The old linguistic formulation of the Top and the Bottom or the One and the Many was not adequate for democratic government. It left out too much, for example: how is the Top chosen? How does the Bottom control the activities of the Top? Why should the Bottom have any control over the Top? Who judges the propriety of the activities of the Top and ultimately, who or what looks over the whole edifice? A two pronged approach to the many questions about government can never be adequate. Of course, that was the problem with King rule. Needless to add, those were some of the problems that brought about its demise and with that, the end of the Middle Ages. Government needs a three prong approach. The Constitution formulates such a three prong arrangement. Nevertheless, great caution must be exercised in interpreting the arrangement. Interpretive practices that are purely linguistic and based on the variability of morality, as well as codes of conduct extracted from the the mere relation of the One and the Many must be excercised with caution. What was right and proper yesterday may not be right and proper today. Language concepts are too variable and allows for too many differences in meaning.It is better to apply Number to the triadic arrangement of branches. The number 1 stands autonomously. Add the number 2 and we see the possibility of a tension between the two numbers. Why?, because both numbers are autonomous, yet as human individuals, each may bring about a tension. Hence, the need for the number 3. Three, brings with it the possibility of an element of control over the others. Three can balance the tensions between one and two. A democracy is Many people at the Bottom, the One or the Top is elected from the Bottom,the third prong is also elected or appointed from the Bottom. The Many is constituted of many individuals and hence each is autonomous and rules himself or herself, subject only to the general welfare established by the Constitution. In democratic government, the Bottom of many individuals reigns supreme. Thats the form of government established in the Constitution. There is a further complication in the arrangement of branches and that is that the Top is abstract, interpretive practices are also abstract but the Bottom is not abstract, its real. Democracy is an equation and in a democracy, the Bottom is real, it is number and it reigns supreme and is subject, only to the Constitution. Interpretive practices must acknowledge the superiority of the Bottom and the Third Branch must be objective.

The Constitution constitutes us as a Nation. At the same time ,it provides the framework for adjudication of Constitutional issues. When it was crafted we, as a Nation, did not already exist. The Articles of Confederation were not working;they did not function harmoniously. There was too much disagreement among separate pockets of authority. The Constitution constituted us as a People. The structure was that of a Republic; the essence was a Union of people. if we had been a union of States, that would have put us right back where we were with the Confederation. It is a people government. At first, interpretation was not too problematic. The issues were mostly those between the general and the particular. Of course, there were many interpretive problems and there are still many such problems. But, with the advent of the Linguistic Turn, many areas dependent on language were contaminated. Philosophy and Literature are re-organizing. But, interpretive practices in Constitutional adjudication are still following the paradigm of human nature and rights originating with the Enlightenment. There has never been any kind of a consensus about what those rights and that human nature is. All we can know for sure is that I am human and so are you; hence so is everyone else. Neither I nor you can claim some superiority that exists in us by virtue of just being in the human condition. The Constitution constituted us as a Union of People; Free and Equal human beings. We need not go any further; we are a political institution of human beings and we sit at the bottom. As human beings, we all have the same rights and privileges as the Other. But, we have to live in a condition of togetherness, and hence need laws to prevent one person from stepping on the toes of the Other. We cannot grant superiority to any one individual to harm or contaminate the Other or the general welfare of the whole. Since the people who are governed are the people who allow someone to sit at the Top to govern; those same people can replace the person at the Top to protect the general welfare of all. The essence of democracy are the people at the Bottom. The bottom of the triad is the support of the Top of the triad. Without the Bottom, there is no need for a Top. The Top must function for the benefit of the Bottom. If the Top functions for its own aggrandizement, it must be replaced. Its sole function is to govern the Bottom and to do so democratically.

