Democracy is about people. People are like other people. No one is "superior" by
virtue of race, sex, color, education, wisdom, size or strength. So how can one or
several people govern the remaining people in the world by virtue of some
personal characteristic that purports to justify the elevated position they assume
as rulers. Any categorization into "superior" and "less superior" has got to be
fallacious. Certainly, some individuals have an advantage, economic or otherwise,
over others, but that, in and of itself, hardly qualifies him or her to govern. Few
individuals, if any, have the intelligence required to govern a multitude. It takes
more than one person: it takes institutions, agencies and other individuals. Thats
why we have to depend on a Constitution to constitute us as a government with
three branches. One branch for the rulers, another for the multitude, and another
for the adjudicators of the essential relation that runs from the Top to the Bottom.
The Top is abstract the Bottom is concrete, its real, its number. Everyone counts.
Without three branches functioning harmoniously with each other, a government
is lopsided. A lopsided government is not a government, its an arrangement that
insults the human condition.   

The word "Democracy" has had a many faceted evolution. But, the important
factor is to try to get behind or underneath the term and get to a basic
fundamental perception of what it refers to. If we remain at the level of
language, many different concepts pop into the picture. The Top of government
always thinks abstractly and always applies words abstractly, i. e. in general terms.
Even specific terms are applied abstractly, i.e. they remain abstract even though
they apply to several people. Hence, the governments position, "it doesn't include
you." The term "democratic" is numeric. It applies to everyone at the Bottom of
government. Technically, the Top cannot be democratic because the Top is One
or Several rulers or governors. The form of government may be democratic,
but The Top is just the Top. All authority and power of governing emanates
from the Top, from its Constitution. Only the Bottom can be democratic which is
numeric and which means "everyone", but not in a linguistic, abstract manner.
"Everyone", numerically means everyone individually, like numbers. The
bottom is number; it is real, concrete. Everyone must be counted in the equation
"democracy is Number". Thats real democracy. Constitutional power may
emanate from the Top but, strength, real strength in a democracy arises from the
bottom. The bottom has great strength in numbers. Thats why the term
"revolution" must be an accepted phenomena in governing. Sometimes the
activity falls within the illegal concepts we have formulated, but held and
organized in a proper manner, it is the only way the bottom can legitimately
express itself.
  An "arising" from the Bottom includes "lots of people"; it is a revolution and
revolutions can, by nature, be democratic.          

Constitutional language creates an Institution. The Constitution literally constitutes
us. When the Constitution was crafted, language was not problematic although it
signaled the arising of political Parties. There is nothing wrong with having
political parties with different views so long as their positions reflect a different
view of what is best for the People at the bottom. The problems arise when a
political position merely reflects, in a different form, the old problem between
State government and Federal government or is used for self-aggrandisement or
for the benefit of those fictions called "corporations". The corporation, a legal
fiction, has become the beneficiary of the Judicial Branch. Although they are
essential and important to the economy, isn't it ludicrous that an abstract entity
that exists "only in contemplation of law" has been given, with quite a stretch of
the imagination, the priviledge of contributing to political campaigns, on the basis
that they have a right to Free Speech. Its obvious to everyone that political
campaigns are becoming a thing for the rich. We now hear of " war chests" in the
millions. Where are the People? They exist at the bottom and merely look up at
the " money wars" taking shape above them. Money, another abstract entity
devoid of blood, character, and spirit, which is empty, vacous, has no identity
and whose only value is quantitative. ( "I have more than you".)
Truly, money has become an empty, vacous, abstract God that shapes the world.
   What has become of pure, simple patriotism? Well, we know where the men
and women who fought for the Country are: their spirit and devotion lives on,
but their blood has been spilled.
      

Yes, its time we learned how to use the Constitution and the government set forth
in it. Of course, everyone knows that we have been using it to govern ourselves
for over 300 years and its turned out pretty good. True, but we created war-ing
Parties that take their positions very seriously. So, do we stop being serious? Of
course not.Then when and how are we going to overcome that warring
dichotomy? The truth is we don't have to. The creation of Parties is our own
creation. If we look at our situation historically and in a more basic manner, we
notice that we are still arguing about the underlying structure of the Constitution
i.e. Federal power vs State power and never shall the twain meet. We have not
laid the language of the Constitution to rest. Of course, we can never, never,
forget the language that constitutes us. But, we must look beyond or underneath it.
If we have learned anything from the Linguistic Turn and linguistics, it's that
underneath all our convoluted articulations there is an underlying geometry or
mathmatics that must be clarified. Why is that the case? Simply because that's the
mode our perceptions take when they function. If we examine the underlying
structure of our Constitution, we discover that the basic argument in its crafting
was an attempt to connect power at the Top ( Federal government) and the power
of the States. That ended with a Republic. But, if we examine the structure more
carefully, we notice the emphasis placed on the people at the bottom of both
structures. Then the final drafting of the Constitution begins and emphasizes the
people by the spelling of "People..." in capital letters. 
 The Founding Fathers were creating an institution of all the people and a
government to govern them. Thats why it begins with "We the People..." and
why the government is set up with three branches. Of course, there were lots of
problems that needed to be compromised, but the basic structure is one of a
triadic government with a Top to govern and a Bottom to be governed and the
sides of the triad to adjudicate the relation that runs from the top to the bottom
and from the bottom to the top, a never ending movement to equilibrate the triad.
The bottom, the People are the essence of democracy, the Top is there because
the people at the bottom put them there. " We the People...".
            

The nature of democracy necessarilly sediments on the people or the bottom of
the structure of government. Government, any kind of government, focuses on
the top of the structure, because the Top governs the millions at the bottom. The
relation that connects the two ends of the governing process i.e. the Top and the
Bottom must be judicially modulated to insure that the Constitutional structure
is followed. That process is ongoing. Hence, the judicial modulation of the
relation between an abstract top and a concrete bottom must be objective or
impartial. Therein lies one of the many problems of a democracy. To be sure,
its not the only problem, but its an area where Party politics becomes obvious.
Packing the Court is a common practice; decisions along Party lines is another.
Most people are aware of these improper practices and also about the lack
of objectivity in the Judicial Branch. These problems arise from within the
system and they must be and can be handled from within the system.
   But what about the problems that arise from outside the system? For
example, the influences of corporations on government. Corporations are very
useful economic devices, but even the Courts refer to them as legal fictions.
The economy is important and corporations in the economy are important, but
why allow them any influence over government. Since government sets the
guidelines for their very creation, government should be able to control them. 
Of course, not in any restrictive or limiting manner, but, isn't it somewhat
insidious that a "legal fiction", i.e. some unreal 'person' created by
government for economic purposes, can influence politics and hence
government? Government gets power from all the people by way of the
Constituion and its incomprehensible how a profit making corporation can
have influence over a Constitutionally created government. Are we entering
a phase where money has become such a value that it is more important and
more powerful than democratic government? Money will never hold people
together. It's divisive. The only thing that can hold a people together is a
democratic Constitution and a democratic government. "We the People...".
We must learn how to use them and stop playing party politics.    

If we view the Constitution as a document that requires interpretation in purely
linguistic terms, we run into the problem of general terms and the Linguistic
Turn. This does not mean that interpretation should not be linguistic. It has to
be linguistic. But, we can view some of its organizational and underlying
aspects as relating to every individual in equal valuational and humanistic terms.
In order to accomplish that, we switch to a more 'numerical model'. We can do
that because we view the top of government as abstract and the bottom as
concrete. The Top must be abstract because thats the only way for one Top to
govern or relate to millions at the bottom and at the same time to do so in a more
fixed way. Number is fixed, words are not. The bottom is concrete because then
the interpretation by the top can apply numerically to everyone at the bottom.
That is also why we view government as a Triadic structure because it's
apparent that the government in the Constitution has three Branches and that the
people are the ones who fill those branches, except the top Judicial offices. No
changes in the Constitution are being suggested, only the manner in which we
 view the underlying structure. That view accents the underlying structure and
brings it to the fore. We don't want to change the underlying structure, we just
want to emphasize its importance. Democracy is about everyone; thats an
equation and an equation is about numbers. Everyone counts. Number always
remains the same. To be democratic is to include everyone.       

Once established, democratic government will always remain democratic. The
reason for that is that a democracy of people who have tasted freedom and
equality are not going to give it up to someone who wants to govern as a
dictator. That individual would have to acquire power over the Top of
government as well as the bottom. It's not possible. But, we must exercise
caution in a growing democracy because the offices of triadic government
are also filled by people and they can be influenced. The key is that the office
holder must function within the value system of the Preamble of the
Constitution and not be influenced by outside matters. Constitutional values
will not encroach on the freedom and equality of the real individual.  
    But, we have to be carefull about "legal fictions" or artificial persons. They
have acquired an incomparable economic grasp and are establishing a value
system that has little regard for the human condition. Their sole function is
to make a profit, no pun intended, at any price.That is one of the outside
matters we have to be careful about. There are others.
   I said it is not possible for an individual to acquire power over the bottom.
It is not possible because the power of the Top is abstract and the strength of
the bottom is Number. The bottom is many, it is number. The Top can not
handle a revolution by the bottom. The Top would have to use force to quell
a legitimate rebellion and that would only cause the bottom to organize more.
If properly organized, Number cannot be quelled. Democracy cannot be
quashed.        

Democracy as such cannot be changed because it's a government of people,
by people and for people. The term has its roots in a Greek word meaning
"common people". Democracy " of people" is a form of government
constituted of the people who are to be governed. Democracy "by the
people" is a form of government that grants authority to one of its own for
the purpose of governing. Democracy "for the people" goes full circle
down to the begining point and reiterates the point that the government,
i.e. the grant of  authority, will be for the benefit of the people who
constitute it in the first place. Its a form of government best expressed as
Triadic government. Certainly, the usual expressions that it is government
with three Branches that serve as checks and balances is descriptive and
adequate but, leaves itself open to multiple interpretations. For example,
If the Preamble is not considered law or authoritative, what is to be
checked? What is to be balanced? Of course the Preamble does not
contain everything worthwhile in life, nevertheless, it sets up a
government of "We the People..." and a begining value system that
supports the people and the government. The Preamble states the
purpose of the Constitution, the body sets up a Triadic form of
government. We do not need a new Constitution nor to drastically change
the one we have. We just need to examine it with 'geometrical' eyes. We
need to get beneath the words.    

To take the words, "democracy for the bottom", from its purely verbal formulation
and to consider them in a more pure structure of government, we must approach
some of the the words in the Constituion in a structural, or geometric, formulation.
A 'geometric' or 'mathmatical' approach lends itself to a better delineation of the
structure of government. It seems a better way to avoid some of the confusions of
language and also the referential problems of the so-called LinguisticTurn.
  The first thing we notice is the triadic nature of the government. All three branches
are filled with people taken from the Bottom of the triad and elected as
representatives, and appointees. The Legislative branch passes laws that holds
the triad together. The Executive branch enforces those laws and the Judicial
insures that they conform to the requirements of the Constitution. The triad is
always in motion. It never stops. It periodically changes the people that occupy
the elected and appointed positions of the triad. Those changes come from the
electoral process that emanates from the bottom of the triad.    
   Occupy Wall Street is an ingenious movement of the Bottom to place Wall
Street on notice that "all's not well on wall street". The movement occurs
outside the accepted structure of government hence, its characterization as
being revolutionary. However, the triadic form of government recognizes that,
if government is being contaminated with a value system from outside the
governmental structure, the sole place from which legitimate change can begin
is from the Bottom.      

Democracy for the bottom is a political statement. There's no question that the
essence of democracy is at the bottom i.e. with the people. The Preamble of the
Constitution rightfully begins with "We the People..." and then proceeds to set
out the purpose of government or what is to be accomplished by a democratic
government. Following the Preamble, is the body of the Constitution which sets
out a government of three branches. Subsequent Articles address Amendments
and debts. Then it sets the evolution of the actual Amendments.
   A Constituion completely in writing must be interpreted. Therein lies the
linguistic problem. In the early days, there was a problem of semantics. But, at
that time there was no problem with the function of language as such. Today,
we have the Linguistic Turn; i.e. a problem with the referential aspect of
language or with the correspondence of language to the territory.
  Viewing democracy from a more philosophical or mathmatical perspective
may avoid some of the problematics of language. The structure of government
has always been the ruler or governor at the Top and the ruled or governed at
the Bottom. Authority or abstract power always flows in a top/down relation.
The Top is One or several, and the Bottom is Many or the People. But, the
Constitution includes a third branch, which makes it triadic, and assures that the
two branches are functioning in accordance with the Constitutional structure, i.e.
in accordance with the relation of the Top to the Bottom and the Botom to the
Top. What has not been sufficiently pondered is that the Top must function
abstractly and the Bottom, from necessity, functions concretely. Individuals
are real, not abstractions. As real individuals, the Bottom is concrete. The
Bottom could function abstractly, but that would only be a return to the
problematics of language and the Linguistic Turn. No, the Bottom must remain
Number. As Number every one must be included in any democratic
formulation. The Bottom is real, it is number, each one must be counted. The
equation- 'the Bottom is democratic'-is true only if everyone is included in the
count. 
    The Top has abstract power, the Bottom does not have abstract power, but
it has strength in numbers. The Top cannot have a revolution, but the Bottom
can. 


