I am not suggesting a change in the theoretical structures we use to interpret the Constitution. What I am suggesting is that we perceive the Constitution in a more complete manner. Obviously a perception is different from a conception. Once we perceive it differently, we can conceive it differently. By this I mean our concepts would be underwritten by a different perception. Perceptions are sensory information that can support different conceptions. Our conceptions can then be grounded on different perceptual data. If our conceptions are based purely on the written word, then the words can be manipulated endlessly, not to mention the new effects of the Linguistic Turn. The suggested approach would expand interpretive practices into the underlying structure of the Constitution. In this way we can respect the goal of the Founding Fathers and perceive the Constitution in the same manner that they must have perceived it. Even though the authority of language was not an issue with them, it is now. They could do only so much with language and they did a fantastic job. But now the Linguistic Turn has surfaced and its not going to go away. Its here to stay. Of course, many individuals state that we must look to the original intent of the framing. It can be stated in those words, but its more than that, it's the original underlying structure of the government framed by them. There intent may be productive if we 'look' under the words. The usual interpretive practices examine the facts, apply the rules of law, and then, follow established precedence. But, in view of contemporary uses of language, that no longer seems to be enough. Language is no longer as authoritative as it used to be. When the Constitution was crafted language as a vehicle of expression was not questionable. But, today it is. However, the important structures underlying the Constitution that prompted its language are still there. Those underlying structures are obvious from just a cursory examination of the language. The Founding fathers wanted a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That calls for a triadic form of government. The people forming the government were the same people who were to serve as executives and adjudicators. The people at the bottom of the triad are the most important part of governing because they are the source of the Constitution. " We the People..." Thats why the First Amendment provides for the "right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," That Amendment was effective on December 15,1791. If all is not well, that is the right of revolution.

The Constitution must be perceived and conceived differently.It does not have to be changed or modified. We do not need a new one. The problem facing us is to examine the underlying structure the Founding Fathers saw fit to render into writing.That structure is just as important as the purely verbal surface. Of course, the language is very important, but keep in mind that the same word can mean many things and hence can open the door to verbal manipulation. For example, Citizens; an accepted legal fiction has a 'real' right to freedom of speech."Freedom of speech" is for real human beings, not artificially created ones that are legally acknowledged as fictions! The obvious underlying reason for the decision seems to be money. Another question, "Did Roberts save Obamacare?" Well, he's a young Conservative. He will be on the Bench for the rest of his life. Do you think he's worried about holding his job? Is this decision designed to create an impression that he is a fair jurist? What happens when they take another look at Citizens? Will one fiction riding piggy-back on another be upheld by 'fair' jurists? We don't know! Language can be manipulated and meaning can free-float above the real human bottom of triadic government. The bottom is not an abstraction, it's real, the human beings are real, concrete, engaged in the activity of living their diurnal lives; unlike a corporation that has been held to be a "legal fiction that exists only in contemplation of law". It's not only an abstraction made functional, it's ALSO a fiction. An abstraction is not "bad" per se. We need them to communicate but, an abstraction should be recognized as such and not as the reality being spoken or written about. We're at the bottom and I know for a fact that I am real, alive( so far), and so are you. I am one(1), you are one(1), we are Many, we are legion, we are Number! Number has to be counted. Democracy is an equation and every number must be considered in the conclusion. You leave out a number and its no longer democracy.

It is imperative that the Judicial Branch be objective. It must be asked, "how could the Court justify the Citizens decision? " The Court recognizes that a corporation is "a legal fiction that exists only in contemplation of law." Doesn't that already mean that it is "fictional" hence cannot be a "person". Then, to justify the decision on the basis that this "fiction" has the right to "free speech" which is the right of every real "person"; isn't that a "fictional scenario" twice removed from anything real? Hey, its alright to create a 'legal fiction' for economic purposes, but to give it the Constitutional right of a real person; to allow a second fiction to ride piggy-back on the first fiction? The real reason behind the decision seems to be the influence of money within our political structure. To be sure, money is important but one cannot ignore the fact that its an empty value. Possesion of lots of money does not change a human being into anything superior or different than any other human being, other than he or she has more possessions and,of course, more influence. Everybody knows that money 'drives' elections. If rich corporations, legal fictions to be sure, can contribute to their favorite candidate, it won't be long before corporations own the top of government. Money and corporations are already very influencial. Add to that the fact that only the rich can campaign and what do we have; a good democratic government? Hell no! A government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. What happens to you and I at the bottom of triadic government? (Don't think about that; it can't be too nice.)A legal fiction riding piggy-back on another fiction that gets control of the top of government can only lead to a fictional government. A fictional government is not a real government. "Citizens" cannot stand. Only real people have a voice in their government. Only real people can petition their government for "redress of grievances." That was established, effective Dec.15,1791.

There is a great difference in viewing the Constitution as a purely linguistic document and viewing it as a linguistic document with an underlying form that is geometric or mathmatical. The goal of interpretive practices is to formulate a viable means of interpretation. Hence, if perceived as purely linguistic, it can succumb to the Linguistic Turn. If viewed as a document with an underlying form, the interpretive practice will attempt to establish, as a begining point, the nature of that form. If the interpretive practice perceives that its nature has geometric aspects, it will attempt to retain and elaborate that aspect.Isn't that what interpretation is all about? Isn't it necessary to get underneath or behind the words? If so, where and what do we look for? Underlying the language layer of any document is the form of the document. Form speaks to tensions and balances. The top of triadic government is abstract and can be delineated by means of language, but the bottom is not abstract and must be described and studied as a multitude of real, concrete individuals.Each has a life and government cannot disregard the sanctity of that life. The act of government is merely a delineation of the structure by which it regulates the movements of the individuals at the bottom while at the same time respecting the freedom and equality of each. The difference between the Top and the Bottom is what creates the tension between the two levels. Truly, the Top speaks but the bottom lives. The sides of the triadic structure insures complete compliance with the Constitution; it monitors the real relation between the abstract top and the real bottom.If any branch of government must be objective, its the Judicial. It cannot engage in Party politics. Its sole purpose is to monitor the relation between the top and the bottom as set out in the Constitution. Its role is interpretive. It has no power. But, in order to hold the integrity of triadic government, its decrees must be enforceable. The top has power to govern, the judicial can only interpret but, the bottom has strength in numbers. Freedom to petition the top is freedom to revolution. Too peaceably assemble is a Constitutional right of every individual. The Bottom can talk all day and accomplish nothing. The bottom has no power with words. But, it has great strength with revolution. Occupy Wall street was a revolution.

The constitution can be viewed as constituting a government with three Branches i.e. a Legislative Branch that is filled with the representatives of the people, an Executive Branch that houses a president and a Judicial Branch whose Justices are appointed. It can also be viewed as a triadic form of government structured as a Top that houses the Executive,a bottom that houses all the people in the Nation and a judicial branch that structures the relation between the abstreact Top and the real bottom in a triadic structure. The bottom is the important part of the triad because it serves as base and support for the Top. The Top has the power to govern because the bottom has elected the Top to do so. Otherwise, the person occupying the position of the Top has absolutely no power over you and me. He or she may be stronger, richer, own lots of property and have lots of money, but the bottom line is that s/he is just as human as you and I and the human condition, as such, does not confer any kind of preferential power on one person, or race, over another. Everyone is equal in the sense of a humanity. The differances are merely accidental or cultural, never essential.The purpose for an abstract Top is so that a society can establish a focal point of power for control or government. However, that Top must comply with the structure crafted by the Founding Fathers. If we view the Constitution purely as a language document, we can be mislead by the effects of the Linguistic Turn. If we view it structurally as having an underlying geometric or mathmatical, triadic structure,we can begin to see how the structure is to function and why the Founding Fathers chose that particular way of organizing government. The Constitution is a masterpiece of government of the Many by the One. The underlying principles could also be applied Internationally.

