We have attempted to connect an abstract Top and a real Bottom.
If democratic government is to function correctly, it must relate to
the bottom and include the real individual. The triadic nature of
government structured in the Constitution is theoretic, but it's also
a functional structure i. e. one that works.Of course, Constitutions
must be interpreted and it's at this point where the Linguistic Turn
raises its notorious head. Of course, everyone understands that
general terms are already vague and indefinite. But, now according
to the Linguistic Turn, even specific terms are non-correspondent,
i.e. "the map is not the territory". That is precisely why the bottom
must be Number. Number must always be counted, i.e. always
included. So must the individual at the bottom, s/he is a real human
being. S/he is real. The bottom cannot be abstract, it must be real.
It is Number, it is Many, it is legion.
      In view of the above, it becomes necessary to briefly discuss
corporations. Corporations are legal fictions. They are abstract, unreal,
and exist only in contemplation of law.Hence, they cannot be part of
the bottom of triadic government. Yet, they are considered as
"real persons" and given Constituional protection. To insult further,
the unreal speaks ( here read money). Can anyone guess where this is
leading too......reminescent of the old struggles for the top tier
between the Church and the State. That struggle was resolved by a
Constitutional provision. Of course, that struggle was between the
Sacred and the mundane, the spiritual and government. Today its a
struggle between the power of money and the power of government
or the Constituion. How ironic. 
Is it any wonder that "organizations" like OWS exist?              

We are looking for a way to connect an abstract top and a concrete bottom.
Obviously, if the top functions abstractly, or with language, it will always
use abstractions to relate to the bottom. Since the bottom is Many and is
always in a condition of togetherness and community, there must be a way
to relate to the real individual involved in any particular issue so as to avoid
the ambiguities caused by language. One method is to include number
into the relation that runs from the top to the bottom.Since government must
relate to the bottom by way of the relation it must include every individual at
the bottom in its resolution of any one issue. Every individual is a numerical
concept, i.e. One and s/he must be included as must everybody else. Since the
bottom is Many, it is better represented as Number. Since the bottom is many
individuals, everyone must be included in a democratic government. Number
at the bottom can be added, subtracted and divided. Hence, the resolution of
a democratic dilemma can be approached mathmatically or algorithmically.
      The proper resolution of some democratic issues should be proceedural
or jurisdictional. For example, the rights of Freedom and Equality apply to
every individual in the body politic. Everyone is included. Hence, when that
issue arises, it should be handled proceedurally by the Court. In other words,
it is a jurisdictional requirement that the Government demonstrate that
the individuals before the Court are not being deprived of their Freedom or
Equality before any other issue can be heard. The Freedom and Equality issue
can only be weighed against the General Welfare clause.
        

 The reason we talk about a top and a bottom is because every government is
a relation between someone who governs and those who are governed. The
governors can be an individual, several individuals, or an institution crafted by
a Constitution. The governed is always a multitude of individuals. The bottom
is always constituted of real individuals. Each is unique, free and equal to another
who is subject to the laws of the same government. If the bottom is to survive it must
live in a condition of togetherness or community. Hence, the need for laws.
The individual at the top is just as free and equal as the individual at the bottom.
There is no distinction between human beings. Despite uniqueness, and different
talents, every individual is equally human.
      But, the top has been given abstract power. The power to govern according to
the provisions of the Constitution that constituted the structure of government.
Without power, the top cannot govern, hence the necessity of abstract power.
The bottom, namely, the individual, cannot have power. He or she may have
possessions, money, social status, be gifted, or hold positions that grant authority.
Regardless, all individuals are unique, have individuality and human dignity.
As an individual with human dignity, s/he deserves to be counted. S/he are number.
If "We the People..." are to be counted we cannot be abstract, we must be Number.
In a democracy, everyone must be included.    
     
      
    

When I say "every democratic government is triadic", I do not mean
 in the same sense as in geometry. The triangle in geometry is exact.
No deviation from this painful exactness is allowed. Should anyone
deviate from its exactness, its simply not the discipline of geometry anymore.
The triadic nature of government is more like "form". It's an intangible
that has been crafted into a structure in the Constitution. That structure is the
structure of democratic government. Constantly in motion, it attempts to
modulate the "sides", or the law of the structure, into political stability, wherein
each"side" plays its part. The Executive Branch is the Top, the Legislative
Branch is the Bottom, and the Judicial Branch modulates the relation
between the Top and the Bottom, or the "sides", to establish a connection
between an abstract Top and a real bottom of Many. That is why the decisions
of the Judicial Branch must be objective. That is also why there must be a real
connection between the abstract words, "We the People... " and the concrete
individuals at the bottom.     

