefore mandatorily-voidable under The Common Law of Contracts.

The New York Times, AP, Cable “news,” corporate network “news,” etc., all of what is known as “mainstream news,” and the other social media platforms – which act as a massive, exponentially-amplifying and -magnifying megaphone of everything else – are pretending that the Twitter revelations simply don’t exist, all of them covering NONE of the content of those Twitter revelations directly – because they themselves were active participants, collaborators, willingly or under FBI coercion, in all of the very fraud revealed in those revelations and, by now doing everything in their power to belittle, mischaracterize, and even hide those revelations from the public, are continuing to publish and actively promote the very frauds which the new, Musk-controlled Twitter has now disclosed, together with all of the complete gaslighting nonsense about the January 6 riot, the pseudo-event (consistently proclaimed a “deadly INSURRECTION!!” by Joe Biden et al., when the only ones killed were 2 Trump supporters, murdered in cold blood by federal government agents) manufactured as a distraction from the actual election fraud, nonsense which continues ad nauseum ad nauseum, including the lie that six Capitol Police were murdered by the crowd – repeated by Joe Biden only yesterday – a complete fabrication without the slightest basis in any reality whatsoever. 

Instead of covering anything about the Twitter revelations, they only have published tangential stories about things like President Trump’s reaction to the Twitter revelations, trying to make the story presented to the public be about President Trump supposedly being the “bad guy,” when he is clearly a victim – along with the rest of the nation, whose democratic choice was clearly defeated by entire agencies of the federal government itself and all the other players, with Joe Biden, the criminal cabal which obviously controls him in his obvious dementia (after a lifetime proving his previous complete, invariably-partisan and corrupt, stupidity), and his supporters being the sole, illegal beneficiaries.

I recently wrote an article about this showing how the courts, enforcing the Common Law principles of contract law, is the only legal mechanism for enforcing the Constitution which, as mentioned, itself prescribes no enforcement mechanisms for itself. In that article, I make arguments which are clearly correct – and which I have not seen anyone else present – or refute.

In response to: Professor of Law and Public Finance Explains The Brunson v. Adams Case


Spread the word

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *