Democracy must 'touch' the individual.

If democracy doesn't 'touch' the individual, its not democracy. Its relatively easy to have an ideology and allow that ideology to 'free-float' above the Peoples heads in some kind of abstraction. The most important aspect of democracy is the Freedom and Equality of every individual in the nation; that means, regardless of Race, color, belief system or political affiliation, an individual-any individual-is free to do whatever s/he dam-well pleases so long as s/he stays within the parameters of the legal system. The important thing is that s/he doesn't harm or interfere with the neighbor's rights. This makes law a very important aspect of the social. Of course, law regulates, in that sense, an individuals activities. The important part is "activities", not his/her 'thoughts' and 'feelings'. Thoughts and feelings are very important but, they 'do not count' in a legal system. Please, please, that doesn't mean they won't be present. They are present, or should be present, in all human activity. But, they are not quantifiable means that can be used to weigh evidence, hence must be excluded by legal rules in jury deliberations. Why? Simply because they cannot be weighed as 'evidential' in nature. Thoughts and feelings are very private and vary according to the individual thinking or feeling them. Although they can be expressed, we can never know someone else's thoughts or feelings. Hence that cannot serve as a legal criteria. Law relates strictly to law and social order and that law must 'touch' each and every human being in the polity. Law cannot circumscribe every human function or activity. There is no law on an island where only one individual lives. As important as feelings are to an individual, a juror is not allowed to make a judgment based on 'feelings'. Maybe, a juror and the media should not be allowed to publish such information. Why? It just 'fans' the antagonistic feelings in the social. Very sad, but true.

Party-ideology can be problematic

Party-ideology can be problematic and that makes Party loyalty dangerous. The particular name of any Party does not necessarily mean that Party adheres to the principles implied by the name. For example; "Democratic Party" does not mean all its ideological positions are democratic. "Republican Party" does not mean all its ideological positions are democratic or republic oriented. Certainly it can be expected that Democrats adhere to democratic principles and Republicans to democratic principles as well as towards the States Rights ideology. But, the old argument of Central power versus State power was compromised long ago. We should not be continuing that argument. Party loyalty in that direction can only be destructive. Much more serious is the issue conflating economic issues, which should be separate, with political issues. Economic principles are entirely separate from political principles. Political principles deal with a Triadic form of government that's supported by the Bottom or the People. In other words , its a People government. The People are the sole source of power in a democratic government structure. Although power is exercised from the Top to the Bottom of government, its the People at the bottom who have granted that power. But, its becoming clear that the medium of exchange(money) has influenced political decisions, which should be based on democratic principles. The conflating of economics with democracy can be seen clearly in the emphasis on the so-called 1% and a Plutocracy. Money has become a political issue that should not be involved in politics. Money belongs in the economy not in government. Of course, Government also needs money hence, taxation, minimum wages, laws, even calling corporations "persons", but the underlying political principles of democracy (Freedom and Equality of the individual) is the glue that holds the Bottom together. Money does not hold the Bottom of government together. The 1% argument doesn't even hold together the 1%. The 'inner' bickering within the 1% will never end. Why?, because the motor of economics is profits and greed. The motor of democracy is Freedom and Equality.

Eves-dropping 'a la package deal'.

Democracy is about Freedom and Equality. That freedom and equality is the Constitutional right that every individual has in a democracy. The parameters of that freedom and equality are set forth in our State and National laws. Any and all individuals are free to exercise their Rights under the Constitution. Each and everyone must also be treated Equally. Any violation of the law calls for punishment in accordance with those laws. We also enjoy a Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. Hence, every individual is Free to enjoy that freedom. So why are drones spying on conversations of all citizens? ( here I'm assuming that this spying is actually taking place) Of course, I have no way of knowing, but most media point out that this is taking place. I do not think the media is inventing this, and if that's the case, where is our Freedom of Speech? The problem is that the media reports that the spying is occurring on all Americans. Why can't law enforcement departments spy only on those who they can justifiably spy on? Surely, its not necessary to 'listen' to every conversation. Why do they want 'package deals'? I mean, most Americans are talking about medical issues, work, personal problems, or just finding a way to enjoy the evening after a hard days work. So, why record those conversations? Government has power, lots of power, but isn't modern technology sufficiently developed to hone in on the bad guys? Eves-dropping on everyone 'a la package deal' is not Constitutional, and a very inefficient way to police the public sphere. Aren't we free to 'more or less' say what we want without someone eves-dropping? The courts have said that we enjoy a Public domain and a Private domain. Isn't "package deal spying' a violation of the Private domain? With our modern day technology, I would think that some way can be found to hone in on the bad guys and leave every 'Tom, Dick and Harry's' conversations alone.

