PDJTAUSAC — Candidate Citizen President At-Liberty
PDJTAUSAC — Candidate Citizen President At-Liberty (& Foreign Nations)
The Theoretical Foundation And Then Expression
Kevin A. Sensenig | May 22, 2017
Freedom Of Amendment 1 & Amendment 4, & The Powers Of The President, & The Rights Reserved To The States, & The People
Freedom Of Amendment 1 & Amendment 4, & The Powers Of The President, & The Rights Reserved To The States, & The People
Is Donald J Trump allowed to Talk to Nelson Mandela, If he were still around, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is so? Is Argentina permitted as a Matter of Discussion & Debate?
Are Donald J. Trump’s associates, business colleagues, employees, voters, fans, supporters, and members of the United States Congress allowed to Talk to Nelson Mandela, If he were still around, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is so? Are State Governors allowed to Talk to Nelson Mandela, If he were still around, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is so? Are everyday American citizens allowed to Talk to Nelson Mandela, If he were still around, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is so? Are these groups, types, and individuals allowed to talk to groups and citizens of Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, El Salvador, Uganda, Libya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Congo, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Tibet, Nepal, Burma, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Germany, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Great Britain, Iceland, Poland, Canada?
Colombia
South Africa
Israel
Argentina
Chile
China
Japan
India
Russia
Germany
Brazil
Donald J. Trump
as
— American Citizen
— Businessman
— Candidate
— President
is
Most Certainly Allowed & Supported to Contact
— Individuals
— Corporate
— Businesses
— Civic
— Government
individuals and leaders in Nations, and in States, (Within the United States)
in a reasonable manner
— appropriate to his goals
— in an intelligent manner
— in an aware manner
— in a fair and equitable and judicious manner
— in a notable manner
— in a reasonable manner
— in a logical manner
— in a dimension manner
------- -> All of the above. Period. --------
My Interpretation
Donald J. Trump, his colleagues, his associates, and his allies, should receive admirable respect for salient and relevant such interconnectedness with -> all of the above. Period. I’m not sure what is so difficult to figure, to elucidate, to describe, to put into print, to talk about, to support — and many have done so and I join them and their kind and beneficial attitude and sense of justice, fairness, interconnectivity, and interdependence (while maintaining a sense of fairness, of equitability, of just action, of the peaceable, of the strength, of the flexibility, of the dynamicism, and so forth; and of the individual, the universal, the family, the state, and society).
The Constitutional basis for such activity, as described above and herein, is sound and thorough.
The citizen is at-Liberty to in his or her apartment or home, fully supported to use the telephone, computer, fax machine, back yard, or visiting room to talk to others in a fair and just manner. These others might include one’s neighbors, friends, and business associates (whether next door or in another Nation or another part of the United States). This is consistent with the Commerce Directive (in which Congress has Power to regulate Commerce, along with the States); with the Amendment 4 and its premise; and with the additional Rights granted to the States and the Individuals (the People).
The Constitution starts with We The People. Certainly We The People in the United States an talk to the “We The People” in other Nations. This is only reasonable, and is an expectation of the Constitutions.
If the Commerce Directive allows for and support Commerce among the several States and with foreign Nations, then most certainly the Constitution allows for and supports interchange of ideas, thought, and perception among various cultures within the United States, and between United States citizens and citizens of other (foreign) Nations.
Various rights that the People might reserve via Amendment 10 might reasonably be expected to include routine communications between and among individuals in the United States and with those in other Nations.
Such communication must be responsible, toward and/or inclusive of Liberty, freedom, economic freedom, and ‘to type’ things for the benefit of others, and the search for truth and reasonable results for oneself and others in one’s own Nation, family, and society.
Treasonous activity is not supported. This includes military operations, information put forth by those in government or state office to so represent this or that, private communications not willingly shared between American citizens, or private government communications (and this includes at the Federal and at the State level). However, such activity would have to be relevant, and an obvious breach, though terribly overt abrogation of duty, or direct intent to convey such communication against all ideals of Liberty, fairness, and Federal and States’ rights and ability to fulfill their goals. It would have to contradict Law and Laws Pursuant to the Constitution, and it would have to be material to the conduct of internal and foreign affairs. Overt compromise would not be tolerated, at all; and it would be up to Congress to decide one’s just due.
If an individual acts in accord with the reasonable expectations of office or neighbor, and concern for the well-being of others, then one has not committed a crime, but has actually furthered responsible relations and inter-being, consistent with neighbor, friend, acquaintance, professional or business colleague, or foreign dignitary. This only also is part of sound society and human relations, so essential in so many ways to existence on this planet; it cannot be otherwise. Such is self-evident.
Note
It is my view that to contradict (and especially to persist at contradiction and denial of) at-Liberty Expression and Freedom of Speech is to contradict the spirit, ethic, and framework of the Constitution of the United States of America, and in a fundamental way, and in so many ways. This should be pursued.
nxmvc
2017