  

The term "Triadic government" may be a little simplistic. Nevertheless, it
points to the important aspects of the term. No one doubts that our
Constitution creates a three branch government in which each branch is
given a function in the triangular arrangement. Each function has a part
to play in the delineation of the democratic process. Each branch is
separate; yet relates to the others. The system brings together the
separateness that existed under the Confederation. The essential
question to the founders seems to have been to design a government
somewhere between State 'sovereignty' and Federal 'soveriegnty'. Of
course, that battle still rages. Nevertheless, the term "triadic" focuses
on the philosophical aspects of the structure or, to be more accurate, it
focuses on its numeric aspects. I have said the people at the bottom of
the triad are not abstract, they are real, they are Number.They are
number because number must be included in any and all computations.
Hence, in a three branched democratic process, neither of the branches
can be excluded. Each has a part to play in a democracy.
      However, the Top of government necessarilly functions through
abstractions. It's impossible for it to relate to the bottom of the structure
except in a general linguistic fashion. The Judiciary cannot relate, in a
real manner, to the relation between the Top and the Bottom except
linguistically, and more importantly, by understanding the distinction
between an abstract Top and a real concrete bottom. It becomes
obvious that in a democracy, the people are the most important part of
the structure. The bottom is real, the top exists by virtue of a
Constitution that gives an office abstract power, the Judiciary by virtue
of a duty to implement the Constituional structure. The two branches
function with abstractions, only the bottom is real. It is Number. Real
change in a democracy, if it doesn't come from the two branches, can
only come from the bottom i.e. from revolution. Hence, its important
that the two branches implement real democracy.          
  

Read that a president of a Super PAC, being concerned with the direction of
the Country, was going to attack Obama. Isn't that an oxymoron? How can
a "Super" PAC be concerned with the direction of the Country? Wouldn't a
Super PAC just be a plain PAC, if it was concerned with the Country, i.e. not
concerned with preserving its own status as "Super"? Oh well, thats language.
Language can be a powerful tool in a political campaign. But, so can money.
The words "millions" and "billions" are being tossed around as if it was money
that was running for office. Corporations that make billions are now expressing
their choices for political office. Kinda oxymoronish. I guess we are creating a
value system where to have the highest regard or patriotism for your Country is
expressed in the money spent to get to public office. If money equates to
patriotism, or political office maybe the moneyed should be the first ones to
fight in wars, not the poor. This kind of linguistic manuevering can be 'balanced'
out by a triadic form of government. The Top can execute the laws, the bottom
can legislate new laws and the Judicial can modulate the Constitutional relation
between the abstract Top and the concrete bottom to create a well balanced
Country. Of course, this presupposses that each part of the triad does its part. If
not, the only solution is revolution.
  
    
  

Corporations are legal fictions. They exist only in contemplation of law. Thats an
accepted legal fact. The people at the bottom of triadic government are real. Thats
also a fact. I can vouch for that and so can you. People have rights, privileges,
and duties under the Constitution. Corporations have rights and privileges but
no duties. Their fictional existence makes them bigger than life and gives them an
incomparable economic grasp. No human being can compete with an economic
monster. The strange thing about that legal fiction is that behind its imposing
facade there are real people. It takes real people to operate the corporation. It's
the people behind the corporation who pocket the money. The corporation
doesn't have any pockets, only a fictional name. If the corporation engages in
illegal conduct it can be involuntarilly dissolved. But, you can't touch the people
behind it, unless there is good legal reason to "pierce the corporate veil". If its
dissolved the people behind it can resurrect it and give it another name.
   Now, corporations can contribute to their favorite candidate, or is it the people
behind it that are contributing. I suppose that later they'll be able to vote too. Well,
I guess fiction is bigger than life. The only problem is that as we extend their
fictitious life we might be shortening ours.      