Life is about democracy

If democracy is about life; Life is about democracy. That sounds a little 'circular'. But, consider how is an Individual, any Individual in the world, going to 'live' his life? In an autocracy, be careful how you live your life because you just might disturb the powers at the Top. If you live in a Plutocracy, be careful how you live because your economic position just might be a threat to the economic monopoly at the Top. For that matter, the Top is not going to legislate in a manner that helps the individual acquire more money than those at the Top. If you live in a democracy, you are as Free and Equal as any other human being, including those individuals who are at the Top and who, for a short period of time, govern you. But you still have to be careful that you do not live 'outside' the parameters of law. This last phrase, assumes that the laws that have been passed and that guide our everyday behavior are properly legislated and Just. Unjust laws cannot hold the integrity of a democracy together. Why? Because someone's Freedom and Equality is being compromised. Hence, the Bottom is not integrated. Integration is integration of the 'human condition". Race is unimportant in a governmental structure; its the human condition that is important. That's why democratic government is a government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the people". Please allow me to phrase it just a little bit differently. Democratic Government is a government "of human beings", "by human beings" and "for human beings". Of course, this different phraseology makes us see a little more clearly what the Supreme Court has done with corporations. Corporations are not human beings and calling them 'persons" under the Constitution does not make them any more human. Hence, we have to be careful about our Legislation and our laws. Laws that do not allow an Individual to live a 'full' life and laws that create legal fictions cannot be Just and hence, cannot stand. Of course, the economy of a Nation is very important, but there has to be a better way than trying to make corporations into human beings. Of course, they need to be protected, but not because they're 'persons' but, because they're important to the economy.

democracy is about Life.

Democracy is about the Freedom and Equality afforded us within a political structure. Freedom and Equality for an Individual is about his or her ability to experience every aspect of his or her life. Life within a political structure can be experienced only when the individual is not constrained or kept from living in a manner s/he sees fit. That is to say, when the individual can live his/her life within the complex legal structures established by the government. Legal structures should merely 'guide' and 'protect' the expression of life and never constrain it. That is precisely the purpose of law. Most legal structure spell out what is allowed within a certain institution and what is not allowed. Its subject matter is too vast to refer to each and every aspect of it. Even lawyers specialize in one or another aspect of it, which is just another way of saying no lawyer knows all the law. Of course, legal infractions are about as numerous as bodily sicknesses and medical doctors can't cure all the sicknesses either. But, we're discussing Freedom and Equality within government and the law that helps that expression. Law is the only governmental institution that helps keep order in the social; that's probably the source of that inseparable phrase, 'law and order'. The minute we step outside the door, we step 'into law',i.e. into legal structures. Hence, living in a 'condition of togetherness' is living in conditions subject to legal structures. That's the only way an individual can be Free and Equal within the political structure. Hence, law serves as a protection and as a guide from encroachment by others and government. Law must be respected. But, here's the problem. The duty, I repeat, duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the laws and to insure they are in conformity with the Constitution. But, when Party ideology becomes the main consideration in interpretive practices, the Courts are not doing their job. Objectivity, as required in Journalism, is also required in Constitutional interpretation. Maybe we need some laws that state that if the Judges are not being Objective, there is a Right to remove them. As it is now, they sit for life.