No one doubts the many problems that arise from language use. Words express different degrees of clarity.Some high level abstractions are so elusive that anyone can claim belief in a point of view, or adherence to some activity as well as unbelief and non-adherence.Of course, the word "democracy" is such a word. In other words,a person at the Top as well as a person at the Bottom of triadic government can agree or disagree about the democratic nature of some activity,program or policy.This fact makes the practice of democracy nebulous in some areas. Of course, this fact doesn't apply to all cases of its use. But, there are some areas where the undemocratic nature of the activity, program, or policy clearly stands out.Most of these cases are where the policy, activity or program applies to everyone without exception. Why is that the case? Again, the language purports to corresspond to reality when in fact it does not.When a law states every person is free and equal, it means everyone! But since there is no correspondence between its use and the actual situation, every individual is not included. Why? Because of the multi-ordinality of many words and the categories and sub-catagories created to restructure the use of the term to apply to some particular case.In using number with the implementation of the term, it becomes more accurate. The reason is that number is number and will always be the same.It will not change. If we consider the Bottom of triadic government as including all the people and the term "democracy" to mean a people government, we have to include all the people. As number, democracy would be every individual without exception. Of course, some categorization would be necessary to apply to conversations and talk about the form of government and to distinguish that from the application of democratic laws, programs and policies to all the people.

What is the distinction between a 'purely' verbal description of democracy and a
'verbal' description that includes a numerical reference within the term. Of course,
a democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The
definition makes it a complete, inclusive, term that applies to everyone. Democracy
is people government. Everyone knows that and everyone claims to believe in
democracy, whether Democrat, Republican, or some other third party. Yet, each
Party supports different platforms; platforms that emphasize different programs 
which purportedly comply with the Constitution; programs that relate to taxes,
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Medical insurance, free speech, religion,
etc.. Office holders and candidates claim to be carrying out democracy when in
fact, they are representing and helping a preferred part of the social. The funny
thing about that is that in order to have gotten in office in the first place was pure
dependence on all the people at the bottom. The most important part of a
government of the people, by the people and for the people is the part that says
it's "for the people". Government is not only for elites, the rich,the corporations,
the males, the females, the gays, or any particular part of the social. Government,
as abstraction, doesn't favor one part of the governed over another part. To do so
is to change from a democracy to a 'power struggle for more power' or a struggle
to amass more money or some advantage by one part of the social over another part
of the same social.
   True, Government belongs at the Top where power resides. But, that power cannot
be used to abuse the bottom of the triad of government. The bottom of the triad is the
People, the most important part of the triad of democratic government. Without the
bottom there is no need for a Top. Without a bottom the people at the Top wouldn't
be in office. "How soon we forget". The power at the Top is granted by the
Constitution, the strength of the bottom is in its numbers. The Constitution gives
strength to the bottom because if "all is not right" at the Top, the bottom has a legal
 right to "assemble" and petition for redress of grievances. In other words, the
bottom has a right to revolution. Our government was the result of a revolution.
Revolution is built into the system and is still a viable means of enforcing the
constitution.
    The difference between a 'pure' linguistic reference to democracy and a reference
that contains 'numerical concepts' within the reference is that words are no
longer viable, conclusive, 'containers' of a phenomena. They have too much wiggle
room. But, mathmatics and geometry are 'less' representational in nature and more
structurely concrete. Hence the task for the proceedural aspects of law is to devise
a means of distinguishing between democracy as applicable to everyone and
democracy as mere governmental form. In either case, the Bottom is number.                   