Constitutional intent at the time of crafting and for several years thereafter, is very different from Constitutional intent today. Why is that? At the time of crafting, there was no Linguistic Turn. The meaning of Language was not suspect. Of course, there was much debate, descriptions and definition of terms that any other debate would also have been subject too. The biggest political issues were about Federal sovereignty and State sovereignty. Unfortunately, that debate still exists today. But, there were no issues about language as a failed vehicle of meaning. Language meant something and it did for several centuries thereafter. When the Linguistic Turn raised its deconstructive face, most, if not all, writings became suspect. But the criteria that applies to interpretations of reality and those of interpretations of social and Constitutional institutions are very different. The constitution did not create reality, it established a political institution. In constituting a political institution, it can be interpreted with that end in view. In other words, it can authoritatively state, "thats not what I mean" or "thats what I mean". Of course, if we only focus on the surface use of language we are going to have some problems. Thats why I advocate looking at the political reality underneath the words as it existed at the time of formulation. It makes the inquiry more stable and we can see more clearly what they may have had in mind. Clearly, they wanted a democracy; they wanted a government of people, by people and for people. They created three branches and they protected each branch in one form or another. In the triad, the top gets to serve out the term for a period of four years. The sides are in for life so they can be objective about their interpretive practices. The bottom, if things are not quite right, has the right of revolution. Unfortunately, things can go wrong with any part of the triad. In such a case, the only solution is a well organized revolution.

"We the people..." have been constituted and structured into a form of government. The form are the principles which lie underneath the structure spelled out in the Constitution.Underlying that structure are the mechanics by which any individual can serve in any capacity allowed by the structure, either on the top,the sides or the bottom i.e. as governors, judges or citizens. Government by the few for the sake of the Many. Unfortunately, many things in triadic government can go wrong. Things can go wrong in all parts of the governmental structure. If something goes wrong on Top or on the sides of the triad, we usually read or hear about it on TV, newspapers or on the computer. The occurrence is communicated to the bottom abstractly. Sometimes it effects some of us directly, sometimes not. Sometimes its a change of the 'mapping' that will apply in the foreseeable future. Those changes do not effect everyone or anyone immediately. But,in time, they will re-orient the democratic process away from the bottom to some place at the top. But, when something wrong occurs at the bottom, the occurrence is not abstract, its real. Lives are lost, people no longer exist, some are killed ,some are injured for the rest of their lives. Consider what happened in Colorado. Tragic, but real. Changes at the bottom are real and have real effects. A form of government is different from a philosophy,or a science. Political reasoning is different because it is initiated by human beings and is based ,almost entirely, on the source of the reasoning, which is, the Constitution. A government of people, by people, and for people. Its sole purpose for existing is for the purpose of establishing a suitable form of governmenmt of the many by the few. Since,no individual in the Many is entitled to rule by virtue of some superior human quality, the form automatically requires that the government be democratic,i.e, a structure of the people, by the people, and for the people. Thats what the Founding Fathers crafted together. An insulated government of all the people who are to be governed. But,it is the individuals at the bottom who must protect the triadic nature of government. Unfortunately, the Constitution is entirely in writing and requires interpretation and hence is an invitation to both power seekers and true statesmen. Nevertheless, the bottom has greater strength than a few manipulators of abstract terms. In understanding the underlying triadic nature of government, we understand what must be done to retain the triadic harmony.