Democracy for the Bottom means that democratic principles should
seep down to the bottom, to each individual, in a realistic way.
It implies that the Top may, in fact, be democratic, but that somehow
democracy doesn't seem to reach everyone at the bottom.
Every democratic government is triangular
The bottom is the essence of the triangle because it supports the top.
The Top executes, the Bottom legislates and the sides adjudicate.
This establishes a wholesome equilibrium in the structure of the pyramid.
A democratic government is continuously in motion
and no government can survive without a triadic nature
because in a triadic structure every individual has a voice
and a part to play in the political health of the structure.
The top has been given abstract power, the bottom has real strength,
it is Number, and the sides have Constitutional wisdom.
Political equilibrium means that democracy has seeped down to the bottom
then, it can be said that the Bottom supports the top.
Without a Bottom there is no need for a Top.

If democratic Government creates corporations, why not require them to be
Democratic?
Something could be included in the Articles of Incorporation
that requires them to participate in democracy. After all, it's a democratic
government that creates and protects them. They are the behemoths of the economy,
So, why not the democratic spirit. 
If the corporation didn't have a market ( Here read, the Many) they could not survive.
The corporation needs the bottom as much as the Government needs the bottom.
I'm not talking hand-outs, gratuities, etc.,
I'm talking democracy, opportunities, reasonable wages, reasonable pricing,
So that hand-outs, gratuities, etc. become unnecessary.
I'm talking democracy for the bottom.

Law has created all corporations
It has given them Constitutional life and
an economic grasp that is unmatchable.
Now, they can even express their political preferences
by donating to political candidates.
All corporations are fictions.

The Constitution has created a Republic, a Nation.
It has not created the individual
The individual is a citizen of the Nation created by the Constitution.
Every individual is protected by the Constitution.
Every individual is real, concrete, many, legion, number.
Individuals in a Nation are not abstractions, nor fictions.
Individuals constitute the bottom of the pyramid of Constitutional government.
Without the bottom the pyramid cannot stand nor exist.

The top of the pyramid must listen to the bottom.

"We the people..." is an inclusive phrase, but is not always used that way
It means everyone.
If we are number, each number stands for itself
If democracy means "We the people" that should include every individual
If we are number, each number counts
If each number counts, we are including every individual
Now, thats being inclusive

"We the people..."is Constitutional
Number inclusively adds up to democratic
Some proceedural interpretive practices should adopt number
This helps to formulate new inclusive interpretive practices
Those practices can lead to new ideologies
Democracy is in need of a new inclusive ideology
An ideology that allows the Many at the bottom to be counted
Now, that ideology is democratic

Corporations are not people, everyone knows that,
They are legal fictions that only exist in contemplation of law,
Historically, they needed protection because, at that time, they were necessary
to our economy.
The Court gave them the Constitutional protection it gives to a real individual.
That is still necessary, but not for the same reason.

Corporations have gone from being necessary to being greedy.
Their economic embrace is incomparable,
No individual and no small corporation can compete with a big corporation.
Some have more power than a State.
They influence all levels of Government.

Now they even have the right to free speech
Wow, from a fictional existence to one that speaks
Corporations can only speak with money, another fiction unsupported by even a gold reserve.
The legal and political situation is worse than the Linguistic Turn.
The Linguistic Turn, at least, is trying to dig itself out of the fictitious map,
by The Interpretive Turn and the Rhetorical Turn.
But, the Law is holding fast.
The law has created legal fictions that must exist in contemplation of law.

The economic grasp of the corporation is power
Sometimes more power than Government
Yet, Government itself creates corporations
(Aha! could this be an area for accountablity?)
by approving Articles and issuing Charters of Incorporation.

If anyone is asked, " Does the Constitution assure us that each one of us is free and equal, the responce would be, "yes". That has always been the answer. However that has not been the way the law has been applied in all cases. Why is that, if the answer is an accepted fact. The problematic is linguistic and structural. First, the words. The words are correct, but the actions are not. For example, anyone can enter a public conveyance and sit anywhere he or she wishes. But, that was not always the case. Some had to go to the back of the bus.
      Case after case, had held that every citizen in the United States is free and equal. So why was that not implemented in the South. Because the interpretive practices were based on purportedly moral, cultural, Natural Law, original intent and other dubious practices. But, if the interpretive practices apply the issue mathmatically and proceedurally to whomever is before the Court, namely before it hears any other Constitutional issue, the Court must first find and establish the freedom and equality of the party, since everyone is considered free and equal. Then, in its deliberation, that issue can only be weighed against the General Welfare clause. In other words, does this party's freedom and equality in the issue before the Court, effect the general welfare of the Country, namely, by not being able to sit anywhere he or she desires. Of course it doesn't. Its outrageous to deprive anyone from sitting anywhere she/he chooses. That law or practice would never have survived a mathmatical and proceedural application of the right of freedom and equality assured to every citizen. 
      The problematic is also structural and will always be. The One is always at the top and the Many at the bottom. That is the case and always will be. The structure at the top is abstract and it has to be that way. But the bottom, since it includes you and me, does not have to be abstract. Unfortunately, the top always interprets the rights and previledges of the bottom in an abstract way. However, some fundamental rights, like freedom and equality, apply to everyone, i.e. to each one of the Many. In other words , some rights apply mathmatically to each individual in the bottom. Of course, democratic words are very impressive and rightfully so. But they are abstract and some can mean anything the top wants them to mean. Words sometimes leave too much wiggle room within their own articulation. For example, we are at war with Iraq. Someone asks, why are we at war with Iraq. The answer, we are bringing them democracy.     
           Power is at the top because it is abstract and has been consolidated into a One. And truly, the top needs power. But, the rules or laws for allocating and exercizing that power are contained in the Constitution that constituted us as a Nation of People. The people at the Bottom do not have abstract power, they have real strength. They have strength because they are many, they are legion, they are number and in a democracy, each one must be counted. Abstractly, the bottom is weak, concretely or as number, the bottom is strong. Thats why revolutions are feared. " We the People...".