Democracy For The Bottom by Gilbert Gonzalez is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Is there any manner of closing the gap between Federal authority and State
authority? It seems that most of the contentious Constitutional arguments deal with
that dichotomy. That was the principal issue at the Convention. On a general level
it would appear that when the Constitution is said to refer and apply to all the
people, such as in the preamble, i. e. " we the People...",   it would also apply to
individuals situated within State boundaries. The Preamble also states, " in Order
to form a more perfect Union..." ; I see that as a more perfect union of people, not
States. Why would the Convention want to unify the States, which were each
claiming separate power and authority? No State will relinquish its power. That
was the problem with the Confederacy. Thats why the Constitutional convention
was convened. It became necessary to unify the people under one roof. Of
course, the result was a compromise, a Republic, a lot of little roofs under one
big roof, nevertheless, " a more perfect union" was to be "of people".
  Of course, that does not close the gap. But if the triad of government is perceived
as abstract on top and concrete at the bottom, it would aleviate many problems. 
The Top most always refers to the individuals at the bottom. If the bottom is
perceived as number, it would have to include everyone regardless where situated.
Although that does not resolve the problem between a centeral government and
many other governments, if the Constitution is conceived as applying
(numerically) to all the people, of course, including people within State
boundaries, there would be less conflict between central and other smaller sets of
government. Of course, it will be said that it already does, but everyone is
included as a "word" and not as a number. Of course there are many other issues
between State and Federal jurisdictions, but I refer to a government of the people,
by the people and for the people as a numerical, measuring device for allocating
duties and responsobilities of all the parts of the triad of government. Of course,
this suggestion is not intended as a panacea, only as a better, more inclusive form
of democracy. No government can be perfect, but some are better than others.       
   

The Constitution functions as a triad. Since the top of the triad is the Executive,
the bottom is the People. The sides, which is the Judicial, keep a proper tension
which modulates the relation of the activity of governing between the top and the
bottom. Up to this point, the structure set out conforms to the provisions in the
Constitution. The triad establishes the equilibrium of its form by keeping
constantly in motion, i.e. a government of, by and for the people. As the
Judicial part of the triad performs its interpretive part, it must do so in linguistic
form. The top, through its laws and policies also functions, of necessity, with
abstractions. Both factors introduces the problematics of the Linguistic Turn and
Postmodernism. The focal point of those problematics relates to language. The
application of the interpretive practices to the bottom of the triad is also in the
form of abstractions, which may be the proper way to use language but its
authoritativeness free-floats. The interpretive practices don't sink down to the
concrete nature of the bottom, hence the words leave too much wiggle room.
   Usually, the Linguistic Turn and Postmodernism are conceived as being
de-constructive. True, nevertheless, these disciplines have alerted us to the nature
of language use. They have placed language in its proper place, viz. its non-
corresespondent and its representational nature. There-in lies the problem with
interpretive practices. But, notice, in the first paragraph above, the relation between
the top and the bottom is a tension. Its not just empty words. It's real and the
modulation is between an abstract top and a concrete bottom. Why is the bottom
conceived in concrete fashion and the top is not? Because the bottom includes
every individual and the bottom cannot be conceived as a "melting pot of
individuality". I am real and so are you. So is everyone.The bottom is 'closer' to
number than to an abstraction. A democracy includes everyone. So, why is the
top not considered concrete? Because it uses language and because the
Constitution is completely in language, thereby requiring interpretation. But,
the relation monitored by the Judicial Branch is real and must relate to a
concrete bottom. Interpretive practices have got to become more numeric. We
must construct a bridge between the abstract and the real. Thats the only way
to have a real democracy. It would also help dilute Party politics. 
  
  
.

