Loy Arlan Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marburv v Madison. 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803). If it is the province and duty of this Court to say what the law is, then due to the nature of this case, which exposes a current ongoing serious national security breach affecting both Canada and Mexico, and being that there exists no other remedy in play that could cure this breach, and being that an emergency exists to cure this breach immediately, doesn’t this Court, by authority of the oath of office and other judicial factors have the power to cure this breach immediately? Also, if the oath of office emphatically on its face mandates the province of duty for allegiance to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and when this Court is faced with a domestic enemy, as shown in this case, that is attacking the Constitution, then doesn’t this Court have the full authority and duty to cure this attack by fully adjudicating this case, especially when nothing else is in play to cure it? Also, can Congress count votes under Amendment XII if allegations arise that there is a breach in the electoral process, especially when a breach in the electoral process has the same effect as war, which is to put into power its victor? By counting the votes without first investigating the allegations of this breach, isn’t that an act of giving aid and comfort to this breach which is an enemy of the Constitution, a violation of the oath of office, an act of treason? Also, isn’t the said breach an act of war? This Honorable Court has already ruled that one need not pick