ABCD…AD THE RIGHTS OF DEMOCRACY AND NATO – TRUMP VS, LOGICAL LAW
Question
Do Americans, i.e. citizens, participants, co-participants of the constitutional, democratic state of the U.S.A. have the opportunity, are they able to correct, criticize, oblige or remove from office a president if he does not meet the constitutional and legal conditions to maintain a legally sufficient status to continue in office as president?
It is logical that a president who acts against due rights by violating, denying or failing to maintain a logically sufficient level of the raison d’état that he is supposed to represent should be deprived of this position, and someone appropriate should be elected in his place, someone who will be able to solve current problems, matters in accordance with the raison d’état of a democratic country, state. In the absence of a sufficiently suitable candidate, the gap should at least be filled logically, tactically at least, so that the state can function efficiently – logically, communicatively regarding the truth in the sense of and adherence to the constitution with its conditions that are not inconsistent with the principles of a democratic state, but logically, definitionally and consistently in the most important matters. [In the event of war or a threat, it is probably the logic of decisions, recognition and quick execution that counts, not secondary categories.]
Who, what in the US is to control the correctness, legality, i.e. compliance with the law, with the truth regarding the actions of representatives of the authorities they elected or employees who were officially appointed to fulfill their duties? And what about a president who commits abuses that go beyond the logical status of his position, who instead of fighting a totalitarian-authoritarian, harmful terrorist, a criminal who attacks bloodily, ruthlessly another, innocent, free, democratic country, a separate, different state, acting against the basic rights to life, dignity and freedom, while recognized according to international law as a separate state, a democratic state of people, committing rapes, crimes against people by attacking them, killing human lives or trying to appropriate them in the name of some secondary and fraudulent categories, regarding history and the nature of events regarding history!
If Trump abuses at the usurpatory level regarding the required level of maintaining the raison d’état of his office, also abusing lies in the context, falsifying important events, even regarding legal and factual statuses regarding representatives of the authorities of Russia or Ukraine and expressing the facts of war, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia so that in the end the innocent victim, attacked terroristically, criminally, totalitarian-authoritarian, which is innocent and in accordance with the right to self-determination as a state and as an entire society in a democracy, is defined as the aggressor, while the aggressor and criminal of totalitarian-authoritarian proportions, the real aggressor, Russia or its main authority in the form of the criminal and authoritarian Putin is defined as a statesman, etc., even though he does not meet the criteria of a legal, logical law regarding truth and is by definition a criminal, a totalitarian-fraudulent usurper! [ – And there is a difference between law, legality, truth, – and non-recognition, lies, deceit, obfuscation! – this is basic logic].
The second drastic thread is, for example, the attempt to expect and pressure financial benefits for help in matters of primary importance [status], i.e. essentially. legal status.
Biden defended, supported Ukraine because of its legal status, which is actually important in this case, and did not set conditions in commercial and material areas, which are secondary to the level of real values (!), while Trump uses false facades, veneers, secondary values dishonestly in relation to real values (!), which become the content! This is already where the betrayal lies!!!
Trump instead of treating Ukraine in the sense, context of true values of people, man, justice, the right to freedom, dignity, due rights – because of the fact that for people, for the general state of humanity – he looks, stares and shamelessly tries to rob Ukraine, which is in need and at risk, of its potential, wealth, and this is already theft and banditry, also treason of the raison d’état regarding the definitional logic and criteria regarding truth, true values!
Americans have a basic constitutional right, which is, in the most general sense, a formulated right based on democracy, i.e. the equality of all citizens before the law and the right to dignity as people by virtue of the fact that they were born into the world and that the law should protect this inherent dignity of every person regardless of their wealth or origin and generally, according to the law, no one is prevented from pursuing their ambitions, interests or dreams that are not prohibited, i.e., if they do not constitute crimes regarding the law or rights. This is consistent with the basic right of freedom.
The law is to protect against abuses, crimes, harmfulness according to critically rational, i.e. logical criteria regarding the truth. There are courts for this as a binding legal instance, but there are also advisory, correctional, educational, educational institutions that enable development or information, etc. Well, but in the event of a betrayal of the raison d’état by the president, a large and strong democratic state should be able to legally remove the highest instance of executive power from office in a quick, effective manner!
According to the US constitution, they are not to serve Trump, Putin or similar usurping, totalitarian, authoritarian or terrorist forces, or dishonest materialistic, etc.!, but the highest and fundamental values of people, species or humankind in the United States at least, so there should be effective enforcement tools to remove the usurper from the seat of power! This is logical regarding compliance with truth, with law, and therefore with the law!