democracy is about the diurnal

Democracy is about our diurnal lives. Democracy 'touches' the people on an every-day basis. We all experience our own daily lives as fully as our capacity allows. That's what democracy, or stated differently, Freedom and Equality of the individual, is all about. The Constitutional, triadic, arrangement merely sets out a structure within which our daily lives can be experienced. Our political lives is an ongoing phenomena that requires political attention on a daily basis. Many 'things' will change, sometimes drastically, as our diurnal lives are lived. All the new social changes coming about, as science and technology evolve, must be taken into consideration as the 'new' is molded to fit our Constitutional arrangement. Our Constitution doesn't change. Although it can be Amended, the amendments never change the nature of Constitutional government. However, laws need to be passed to cover some of the dangerous aspects of these changes. Hence, the importance of a democratic government. But, the people at the Bottom, or the Many, are never 'changed'. By this statement I mean they remain human beings. No political arrangement can govern the human condition. By this I mean, no human lives his/her life by the beat of the governmental structure. No, life functions and is lived by every individual by the beat of a 'different drummer'. Of course, government can exert control over the outward manifestations of the human being in a 'condition of togetherness'. That 'condition of togetherness' is what demands the establishment of power in a governmental structure. The control exerted by government is by means of Law. Without people government would not exist. 'With people' governments are necessary. Without law People could not exist in a political 'condition of togetherness'. Laws are essential.

Is Democracy For The Bottom a political blog? Yes and No.

Is democracy for the bottom a political blog? Yes and No. It begins with the theory of government as set out in the Constitution. The Constitution is referred too as setting up a triadic form of government. The triadic form is described at its point of origin and its triadic functions are specifically described through the whole edifice of government. It can refer to Executive activity; it can refer to Legislative activity: it can and does refer to Judicial activity and the harmful nature of certain Supreme Court decisions. It can and does refer to economic values and how they are taking over political values. It also refers to the so-called 1%. It also refers to the laws that govern our behavior in public because in order to govern the Bottom the Top needs Just laws. Well then, is the blog just a political blog? No! It can and does refer to the recent Zimmerman matter. It can and does refer to the results of Jury verdicts in legal matters; it can and does refer to electoral politics and its contamination by economic values; it can refer to laws that govern our everyday behavior; it can refer to you and me and how we should conduct ourselves as we drive to work; how fast we should drive; on what side of the street we should drive; has your car been inspected; are we complying with the traffic laws; do you have a drivers license? Democracy for the Bottom is about your Freedom and Equality within the context of a Constitutional, governmental structure of Just laws. The most important aspect of this whole structure- or better yet, of my and your everyday life- are all the people at the Bottom who are the supports of the authority granted to the Top. Without the Bottom of government we would not need a Top. So, is the Blog political? Yes and No. It begins with politics and ends with our everyday lives. Government is necessary but the everyday lives of the People are more important. Every individuals life is important and individuals don't need politics in their living rooms.

Law is always evolving

Law is not a fixed thing. It has to change as the social changes. Society is never static, nor should law be static. Some laws are more permanent than others and yet some are merely transitory or outdated and must be changed. The laws against theft of cattle had to undergo changes. Now, the status of the theft,( Misdemeanor or felony ) is determined by the amount stolen. The laws with respect to automobiles had to evolve as the development of the auto evolved. Traffic laws became necessary. We drive on the right side of the street, whereas other Countries drive on the left side of the street etc.. It used to be that there were no speed limits. Now, they're essential. But, belief systems cannot be compelled by law. Neither can 'likes' and 'dislikes'. No law exists that states you have to 'like' or 'dislike' someone. Hence there are many areas in the social that are not susceptible to control by law. Some areas should not be subject to laws, yet the careless and dangerous use of certain technologies mandates some control over those areas. For example; laws on the use of cell-phones in a school zone; laws against texting while in a moving automobile. There used to be a prohibition against firearms in and around schools. We are witnessing some movements to arm school teachers or school guards. The reason for that seems to be the recent school shooting. In other words we arm the teachers with guns to keep out the public from coming into schools with guns and hurting the children. In a way that makes sense, but, how are we going to police the teachers to make sure they don't turn the guns against the children? We cannot assume that all the public is vicious anymore than we can assume that all the teachers mean well. Passing laws is not a simple matter. Laws cannot discriminate against anyone in the social. But, if any law has proven disastrous or discriminatory, it must be changed. If jurors are compelled to follow rules in their deliberations (which they are) and the result is unjust, we must change the law. That law is unjust.

