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.