[The author of this post-article sincerely suggests that readers interested in the details of the highest importance regarding the explanation, understanding of the legality of law read the author’s first entry posted on this website, entitled: „On Law and Laws in General…”, there is logical content, presented in a concise manner and logically demonstrating the meaning and content of the subject of law, regarding the logical-rational criterion of compliance with truth.
(there the author demonstrated simply and deeply in essence gave data reaching all the way to epistemological-ontological dimensions, i.e. to the issue of the so-called. „Being” and the scope of cognitive possibilities, knowledge of data (inherent in…) of man, people. One can understand the content in an independent, non-authoritarian, logical way regarding compliance with the truth, also with the context of why and why the appropriate law is beneficial to people. The author thinks that the content is quite easy to understand for every averagely educated person, and even easier if he has some interest in thinking,]
The author of this article-post took up this topic, because the USA and is in NATO, together with the US president, who is the head of the American army, and also somehow the author is included or included as a citizen in the NATO area, as a full-fledged citizen in a democratic state, and NATO is after all a pact of alliance of democratic states, democracies for defense, self-defense of these states co-participants for the values and security of democracy, including, of course, freedom of democracy, democracy regarding the protection of values and equality before the law and freedom, civil rights, their proper functioning, also as a defense or protection of the values of democracy in general, in general.
The author of this question asked at the beginning of this article due to the bad situations in the world, here thinking mainly about innocent Ukraine attacked by Russia and seeing the inconsistent logical, definitional law regarding democratic rights and their values, the actions, behavior on the part of Trump, who actually behaves inconsistently, and quite the opposite to the superior, basic values of democracy, situations, logical reasons regarding the state of affairs, statuses of events and actual logic regarding the truth, regarding the statuses of the most important representatives or representatives of the forces participating in the conflict, including lies about historical – as important events that have already occurred – such as democratic rights and logical principles, taking into account the definitional statuses of important representatives of totalitarian-authoritarian and reaction or behavior of Trump as a newly elected president, who, violating international legal, democratic and basic logical values, similarly to Putin from his Russia, which is officially the second power in the world after the United States. In view of the suspicious, because non-definitive, and even meaning-reversing terms undermining the correct definition of events concerning Ukraine, also Russia, by Trump, and especially also in the time sequence his actual movements, behavior, logically contradicting, in the logical sense, the content of Trump’s declaration of the intention to help Ukraine and to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, the first point of this article-post is the author’s return to his basic question posed at the beginning of this article-post due to Trump’s suspicious, inconsistent behavior regarding the criteria of conduct on the basis of basic democratic principles, regarding untruth, inconsistency regarding the topic of respecting logically legal and logical statuses regarding events and , which in its manifestations violates the basic status and logical principles regarding law, rights, democracy, dignity, values and the fundamentally important manifestations, actions of Trump.
NATO or the USA’s past reactions were/were aimed at totalitarian, authoritarian, terrorist, criminal actions in the sense of human rights logical in terms of wrongdoing, robbery or persecution in terms of the context of fundamental human rights, which are related to the observance of just law related to the equality of people, citizens in the world towards/with regard to the law, the right to freedom, legitimate personal inviolability, sometimes it could be about the rights to human rights, civil rights as people in the world with their innate right to dignity, basic personal freedom with drastic crimes, especially when it was recidivist, as a method of terrorism in such areas, etc., etc.
Regarding Trump’s latest steps, the author notes that in the case of a really stronger or strong, even situationally militarily, law or enemy of law, their actions, appropriate, intelligent steps should be taken. For example, in the event of a threat to the execution or functioning of justice, one should use appropriate defense, intelligent arguments that do not violate, do not threaten one’s own consistency regarding the values that are fought for or defended. It turns out there is an issue with how Trump appears before the law.
NATO or the USA’s past reactions were/were aimed at totalitarian, authoritarian, terrorist, criminal actions in the sense of human rights logical in terms of wrongdoing, robbery or persecution in terms of the context of fundamental human rights, which are related to the observance of just law related to the equality of people, citizens in the world towards/with regard to the law, the right to freedom, legitimate personal inviolability, sometimes it could be about the rights to human rights, civil rights as people in the world with their innate right to dignity, basic personal freedom with drastic crimes, especially when it was recidivist, as a method of terrorism in such areas, etc., etc.
P.S. At the end, the author adds his own remark that in the case of a truly stronger or situationally or militarily strong enemy, appropriate, intelligent steps should be taken, such as, for example, that in the event of a threat to the execution or functioning of justice, appropriate defensive measures should be used, intelligent arguments that do not violate or threaten one’s own consistency regarding the values being fought for or defended.
MM