Media can be destructive towards democracy

The Media can destroy democracy. The organized media can be instrumental in either destroying or helping the democratic spirit. 'Reporting' is important in a large society. But, should only positive factors be reported or can both positive and negative factors be reported? Of course, anything newsworthy can be reported; whether positive or negative. However, media must be very careful not to 'fan the winds of animosity or dissension'. Of all the segments of society, its the media that should be aware of the effects of language and since it's reporting events that actually occur among the People, it should be careful not to create animosity and dissension in the social. An individual is not in a position to know everything that is happening in the nation. So, naturally, the individual turns to the media and purports to make a judgment on the reported facts of some occurrence. Those reported facts in the media must be accurate and not questionable or dubious. More important yet, media should respect the proper functioning of democratic institutions. In other words, it should never second guess a properly established jury's decision. It should report it as final and as based on all the evidence submitted to the jury. The public is completely unaware of what occurred and the media is not in a position to report all the facts. Adjudicated facts will always raise issues, but the media should not 'build' on them. The media can very easily become a medium of 'institutionalized gossip'. That's dangerous and just makes a bad situation worse. Democracy cannot survive a lopsided presentation of adjudicated facts. The court system was set up to resolve these issues and we must be bound by the decisions. We don't have to agree with the decision, but we have to accept it. Otherwise, every court decision will constitute 'just cause' for revolution. Once a decision is rendered, the media should stay out of the fray. The media is not part of the Judiciary and should stick to reporting final decisions. In every jury decision, one side of the heard dispute is always unhappy. However, the media is not free to take sides and blow the issues out of proportion, and then, circulate it among the public. If the jury system needs to be changed, then change it, but don't 'build' on the decision.

Government is useless. Government is important.

Government is useless, yet it's important. Sound like an oxymoron? Not really. But, stating it this way helps us focus on the question of the utility of a governing system where One, or a few, govern the Many, or the millions of individuals at the bottom of government. It helps us get closer to the real basis for the existence of governments and their self-proclaimed importance or superiority. Government or the so-called State is an artificial construct erected for the purpose of controlling(governing) the Many people at the bottom. So, if its artificial, why does it have such immense power? Simply, because the Many at the Bottom could not exist any other way. Any large collection of individuals need guidance and a sense of direction. That's why Constitutions are necessary and that's why Constitutions have such immense power. Individuals or groups of People could not exist without some kind of governing structure. Why is one form of government more important than another form? Simply, because governments are crafted by people for people. If any government considers itself more important than its People, it should not exist. Even Kingships severed and divided into smaller groupings which ultimately established their own forms of 'authority'. Families are held together by blood. Governments are held together by the power vested in a Constitution. A government crafted by people is for People and should not be used in any other way. The People are the important 'parts' of any government. The phrase, " We the People..." encapsulates the Bottom of government as the sole reason for existing . Other than this reason, there is no other use for government. Yet, it is shrouded with authority and the power to pass laws to govern the People; all kinds, types, races and 'colors' of people. People must become 'law-abiding', if they are going to survive, and the government must provide Just laws to live by. The People need government and government needs the people.

Law is neccesary, but so is accurate 'reporting'.

