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.