The necessity for the triadic form should be obvious. A democracy is formed of Many. There are millions of individuals in a democracy. These millions cannot govern themselves. They need a center of government for the proper organization of the needs and perpetuation of their individuality. That center of government is the Top. But there are huge differences between the Top and the millions at the Bottom. Hence, the Bottom must find a focal point from where they are to be governed. I say "to be governed", because the point is not some kind of a permanent place from where laws and rules emmanate. No, its a temporary place, which is renewed from time to time(in our Nation every 4 years).But, this renewal of the act of governing must be held stable and in conformity with the Constiution. The place from where this stability is arranged are the sides of the triad.That is triadic government. The Executive is the Top; the Legislative is the Bottom; the Judicial are the sides of the triad. The triadic is an ever rotating movement of stability and harmony. That triad is described in the Constitution. Conformity with the structure in the Constitution is absolutely necessary. Always moving,the triad harmonizes the Top and the Bottom. However the Top functions through the uses of language and the interpretive practices of the Constitution. As everyone knows, language is abstract and hence has too much wiggle room which allows for variations and differences of interpretation. That variability of meaning opens the door to the subterfuges we find in political practices. In other words, the Top is abstract, but the Bottom is real, concrete and there must be a bridge between the two. That bridge should be formed within the Procedural aspects of Constitutional Law. Law is the glue that holds the two different natures, i.e.the Top and the Bottom, together. Without the Bottom, there is no need for a Top. Without the Top, the Bottom cannot govern itself. The Constitution created the Top and the sides of the triad, but not the Bottom. The Bottom is just an arrangement of individuals that needs governing. The structure is created by our Constitution and both ends are necessary. With the help of the Judicial, some degree of stability between the two can be achieved. The Top is there because the Bottom put them there. The sides of the triad are put there by the Top and the Bottom. But, no Constitution or individual created the Bottom. The Bottom is a sacred arrangement of individual human beings and that sacredness is protected by the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers saw fit to respect and preserve their Right to peaceably "assemble" and "petition for grieviances". If all is not right at the Top, the bottom has a right to revolution.

The Constitution provides a means for change.Of course,that means is the amending process. Hence, if it becomes necessary,the document can be changed.One need only see the number of Amendments to see how often that has occurred. That process is set forth in the Constitution. I have pointed out that the structure of government set out was triadic,i.e. three branches. One Branch governs, another Legislates law, and another Adjudicates the issues arising with respect to the structure. Hence, the need for flexability of structure.However, these changes only effect the basic structure and that structure is , of necessity, abstract. But we have said that the bottom of the triad is the essence of government and that the bottom was 'number' because democracy must include everyone. Democracy is an equation and everyone must be included. A general,verbal,abstract statement of freedom and equality will not suffice. The reason for that is usually the 'wiggle room' allowed within the play of abstractions; especially general abstractions. So what happens to the real people at the bottom? The abstract top can be changed by provisions in the Constitution, but those changes are usually brought about by the top and the changes are abstract and at the top. What about changes emanating from the essence of democracy? Well, the Founding Fathers of a flexible Constitution also provided for changes to be brought about by the bottom. That provision is the First Amendment. The right to "assemble" and "petition the government for a redress of grievances". You can read that any way you want; you can have as much 'wiggle room' as you want: THAT is the Right to revolution. The Fathers crafted a Constitution of "We the People" and could not deny the real people at the bottom, the right to make their voices heard. To deny the voice of the people would be to return to the Confederation where the States governed. That period was a mess. Unfortunately, the remnants of that attitude are still with us. The Constitution is a people constitution; it is they who govern: they, in exercising their Constitutional rights, who should be the beneficiaries of real democracy. They have the Constituional Right to revolt. Revolutions cannot occur at the Top; those are abstract changes; nothing real has changed, only the way we talk about it has changed. If the Top allows it, there might be a change,but its unlikely.Too much wiggle room. Real change can only occur with a real revolution.

The Constitution is considered the supreme law of the land. All law is classified as substantive and procedural. Federal law must be based on the Constitution and federal law cannot be in contravention of the Constitution. State law can regulate any state activity within its boundaries that does not encroach upon federal jurisdiction,but, it cannot be in violation of the Constitution. Hence, Constititional rights and privileges are guarantees that apply to all individuals at the bottom of triadic government."We the People..." means all the people, those within any State in the union of people. The Constitution spells out a government "of people", "by people" and "for people". The Union is of people not States. State boundaries do not exclude the reach of the Constitution. The Constitution literaly constitutes us as a democratic government of people. As we stated, law is classified into substantive and procedural. Substantive law is found in the body of the Constitution and the Amendments. Procedural law is found, mostly, in the body of the Constitution.It applies to jurisdictional and procedural rules by which to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. It is by procedural rules that the judicial branch can reach the bottom. All rights and privileges that apply to everyone must be established as a matter of procedure before any substantive issue can be heard. No individual can be denied his or her freedom and equality. If the freedom and equality of any litigant is the issue before the Court, then both issues must be weighed against the general welfare clause. If the general welfare of the Nation as a whole is not affected, the litigant must be granted his freedom and equality. In triadic government the bottom of the triad is the essential element of the structure. Without a bottom, we cannot have a top. We need a top to govern the bottom ,but the bottom is real ,not abstract. Hence, the necessity of procedural rules to 'carry' the democratic principles to the bottom in a real manner. The bottom is number and each individual must be accounted for. Once the Supreme Court decides an issue, all the States must follow, because the decision affects all the people and includes people within different State boundaries. If the States do not follow, they're in violation of law. If States do not follow law, why should the individuals?