The Constitutional protection of Freedom and Equality can only be accomplished by Just laws. Law becomes the means by which Order and Justice is organized at the Top and the Bottom. If laws are unjust, they must be changed. If law does not function as it must, law must be 're-worked and improved'. The Bottom cannot survive in a Nation of prejudice and basic unfairness. Unfortunately, the human condition is not capable of governing millions. Any Nation that has a population of millions and does not have Just laws cannot survive. Without laws, we regress to the world of animal Nature. If we purport to be a civilization, we need Law and Order. Hence, any dissatisfaction with the results of legal proceedings calls for a justifiable change in the substantive law. Of course, no Branch of government and no human being is perfect. We have said that the Bottom of democracy is the essence of governing. But, we cannot forget the imperfections of the human condition and what has recently become more glaring is that not only triadic government has become a victim of the Linguistic Turn, but so has the institution of the Media. The Medias 'play with words' is worse and regrettable. Its worse because they know what inaccurate reportage can do. The media, of all institutions, is aware about the effects of using certain words. The media reports on every side of life within a Nation, including legal proceedings in the Courts. One has only to read one newspaper article on the Zimmerman trial to see how far the media 'fans' the flames of inaccuracy. I cannot assume that they do not know what they are doing. Sure, racial prejudice and legal unfairness in society must also be eliminated, but we cannot have the media aggravating the situation. They know better and they have to weigh the need to report accurately with the need to get headlines and sell newspapers. Its the people at the bottom who 'pay the price'.

Freedom and Equality are important

Freedom and equality are essential in a real democracy; so is a triadic form of government. Of course, a Triadic form of government has an Executive, a Legislative, and a Judicial Branch. As we have pointed out, all Branches are important but, since government follows the form established by the Constitution viz. to protect the Freedom and Equality of all, the interpretive practices of the Judicial become vital. We have constantly said that the Judicial branch must be objective. Is this asking too much? No, the judiciary should not play 'politics' nor can it co-mingle the 'multitudinous aspects' of the social with the elements of democracy. Government is about governing and it should apply democratic principles in compliance with Constitutional standards. Government should be an art in itself. It does not need help from the 'political' realm nor the 'social' realm. However, we must not forget that the Legislative Branch is responsible for passing laws in conformity with the Constitution. The Freedom and Equality guaranteed by the Constitution has to be reduced to practical laws as they apply to the 'daily grind'. Otherwise, Freedom and Equality could not be expected to participate in the every-day existence of the Bottom. This is a very important function of triadic government. Law is the glue that holds the integrity of the Bottom. Without it, we would be at each others throat. Why? Because, the human condition is not all it could be (Sad, but True). The Freedom and Equality that has been guaranteed has to be demarcated by clear legal rules that don't encroach upon F&E while protecting the F&E of each and every individual. In other words, we need Just laws to implement the Constitutional structure. Now, consider the aftermath of the Zimmerman case. Everyone has opinions on what the outcome should have been and is suggesting other means by which to have a different outcome. Most, if not all, opinions are based on personal feelings and insufficient 'evidential' considerations. Unfortunately, that's human nature( Sad, but True). One hopes that the Jury in the case received all the pertinent evidence and the guidelines by which to make a proper decision. So what is there to complain about? Maybe its the law that should be changed? No one is going to change human nature but, maybe we can bring some changes to Law. The point is, if we assume the decision is 'unjust', lets change the rules or laws by which these decisions are made. Lets not hurt each other.

Political values vs economic values.

We have already said that political values and economic values must be kept separate. Of course a political entity can only be held together by political values while a capitalistic economy can only survive if its making a profit. The two systems should not be conflated while at the same time, they are both necessary. The political values are essential to the structure and form of government, while the economic values are necessary for the well being of the social. The factor that welds the two together is money. Money is necessary to exist in any capitalistic society. Instead of the term "money", I will call it "value". Money is value and a medium of exchange. Without a medium of exchange we could not 'manipulate' the economy. But, a medium of exchange is something that must be circulated. If its hoarded and is not exchanged, it hampers the circulation and hence the well-being of the 'individuals as a whole' in the social. If the individuals who have 'hoarded' the most want to 'govern', they must do so with political values and not economic values or standards. What is the likelihood of that? Not to good! Even now we hear of 'government by the 1%' and that would only result in a Plutocracy. Why is that. It may not be necessarily the case, but we cannot exclude greed and the human inclination to want more and more power. Unfortunately, its humans that govern humans. But, we can hope for the best. If the government is governed democratically, then every individual will be Free and Equal and can compete in the social and the economy. Of course, the corporate world enters at this point. No individual can compete with a corporation. Its at this juncture that we need to keep political values separated from economic values. The economy is important, but the retention of Freedom and Equality is fundamental to democracy. A democracy cannot exist without Freedom and equality and there is no equality between an individual and a corporation.