Political writing is very nebulous. Its never clear because the underlying basis or
foundations are undefined. If it is defined, its defined in a high level abstraction that
has no foundations in anything concrete. In early writings, the underlying basis of
government was the abstract concept of the State. We still use the word "State",
but it's still used as a high level abstraction that has no foundation. Rousseau
called it a "persona ficta because not a man". Once the concept is established as
a fiction, the writers proceed to describe the functions of government. The State
as government is actually a discussion of government founded on a fictitious
entity. Even before the Linguistic Turn and Postmodernism, we're off on the
wrong foot.
  A discussion of government and its basis is very different from a discussion of
government based on the foundation of a fictitious State. The foundation of our
government is the Constitution. There is absolutely no doubt about it's existence
as a crafted document of government that sets out, what I have called, a triadic
form of government. Hence we go around the early concepts of the State. We
can still use the term "State", but not as a fundamental entity that grounds
government. We use it only as an abstract, organizational, principle of
government.
   But, the Constitution can also be viewed as an abstract principle of government.
Yes, but it is not a fiction. We have already established its real existence. Now,
we have to establish the government, as set out, on a real, not too abstract,
condition of functioning. For this to occur, we must view it as triadic because it
has an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch. These are
real concrete 'branches' that are continuously functioning and enforcing the
underlying structure of the Constitution. The bottom of the triad, through its
representatives, legislates laws; the Executive, executes them; and the Judicial,
interprets them. At this point, its important to notice that its the bottom, or the
People, that attempts to control the arrangement of triadic government by
passing laws and rules that retains the integrity of the triad. The Top of the
triad has no power to control except too comply with the Constitutional laws
and rules. The Judicial merely interprets them. But, at this point, several
contaminants can enter the picture. One, the Court can be "packed", Two is a
result of the first One, i. e. the Court follows party ideology. Objectivity
succumbs to party ideology. Well, no system is perfect, but it is the best. The
triadic form is the best form. Although the kinks in the above system become
glaringly obvious and are in need of repair, we, nevertheless, still have one
more huge hurdle to transend. That argument is what adds a new dimension
to political language and will be addressed in the next blog.                  

The Constitution, as crafted by the Founding Fathers, is a governmental institution.
Its contents spell out the manner of its working. The institution is triadic: that is
undisputable. The essence of the institution is the bottom of the triad, i. e. the
People. Obviously, if there were no people, there would be no need for a top and
hence no need for the sides of the triad. The sides of the triad is the Judiciary
which should insure that the governing relation between the top and the bottom is
kept in a proper state of tension and balance. Hence, a triadic form of government.
The older concept of the State did not fare to well. In that concept, the whole
scenario of government was conceived and elaborated within a wholistic concept
of the State. One major problem with that was that a wholistic concept was too
abstract. Can the same be said of a triadic concept of government? If we stay with
the usual manner of using language in the discussion of political issues, it might.
That is why it is important, at the very begining, to make the distinction between
the top and the bottom of the institution. Another problem with the older concept
of the State was that it was so abstract it was considered a "persona ficta". The
Constitution is not a fiction. Its crafting is a historical fact and its existence today
is an indubitable fact. These latter considerations are obvious to present day
inquiries into government.
    If we take our analysis of triadic government a little further, we notice that
there has to be a distinction between the top and the bottom of government.
Obviously, the bottom cannot govern. Just as obvious, only one or several people
at the top can govern. Also obvious, we need a "referee" in between the top and
bottom. But, not as obvious is the fact that the top is generally abstract and the
bottom is both abstract and concrete. The top must be abstract because all
governing is done by means of policies, laws, rules and regulations. The only
way to apply law and policies to everyone is by general formulations. However,
the application of those laws and policies must apply specifically. Stated
differently, they must apply to each and every individual. But, the bottom is the
foundation of the triad and the people there live individual lives. Their
individual lives are real and concrete, not abstractions. Hence, the bottom is
also real and concrete and living in that concrete nature is what constitutes a
democracy. Life is not abstract. The only way of bringing about a real condition
of democracy is for political language to adopt a more geometric and mathmatic
discourse. Hence, triadic government can use "triadic" language to become itself.