A triadic form of government is the most basic, functional form. It can also be called a government of three branches so long as as the three essential sides of the triad have essential integrity. But,in and of itself, the structure does not solve all the problems of government. The essential problem of government is the relation between the top and the bottom of the triad. How do one or several individuals at the top get to govern millions of individuals at the bottom. The one or several individuals at the top assumed a position that has authority and power to govern or to rule. By what authority, audacity, or aura of superiority does an individual that was once at the bottom, among all the other individuals, ascend to the top of the heap with authority to govern? In a democracy and as an equal among equals,the individual is there by the grace of all the other individuals at the bottom. Of course, in a Constitutional arrangement, he or she has authority at the top because the Constitution has so constituted us. Thats the structure. True, the Constitution must be interpreted. This requirement has led to divisions into Parties, factions, and competitive interpretations of the Constitution. Then, we have the so-called Linguistic Turn and Post-Modernity, which has led to a 'weakening'of language. But, this undermining of language applies to disciplinary approaches that attempt to interpret and understand reality. Interpreting the Constitution has nothing to do with interpreting or understanding reality, it has to do with interpreting and understanding the basic structure of government as a constructed political institution. At its most basic form,the Constitution is a man-made institution. Nevertheless, inquiring into the basic underlying structure of government, requires that we understand how language, at its most basic form, works within that context. We must get behind the words to examine the reason for constructing the Constitution. If we look at that underlying form, we discover that the top must use language to communicate about the top as well as the bottom. The problem arises when the language used to deliniate the rights and privileges of the bottom or when implementing democracy, remains abstract. Abstract words, having too much wiggle room, can mean anything the top wishes. For example, Question: "Why are we at war?" Answer: "We're bringing them democracy." Hence, the problematic is how to talk democratically at the top and in actuality, bring the 'democracy' down to the bottom where it actually applies to the individual or individuals. It must be acknowledged that the top functions abstractly and the bottom functions concretely or in a real manner. The bottom cannot be abstract. Those are real people at the bottom. Hence, the language that must be used to apply to the rights of individuals must be more mathmatical or geometrical and less semantical. How do we do that? We must find it within the Constitutional structure that constitutes us as a Nation.

Corporations may be important because they function within the economic realm of a society and everyone understands the important part they play in the economy of a Nation. They may even be entitled to some kind of protection by the Constitution.But, doesn't that mean that government does have some control over them. However, its one thing to protect their nature and efficiency in their contribution to the economic stability of a Nation and quite another to attribute Constitutional rights of real persons to an abstract entity. There has always been a legal cushion against turning democratic government into something entirely dependent on money. That cushion must be preserved.If we do away with it, the result of attributing Constitutional rights to an abstract entity will flourish. That's exactly what happened with Citizens. The decision opened the door for an abstract entity to get involved in politics. An entity called "a legal fiction" can now participate in a contemporary feature of political life. We have protected an abstract entity so that it could flourish; and recently we gave it the democratic right to contribute to a political campaign. We have elevated the value and possession of money above the democratic spirit of a Nation. No individual can compete against the economic embrace of the corporate structure.The top 1% is already re-cycling their money so that it stays at the top and now the Citizens decision has fascilitated the elevation and concentration of money as the prime "mover" of politics; money has become more important than the democratic spirit. How can a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" permit a non-person to have the same Constitutional rights as real individuals? With big-money at the helm, politics is becoming destructive; only the 1% will survive. We're killing democracy. If the government creates corporations; protects them by saying they are "legal fictions"; gives them the right to contribute to political campaigns; why can't they also require them to be democratic in spirit?