A government without People cannot exist.

A Top without a Bottom cannot exist. Imagine a Top without anyone to govern. It can't be done. Now try to imagine a Bottom without a Top. That can be done, but the end result of that scenario would be Anarchy. Now try to imagine a Top and a Bottom without a Side in the triad of government. That move reduces the triad to a mere dichotomy, and the dichotomy removes us to the ancient dilemma of the One and the Many. That dilemma turns the issue into what authority does the Top have to govern the Bottom? Of course, at this point we cannot ignore the old Divine Right of Kings concept. Historically, that concept required an elaboration of the concept into the idea that the king had Two Bodies. Of course, one was of 'Divine' origin and the other was more 'mundane'. The other way to get authority for the Top was just to take it by force. Ultimately, people needed to form a government of people, by people and for people. The only way to have a 'people government' is for the people to initiate a 'condition of togetherness' for the purpose of establishing, in writing, a form of government. Does it have to be in writing? Absolutely. It has to be in writing and the People have to approve it. That way we try to prevent verbal misunderstandings and we don't ram government down anyone's throat. The form has to be triadic because one branch governs, another interprets the Constitution, and another continues to legislate laws and policy that implements democracy. Of course, each part of the triad has to do its job. Nevertheless, its easy to see the necessity of the Judiciary to have 'interpretive practices' that are objective. Here enters the contemporary dilemma, the inclination of the human condition to divide itself into Parties. One Party always has to be 'more right' than the other. Once political power is conferred upon the human condition, it seems to immediately transforms into some sort of 'self-importance' which further translates into greed for position,power and money. Democracy is dependent on the democratic values contained in the Constitution.

The Bottom must express itself.

In a democracy, the people must express themselves. Since the essence of democracy is the Bottom of triadic government, the Many at the Bottom must vote. That's all voting is; an expression by the People. This activity must not be stifled in any manner. If it is curtailed, stopped, compromised, or confined in any manner, its not democracy. In the ancient dichotomy of the One and the Many, the Third Branch was missing, hence government of the Many by the One could never be resolved. It was a Third Branch that helped resolve the problematic. The essence of democracy is the Bottom, but the Bottom must be free to express itself. After all, governing is about People who are governed and the Bottom of democracy is the essence of democracy, hence the essence of governing. The People can only be governed by themselves. No other point or place within the triad has the potential to govern. The Top cannot govern because it must govern the Bottom and it can no longer justify that right by claiming some Divine guidance or just some 'force'. The Judicial branch just defines the parameters of democracy as set out in the Constitution. It is left to the People who are governed to choose who will govern them. To accomplish that, the People must exercise their right to vote. Of course, the individual placed in a political position of power must carry out his/her duties in accordance with the Constitution. Hence, the Top governs according to the Constitution; the judicial interprets the parameters of democracy; the Legislative legislates laws and control over the entire structure. The 'watchdogs' are the people, not the Military or some other strong part of the social, or even the 1% and it's never 'just a replacement' of a previous government. The people must 'speak' and the 'temporary government' must listen. No other form will have a strong foundation.

A democracy of 'People' has an absolute right to vote.