Number is fixed
Words are not
Words are changeable
Some puff-up
Some thin out
Some thicken
Some jump ahead
Some assume
Sometimes they sing
Some lie
Some pretend to be what they are not
Words exclude

"We the people" may be made elusive
"The bottom is number", is not elusive
Number has to be counted
Number includes

Just read an interesting article in the April issue of The Nation on participatory democracy written by Tom Hayden. The article was about the Port Huron Statement and participatory democracy. An excellent article that suggests that today the PHS would "need major updating, but its passionate democratic core was of permanent value". I agree. The problems today that would hamper updating the Statement would probably be twofold. Of course, the major problem would be to field a method by which something like participatory democracy could actually take place. I mean a method in which the individual in the bottom would actually have a voice based on the freedom and equality assured him or her in the Preamble of the Constitution. The other problem would be the problematic created by the Linguistic turn. Language has become suspect and it no longer has the representational grasp it once had. Language no longer grasps the underlying concepts with authority. General terms can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean.
      The Linguistic Turn has created a linguistic dilemma from which the usual practices used to interpret the Constitution can actually benefit from a proceedural re-orientation of the practices. The usual practices use a moralistic approach in their interpretation.There's nothing wrong with that approach and might be the proper standard in the majority of cases. However, at this time, we are not trying to resolve a specific Constitutional issue. Instead, we are attempting to develope a general method by which participatory democracy might take root. The Preamble of the Constitution begins with "We the People...", clearly a Constitution of people by people, and for people. That is the purpose clause of the Constitution and no valid Constitutional decision can violate the purpose for which the Constitution was crafted. Although the Preamble is not considered substantive law, it should at least be held to be the basis for proceedurual law that guarantees it's application to each and every individual. Of course,it would also apply to whomever is before the Court. In other words, it would apply mathmatically or algorithmically to everyone. The freedom and equality guaranteed by the Constitution to every individual should be established as a matter of proceedural law before any substantive issue is heard. In other words, it should apply mathmatically to everyone and the person or persons before the Court must be found free and equal before any other Constitutional issue can be adjudicated. Freedom and Equality of every individual can only be weighed against the general welfare of the Country as a whole in the preliminary hearing. This means that nobody's freedom and equality can be compromised unless it is shown to effect directly the general welfare of the Nation as a whole or as a political entity in the International arena. 

                                                                    Basics
                                                             
                                                          I am 1
                                                          You are 1
                                                          We are many
                                                          We are number
                                                          Number is always what it is

                                                          Power at the top is always abstract
                                                         There is no abstract power at the bottom
                                                          Power at the bottom is number

                                                           Power at the top is always abstract
                                                           The bottom is always concrete
                                                           An abstract bottom excludes
                                                           A concrete bottom includes

                                                            We are number
                                                             " We the People..."

Hence, what we have to do is find a way to begin our critique and our formulations from the bottom and not the top. We must try to begin concretely and not abstractly. The reason for this is to try to lessen the impact of the Linguistic Turn. Where there's abstractions, there's mapping, meaning, representation, non-correspondence, and linguistic vacuity. Although this seems strange, it can be done. We have no choice but to continue to live with language. Language is as essential as food. As long as we see our institutions as having been created by our democratic Constitution, we should be able to craft our political structures without the interference of the Linguistic Turn. 

The problem with starting a critique at the bottom is that it seems revolutionary. Although everyone seems to understand the importance of the bottom in a democratic structure, most theorists don't like to start a critique at the bottom. Instead they begin at the top with worn out abstractions and definitions.  When someone attempts to begin at the bottom and purports to include every individual in the social it seems revolutionary. Why? Simply because of the possibility that every individual at the bottom will be included in some real manner and not just abstractly. That possibility should not be offensive to democratic principles. If our critique begins abstractly we get locked in to abstractions. Consequently, if we can somehow begin concretely, we just might be able to include everyone in our formulations.