The gap that exists between the abstract top and the concrete bottom is the same gap that exists between the interpretive practices of the Supreme Court and the bottom. Of course, the Top, whether one of the three Branches,or,the top of State government,is always abstract. The three Branches as well as the top of each State government are conducted on an abstract level. Since, all are governed by the same abstract nature, their communicatuions should be in conformity with the Constitution. The Constitution governs the abstract nature of the centers of power established by it. On an abstract level, there is no issue of who governs who. There can be no issue of the power or function of the Branches, or the power of the State governments. The only issue is the Constitutionality of the particular policy. If any Branch or State feels that the decision is wrong, it has to do the same as the people at the bottom have to do with a law that they disagree with. What does the government tell someone who disagrees with the law as written? The government states, "thats the law, if you disagree with it, change it!". The Federal Branches and the States also have to follow the law as enunciated and if they disagree,they can initiate proceedings to change it. They're not as bad off as the people at the bottom who do not have money: they have plenty of money, so follow the rules! If those problems arise between the abstract Top and the abstract Branches and the abstract States, can you imagine the problematic between the abstract Top and the concrete Bottom. Something has to be done, government must close the gap between the abstract Top and the concrete Bottom. Thats where the changes must occur. The States don't have a choice,they have to follow; they exist by virtue of the Constitution. If they don't abide by the Supreme Court's decisions, the States are violating the Constitution. Can we put them in Jail? You know the answer. A more controversial issue would be the extent of the legality of the existence of corporations? How can an abstract entity that exists "only in contemplation of law" wield so much power? It already had lots of power because of its "economic grasp", so why increase that power by attributing to a fiction a "freedom of speech" that it can't possibly have. Thats not to mention all the other "perks" it gets from the government. What about real people, "We the People""...,that are not fictions? The entire bottom is constituted by millions of real people. Where are they in the structure created in the Constitution? The Bottom is real, its number, every individual must be computed into the equation of democracy. Can we put a corporation in jail? You know the answer. Can we put a human being in jail? Everyone knows the answer.

The form of a democracy has to be triadic. With three branches, a multiplicity of people can, in fact, govern themselves. It may not be easy, but its funtionally correct. The dilemma that arises in the simple relation between the One and the Many is monitored by a third factor. Of course, in the form of the One and the Many, this factor ( the Judicial)is not present, and the result is that its structure opens the door to dictatorships, autocracy, monarchy, plutocracy, and many other forms of despotic governments. They don't have to be despotic, but they usually are. Whereas,the fundamental part of the triadic form is the bottom of the triad or the Many people. The Top of the triadic form is the One or the President, Ruler, or simply the Government. Of course, the difference in the two forms is that in the triadic form, the top is elected by the people, whereas in the other forms the ruler gets there by some kind of subterfuge. In monarchy; it was "The Divine Right of Kings", or simply "God", in plutocracy; its "the priviledged few", in dictatorship; its some kind of force. But, we still have to be careful, because the triadic form can be manipulated in such a way that the result of an election can also be the result of a subterfuge. Today, its a value called, MONEY! The groping for money is universal.Since money has become an "exchange mode", its accumulation is feverishly persued. It can buy anything, even elections. The more money a campaign has ,the more people it can reach. It then uses persuasive strategy,(the logic of advertising)to promise the people whatever they desire. Democracy is replaced by "money". The exchange mode of money is 'neutral', i.e. it can be used for bad or good. Its also a 'fictional' thing. In and of itself, its a worthless thing. Nevertheless, its important.If it could only be used for good. Instead, a fiction (money) is used to "bail out" ( when applied to people, its called "welfare")another legal fiction, the corporation, so that these corporations can " use their right of free speech" (they don't talk!) to contribute to their favorite candidate. What kind of game are we playing? We've created a universe of fictions, where,unfortunately, we are dependent on some of them. Is " real Democracy really dead "? If the people at the bottom don't do anything about it, that's where we're going. Real democracy is at the bottom. If government becomes more'fictional', it's policies will never 'reach' the bottom.