    

How can we perceive the Constitution differently so that we can conceive it
differently? Well, we can perceive it as a document consisting of a complete
governmental system enclosed within its four corners. Nothing is left out of
the four corner perception. Everything is included, the Preamble, the Body,
the original Amendments as well as the latter ones. The first thing we notice
is that it consists of three branches, each with a specific purpose and a
specific function. The function of the different branches is to try to accomplish
the democratic principles held together as a triad and the stated purposes in the
Preamble. This is its basic form. No changes of the existing Constitution are
being suggested, only that the existing Constitution needs to be conceived in
such a way as to lessen the impact of the so-called Linguistic Turn and 
Postmodernism. Why do we have to do that? Obviously, because both the so-
called Linguistic Turn and Postmodernism have contaminated language.
According to the non-correspondent and representational theories, language
no longer corresponds nor represents "reality". Its an empty vacous phonetic
sound. To make things worse, the language that politicians use is so convoluted
that, even if the Turn did not exist, political language has got to change. The
language of persuasion has been supplanted with the language of advertising.
Political language must become more numeric. Democracy is about many
people and they all have to be addressed or its not democracy.
   So, how do we conceive the Constitution? We conceive it as a triadic structure
that allows a Top to govern all the people at the Bottom, but for the purposes 
provided in the Preamble, and the sides or the Judiciary modulates the relation of
government that connects the Top to the Bottom in an inclusively real way. We
conceive all these relations as numeric and geometric and as inclusive of a
government that is in fact governing a People. Party loyalty has no place in this
approach. Only loyalty to the Constitution will suffice.  
  
    
      

Every individual is just as human as every other individual. To be sure, there are
many differences between individuals, differences in intelligence, skin color,
Country of origin, physical size, physical strength, possessions, and dare we
forget, that new human value, money. But, among all these differences, each one
is a human being and I dare anyone to demonstrate that any one human being is
less human than any other. I hesitate to use the phrase "the same", because its too
abstract and general in application and who will not say that there is no such thing
as "sameness". Every individual, who lives under a political system or
governmental system is equal to every other individual under any other political
system. For the purpose of government, there is no difference among individuals
under the same political system. The equality within any system can
be described as " equal human beings for the purpose of being governed by the
political system." The differences listed above are individual differences related
to the individual's physical and social condition. Obviously, terms such as
"fortunate", "less fortunate" "rich", "poor", "talented","not talented", "white, black,
brown, red", can be applied to everyone, but that is not a division of qualities for
the purpose of government. We are all equally human. And if we are to live
together under the same identity, in the same condition of togetherness, we can
only submit to governmental rules or laws that protects each ones Freedom and
Equality. The best way to do that is to consider the bottom of democratic
government as numeric. Each individual is a number at the bottom and the
equation "freedom and equality" = "democracy" can only be true if everyone at
the bottom is included in the equation.We include everyone at the bottom
because the bottom is real, concrete, and also because in a democracy everyone
is free and equal. A government has power only if it remains within the four
corners of the Constitution. Outside the four corners of the Constitution, there
is no government. If a government does not follow the Constitution and if there
is no government, the bottom has a right to revolt. Democracy is the only form
of government where the right of revolution exists.

When we use the term "top", we mean the institutionalized form of the government.
When we use the term "bottom" we mean each and every individual that lives in a
condition of togetherness or community and who is the subject of government.
When we say "bottom" we do not use the term in a 'purely' abstract manner. We
use the term to linguistically encode or 'cover' the entire area of the bottom of the
tradic form of government. The term "number"is a better term to apply to the
bottom because it includes each and every individual constituting the social
sphere of the political entity. No one can be left out. The means of doing just
this must be incorporated into the proceedural aspects of law. We must figure out
how to reduce a purely conceptual justice to a practical, inclusive, "fair play" that
relates to each and every individual to whom the concept applies in any particular
situation. This necessity arises because the Top is an abstract generality and can
only communicate to the bottom, which is real, in linguistic fashion. But, when
the Top implements democracy it must do so in a real way. Hence, real
democracy should always reach the person or persons it is intended for. Of
course, not all political or legal actions apply to everyone at any point in time.
But, the issue of Freedom and Equality do!
   The Top houses power. Otherwise, it could not act. But, it gets its power from
the Constitution. It cannot get power from any other source. In a political entity
there is no other source for power. But the Top must comply with the four
corners of the Constitution. Obviously, any departure from the four corners of
the Constitution would be an abuse of power. This fact means that the Judicial
Branch has no business implementing policy nor deviating, in their
interpretations, from the structure of the Constitution. It also means that those
in power should not 'pack' the courts. Failing compliance means the bottom
can 'complain' in the only legal way it can 'complain', by unifying and
'flexing their muscle' in their condition of togetherness. Stated differently,
by revolution.
 