In democratic government, the Top is One and hence abstract. Of course, the One
is also real and concrete, but s/he serves in an office by virtue of a Constitution
which grants abstract power to that office. The democratic bottom is Many, it is
Number. The Bottom does not have delegated power because it doesn't need it; it
has strength. As number, each and every person at the bottom is important and
must be included in any democratic formulation or equation. In a triadic
government, the top and the bottom are monitored by the Judicial Branch to
insure a real relation between the Top and the Bottom. Governing becomes a
continuous modulation of the Top with the Bottom. Of course, this presupposes
that the Judicial will be objective in its interpretation of the relation so as to
insure that issues such as Freedom and Equality will be established as in an
equation. No one is left out. The relation between the Top and the Bottom is
what needs to be worked out in Constitutional interpretive practices. Mere
verbal formulations will not suffice, especially in view of the impact of the
Linguistic Turn and the abstract nature of linguistic generalities that have too
much wiggle room. Instead, certain issues require a mathmatical approach to
proceedural rules that insures that issues such as Freedom and Equality will
have to be established by the government before any other Constitutional
issue is adjudicated. The Freedom and Equality of the individual can only be
weighed against the general welfare of the Country as a whole. Barring a
positive finding on that issue, each and every individual is free and equal.
     This approach throws a different light on the term "revolution", because
revolution by the Bottom becomes necessary to insure periodic changes in the
abstract formulations the Top uses to govern. 

The problem with the term "revolution", is that it has acquired a bad reputation.
Originally it was used to refer to the revolutions of the celestial bodies, later it was
used for the overthrow of a dynasty, or a King. Now, in the political sphere, it is
connected to the overthrow of a government. Since a government acquires a
certain stability, the term implies some force or violence. We welcome
revolutions in science, in art, in technology, even in language, but these are
abstract revolutions, they blend in with the other formulations and later acquire
their own formulation. Since, the Top of triadic government is abstract, a
revolution will never occur from the Top because it would have to be voluntary.
It must come from the Bottom. Hence, a revolution is a 'forced' re-structuring
of the Top by the Bottom. To be sure,its an abstract re-structuring, but it is
'forced' by Number.  
  Hence, the term should relate to the term "revive", to bring back to life or
consciousness the real condition that exists in triadic government, namely, the
Bottom is real and the Top has power only by virtue of a Constitutional grant.
The purpose of the Top should be to keep alive the nature of the bottom, or
stated differently, to keep democracy alive. The Top cannot exist without the
bottom. The Top should never exclude any individual from a democratic
formulation.
  Unfortunately, we have to live with the term, "revolution", so, don't be
destructive, the strength of the Bottom is in their Number.            

The triadic form of government creates a dilemma. The Top is abstract and the
bottom is concrete. The Top is involved in abstract conversation and manipulation
while the Bottom is involved in the act of living. Of course, the Top is also living
and the Bottom is also engaged in conversation. But, the essence of the
conversation of the Top is about governing and that of the Bottom about living
day to day. So the question becomes, how do we connect the relation between the
top and the bottom in such a way so as to not exclude the Bottom from real
democracy. In other words, how do we make democracy real and not just a bunch
of empty talk? How do we connect the conversation at the Top to the real
individuals at the bottom. Aha, we begin to see a simularity to the old
philosophical problem of the gap between theory and practice, or the gap between
the map and the territory. But, government is not in a quest for Truth or reality,
its on a quest for Constitutionality. We must never forget, as a Supreme Court
Justice said, " Its a Constitution we are interpreting". The Constituion simply
constitutes us as a Nation. It's a political institution crafted in triadic form to
allow each side of the triad to participate in the act of governing millions of
people. How else do we connect the so-called abstract One with the actual Many,
heretofore referred to as Number. The power of the abstract top is granted by a
Constitutional structure: the strength of the real bottom comes naturally to each
and every individual by virtue of being human beings in a condition of
togetherness or community. " We the People...". We are Number.
     