The written document will always be there. Like the Linguistic Turn, it will not go away.But,that does not mean that we can ignore the underlying form and purpose for which it was configured. Although, the writing does not completely embody and reflect the underlying purpose of government,i.e.the real relation between the One and the Many,it does reflect the well-crafted linguistic structure the Founding Fathers gave it. That structure is triadic; Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each branch is made operative and functional by the same people at the Convention as well as those who were to be governed. Its a good governmental form because of its triadic nature and because the branches are to be filled by the people who are to be governed. The problem is that the Top must be abstract in order to relate linguistically to everyone at the bottom. But that does not change the nature of the bottom. The bottom is not abstract, although it can be referred too abstractly. But, if that is done, there's no real contact with the people at the bottom. The bottom is real, that's what makes it a democracy, and the relation between the top and the bottom must relate to real people, not to abstractions. Abstractions leave too many things out and have too much wiggle room. If we focus on the language, we run the danger of leaving out the reality. Thats whats happening today. The argument between the Parties is not about real democracy, its about money. Both Parties are concerned about money. The Republican Party doesn't hide that fact, it actually selects a candidate that is the epitome of ( to quote a term used by an article in the Nation)"casino capitalism." The democrats seem equally dependant on the money sector of the social. They've been caught by money and don't know how to wiggle free. In a way, you can't blame them, but in another way you can and we should. After all, we are a democracy! Money has become the new value. The old Kingdoms used to say, "The King is dead, long live the King".I guess the Republicans are saying, "Democracy is dead, long live the money and the top 1%." We're certainly headed that way. Everyone knows that money is an artificial,empty value that doesn't even have a gold reserve to back it up. A democracy has millions of real people backing it up. Yes, money is power,but its power for those who depend entirely on it. Its a hollow power based on an empty value. Real power is at the top of government and real strength is at the bottom. Real people are strength and millions of them can form one hell of a revolution. If the Democrats can't re-energize democracy, the people sure can.

The ability to perceive a document in a different way merely calls for a 'separation' from its purely linguistic surface to a form that lurks behind its formulation in language. To be sure, the linguistic formulation is the only way any mental form can be given its structure or surface appearance. This does not lessen the import of the writing, it merely doesn't ignore the real 'message' of the document.Underlying important political documents are real feelings, real needs, real configurations that eventually become limited by their very expression in language. To avoid the limitations and the many convolutions of verbal expression, we must turn to a more precise manner of expression. We turn to Number. How can that be done? Well, most everyone agrees that mathmatics and geometry were exacting mental disciplines used by the Greeks. Of course, we emphasize those disciplines in our educational systems.But, knowing that,in itself,is not sufficient. How do we translate geometric or mathmatical knowledge into linguistic formulations? Each discipline is separate and has its own paradigm. Keeping in mind,that our mathmatical and geometric concepts are first perceptions and then are clothed in exacting conceptions. Once these discipline have been rendered into number they become fixed. A number will always be itself. After that happens, we are locked in to the textbooks. Thats called text-book geometry or text-book mathmatics.In other words, these disciplines are more precise than a linguistic medium that relies on that evanescent thing called 'meaning'. Numbers don't have meaning, they are! A political structure is a structure of the One at the Top and the Many at the Bottom. The many People need governing. But, how do we choose who will govern? Well the ancients, not to be facetious, said "God made me do it". The King was said to have two bodies, one ruled the other was human. Others took control by force, some were smarter than the others. None of these methods will work today. Then Constitutions came about and everything relating to a governing process was reduced to writing. But, the underlying process of governing is still the real relation of the One or Some and the Many. That will never change, and to be sure, the relation between the top and the bottom is a real one, not just a purely linguistic concoction.The Bottom is number and if democracy is a government of, by, and for the people, everyone must be counted or its not democracy.