    

Its absolutely necessary to interpret the Constitution. Being entirely in writing, there
are no options. But can the mode of interpretation be improved? Absolutely! We
can not let the Linguistic Turn and its many convolutions influence interpretive
practices. But, even without the direct influence of the Turn, political language is
already in a sad state. Language, in general, is not and cannot be as precise as
geometry or mathmatics.We all know there are differences in 'saying' and 'doing'.
However, a certain integrity becomes possible, if we keep the words and the
reality closer together. Interpretive practices must be kept separate from the
everyday use of political language. Interpretive practices must use a language that
links the abstract Top and the concrete Bottom. The "saying" can never be the
"doing", but they can be brought together a lot closer, than the previous example
I gave of a question and answer,i.e.  "why are we at war?", " we are bringing
them democracy". Everyone can see the hypocracy of such answers. Polititians
or statesmen may have a 'proper language' but please, its not the language of
advertising. In any case, politically responsible language, especially
Constitutional language, shouldn't follow party lines or be hypocrtical.
   A more precise use of language would be a 'geometric' or 'mathmatic' approach
to interpretation. The Constitution, within its four corners, literally constitutes us.
Of course, this approach to its underlying structure is not meant as a panacea, but
it adds a more precise diminsion to the continuous movement of a triadic
government. Heaven knows, we should have statesmen at the helm, not
advertising executives.         

    

Reference to a government of many people as a Top and a Bottom, may seem
simplistic, even ungrammatical or apolitical. But we are trying to get away from
the inclination to sequence verbal statements in a compelling logical formation.
Once begun, a logical statement seems to flow with a certain "propriety". Once we
enter the domain of language, deviation seems out of the question. The Linguistic
Turn and the theory of "language games" has taught us about the compelling
nature of "sticking to the game" and the compelling nature of proper grammar.
For example: The term "illegal" in a dictatorship is very different from the same
term in a democracy. The term is even different in the same government at
different stages of its own evolution. The reason is that languages convey
meanings and meanings change over time. Not only that, but today the word is
considered empty. It has no referential integrity. The word is no longer the
territory. Nevertheless, language is essential to our daily lives and we must live
with the instabilities of language and in particular, those of political language.
But, that does not mean we have to be ignorant of those instabilities.
     By using 'geometric' or 'mathmatical' terms in our discourse, we eliminate
some of the uncertainties of language, of course, not all. I'm not saying we
must use a geometric or a mathmatical discipline, per se. I'm saying we must
use a discourse that incorporates geometric and mathmatical configurations in
the terms used to deliniate the social or the basic structures of any government,
viz. the One and the Many. The One can be one or several but the many is always
a multitude. But, once the basic structure is configured, we put flesh into the
institution. Of course, in our case, the Founding Fathers did that when they crafted
the Constitution. In interpreting it, we must look at the basic form underlying the
whole Document to attempt to arrive at the underlying structure. It becomes
obvious that they configured a triadic form of government. That is no secret, but
the triadic form is described as allowing for checks and balances. What is to be
checked and what is to be balanced? No balancing can be done with politically
correct language. The triadic form must be perceived as having an abstract Top
where language resides and a concrete bottom where many living human beings
reside and a real relation between the Top and the Bottom. In this way, when the
Top "talks" or implements policy, there is a real change among the people at the
bottom. The talk is not vacuous, empty, politically correct, talk.