It cannot be denied that the basic structure of our Constitution is triadic. It houses
a Legislative Branch, an Executive Branch and a Judicial Branch. Of course, it
has other Articles which provide for adaptation to the three basic branches and
changing circumstances. Its flexible, but its flexibility is not designed for
the purpose of proposing a government other than a democratic one. The
legislative proposes laws, the executive applies them to the people. The
judicial interprets the laws to insure compliance with the Constitution. The
nature of the Constitution is such that the democratic form of government
cannot be changed. The essence of democratic government is the Bottom of
triadic government and the bottom is constituted of all the people. "We the
People...". The people will not cede their strength in Number to allow a
form of government other than a democratic form; how can they? How can
they self-destruct their own Freedom and Equality? No! democratic
government is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Neither can the Top change the government. It can only enforce it. It may
change some functionable aspect of its government, but not its triadic nature.
It can change the conversation but thats just an abstract change along party
lines.Of course,the bottom can always legislate new rules and laws, but they
are subject to a Judicial interpretation, which should be objective and not along
party lines.Whats the likelihood of that? The Bottom can also revolt since that is
its nature as bottom. A revolution begins and ends at the bottom with real people.
Sometimes a revolution becomes necessary because its the voice of the people.
Their strength is in their condition of togetherness, in their Number.

My goal is not to be critical of our Constitution or our government. But,
I would like to see it function better. We may not wish to be polititians,
but isn't it sufficient to acknowledge that we have the best Constitution
in the world. Triadic government of millions cannot be surpassed. To be
sure, it can be improved. The Constitution was crafted at a time when
language was not suspect or, at least we can say when the so-called
Linguistic Turn did not exist, as such. There were issues of semantics.
But, we did not have issues of reference. The map and the territory
were not that far apart. Now, the map occupies one domain, the territory
another, and never shall the twain meet. Language has always been
manipulated, but it's reference to something other than itself had never
been so severely questioned. Today, language is non-correspondant,
it's practically useless!? How can that be? I don't buy that, and to quote
Richard Rorty, "lets keep the conversation going".  
       The other issue is that of Big Money. Of course, some of The
Founding Fathers were rich. Yet, they helped formulate a Constitution
of people, of equality and freedom. The abstract nature of the top
comes with the territory. The real nature of the bottom is the territory.
So, lets keep the conversation going to help bring about a democratic
community.

So what is there to revolt about and what is the stated purpose of the Constitution?
Its in the Preamble, read the Preamble. "We the People..." . Its triadic nature
cannot be condemned or improved. So why revolt? The answer to this question
is precisely what I have been stating. The Top is abstract and houses power. The
Bottom is not abstract, its real! The bottom does not have abstract power, but it
has strength in numbers. You and I are at the bottom! Each and every individual
at the bottom is someone who has to be counted. S/he is a number in the
equation of democratic government. There can be no revolution at the abstract
Top. That would only be a different conversation. A revolution would have to
begin at the bottom by real people and it cannot be destructive. The Top has to
respect that. It has to answer their questions in a satisfactory way. Otherwise,
why have a democratic government? The bottom is the essence of triadic
government. Its necessary as a support for the Top. A Top cannot exist without
a bottom. The relation between the abstract Top and the concrete Bottom must
be understood and included in all interpretive practices. 

A revolution in science usually brings about new technologies. Would a revolution
in government bring about a new form of government? Absolutely not! Democracy
and the triadic form of government is the preferred form of government because it 
structures a government where each side of its triadic nature plays a part in the
functioning of the whole. No side is left out and any person who wishes and is able,
can run for public office. A revolution in governmet should have the effect of
correcting the shortcomings, if any, of the structure. Although the triadic nature of
the structure has no inherent shortcomings, its integrity is being threatened from
outside its structure, by the influences of a value system of Big Money created by
corporations and the potential influences of the Linguistic Turn.
      The Constitution was not crafted for the purpose of interpreting reality, nor
 was it created for the benefit of those fortunate enough to have Big Money, it
was crafted as a political instituion for the purpose of government. Everything
necessary for a democratic government is crafted into its form. Hence, it's a
human construction and the only requirement is that it be interpreted according
to the stated purpose for which it was crafted. Hence, it has no truck with
interpreting reality and hence does not have to answer to the Linguistic turn,
nor to appologize to the less fortunate.As the Court has stated, "its a
Constitution we are interpreting" and hence we cannot ignore the clearly
stated purpose of its existence. 
    

 Democracy at the bottom must include every individual situated at the base
of a triadic form of government. The immediate response to the above statement
is, " how can anyone believe that everyone must be included in a democratic
form of government; that's absurd". At this stage of history, everyone is born
within an established Country with an established government. Whether
democratic or not, that Country has abstract power and that individual is real,
sacred, and has a life. The reason the Top has abstract power is because it
purports to rule or govern the people within its geographic boundaries. The
person or persons at the Top are not stronger, healthier, more astute, or more
intelligent. Nor do they have more life than those at the bottom. They have
abstract power under an assumption of some sort, fear, or some grant of power.
A government has abstract power because that's the only way to claim in
empty, vacuous words to include everyone subject to that rule or power. 
    But, the truth of the matter is that government, regardless of its form or how
it got power, does not always include the real people at the bottom. But, the
bottom is actually stronger than the top. The reason is, numbers. The bottom is
number. Each number must be included in an equation. In a democracy,
everyone at the bottom is real, s/he is number. Government better have a dam
good reason to leave someone out of a democratic equation.   

The Constitution has created a political institution. That political institution
has a structure that is triadic in nature. Its purpose is set out in the Preamble
and its structure is crafted and constituted in the text. Of course, being entirely
in writing, it requires interpretation. But, interpretation is confined to the four
corners of the text and that includes the Preamble. We cannot leave out the
purpose of the Constitution in determinations of what is Constitutional.
There is no need to go outside the text. While other texts and disciplines
have been placed in jeopardy by the Linguistic Turn, the Constitution remains
immune. The reason for that is that the Constitution has no truck with
determinations of reality as such. While some disciplines purport to interpret
and represent reality, Constitutional and legal interpretations only decide
whether a law is Constitutional or not, or whether any activity, brought to
Court as a case or controversy, is legal or not. It does not make moral or ethical
determinations nor philosophical determinations of Right or Wrong or whether
a term corresponds to reality. 
    Notice that the Top can only interpret, invoke and delineate its abstract power in
linguistic forms. But, the people at the Bottom of the triad are not abstractions,
they are real. They are Number. You and I are real, we are number and must be
counted. No number can be left out in a proper equation, whereas in language,
an abstraction leaves too much out and has too much wiggle room. Interpretive
practices must consider the purpose of the political institution stated in the
Preamble as a basis to connect the relation between an abstract Top and a
concrete Bottom. Proceedural practices must be instituted to consider the
bottom of triadic government as real and concrete. "We the People..." is
Real.          

   

Government is important because the Many could not possibly co-exist in a
condition of togetherness or community without it. The Constitution
created the triadic structure of Government and that Government is still the
best form of government there is. Because of necessity, Government created
and protected the economic corporations. But now, the unwillingness to
control some of the activities of the corporation has created a value system
based on money that has become synonymous with power. The influence of
big corporations over Government is readily admitted. It used to be that
revolutions were dreaded by government, now it bows to big money. Big
money is power.
     Is government still "afraid" of revolutions? Probably so, because they
indicate someone or some group is unhappy with some social condition
and are giving notice to government that all's not right at the bottom. Is big
money "afraid" of revolutions? I doubt it, because it gets to keep what it
already has. Revolutions don't effect their money or their holdings or more
importantly, it doesn't effect their social position as legal fictions nor the
laws under which they function. To be sure, they don't like OWS, but be
assured, they are not afraid of them. Only government can acquire some
degree of control over corporations by changing the laws under which they
function. But, this would take an action by one of the branches of government.
Certainly, government is in a position to take some kind of action. Or do they
sleep in the same bed?    

In spite of the questionable practices of corporations, we must
understand that the law was right to initially protect them. At that
time their existence was important to the economy. But, now, is their
greed necessary? Their economic grasp is without rival and they have
become an important part of the economy. But, we must also
understand that they are fictions and their sole purpose for existing
is to function in the economy. They have tremendous power. They
have the power to voluntarily end their existence, to re-emerge again
under a different name, to decide how long they will exist or to
perpetuate themselves eternally. No human being can do these things,
because human beings are real. Should being human have less attributes
or less value than a fiction? The Constitution states we are a Nation of
people, that means real people, not fictions. Yes, real people have
Constitutional rights, but they also have obligations, duties, and limitations.
      Government creates corporations, its time to give them duties,
obligations and limitations within the communities in which they exist,
and also to the government that gave them that unrivaled economic grasp.
Instead of increasing their rights, like the previledge to contribute to
political campaigns, give them duties and obligations or punish them
for non-compliance. A question just occurred to me, can a fiction acquire a
real right, or is their right as fictional as their existence?  This latest
right is only going to increase the struggle for the top tier of power.
After all, they owe their existence to the government. Human beings
do not owe their existence to the government. Human beings crafted
Government and that government owes the Many at the bottom,
democracy.