We have said that in a democratic form of government the Bottom or the People constitute the essence of democracy. A democracy is a government "of People" and "for people", so how on earth can voting laws be held not to be necessary? If the right to vote is impaired in any way ,shape or form, its not a democracy. To justify the vitiation of a voting law by saying " times have changed, we don't need them any longer" or similar words to that same effect, is like saying "we don't need laws or decisions that "declare that we are Free and Equal" either, because " times have changed " and we now "live in a different world. Laws declaring that we are Free and Equal are no longer necessary". Wow, and this from the "learned brethren of the Supreme Court"? That's what happens with Party loyalists who are more attuned to their Party ideology than to real democratic values. We still have problems with Freedom and Equality and we will continue to have them. We will also have problems with voting rights. Notice the immediate implementation of new voting regulations in some states and the 'invitation' to Gerrymander. How can we be an example of a free democratic Nation if our legal concentration is focused on Party conflicts or conflicts between Federal power and State power? How can we be an example to the International community? Unfortunately, the problem is a human problem. Its the people in positions of power that seem to lose their humanity when it comes to politics, power and money. Someone asked, "do states have a right to be treated Equally"? Hell, states are not people, they are not natural human beings. Rousseau said they were "fictions". That question really misses the boat. Its not about State power and its not about Federal power, its about human beings in a 'condition of togetherness' and their absolute right to vote and to be Free and Equal. Where are our Statesmen?

governments are artficial constructs

Governments are artificial. They would not exist, if it were not for 'Many' People. If only one, or maybe two, people exist on an Island, they do not need government. What for? Of course, we are not on an island and we are not alone on the planet. That condition gave rise to the ancient problematic of the One and the Many. Hence, some sort of governing becomes necessary. But, the undeniable fact is that human beings were 'here first'. Then came government and the need to govern. The point is that government is not natural, but it's necessary. However necessity does not confer 'power' and it does not create 'superiors'. Its the People at the Bottom of the government structure that should determine who will govern them. Its similar to a corporation. A corporation has real humans behind the corporate fiction. But, the corporation is a fiction, it really doesn't exist, and is recognized as such by the law. Even the concept of the State was called a fiction. Nevertheless, artificial things are not 'born' with 'power'. They only have the 'power' that is conferred upon them by individuals and the social conditions in which they exist. In the same manner, government being artificial, only has power that was conferred to it by the instrument that constituted it, viz. the Constitution. We are fortunate to have a Constitution in triadic form. Of course, it has to function properly and no one Branch is less important than the other. Unfortunately, everything created by humans is subject to the imperfections of the human condition behind the 'Offices' that are operative. We have been given the form and structure of government; we only have to practice it. But what happens? We divide into Parties! Sure, there's ways to govern and also better ways to govern, but the issue is never about the Fiction, its about the People and their rights. You and I need to be governed, but we need to be governed in the right manner.

Democracy doesn' just happen

Its important to know that democracy doesn't just happen. Governments, unlike the human condition, are not natural. They have to be established. North America is fortunate to have had a 'Founding event'. The basic argument among the Founding Fathers seems to have been the establishment and locus of political power. Since the colonies already existed and had jurisdiction over their inhabitants, the question was how is political power to be distributed between a Federal centralized power and the already existing State power. The result was a Republic which was something of a compromise. Its ridiculous to hear that the Supreme court is still making distinctions based on that compromise. The high court seems unaware of the fact that the basic consideration of the Constitutionality of a statute is the human condition. Humans set up the Constitutional Convention, humans gave both the Federal government and the State governments their right to be a sovereign political entity. They did this by exercising their right to vote. If anything impairs the people of their right to vote, it must be removed because that is what grants every political entity its sovereign power. The issue is the right to vote, not the power of the state vs. the power of the central government. Its not a contest between two autocratic rulers, its a contest among a Republic about the right to vote and the attempt to exert control over that right. A State may have certain powers but it cannot impair the Freedom and Equality of any individual within its jurisdiction; neither does the federal government. The human condition is natural and no government has the power to discriminate politically against it. No State government and no Federal government can be allowed to abuse the rights of the human condition. If the Supreme Court is setting a predicate to 'open the door' for later abuses, its not doing its job. Its 'playing politics'.

What is the human condition?

The individual is the essence of democracy and the human condition is the essence of the individual. Each individual is 'sacred' or, better yet, each individual is a mystery. Why a mystery? Because we have attempted to define and describe, by different means, what it means to be human. We have developed Psychologies, Philosophies, Sciences, Theologies, literature, Poetry, and many other disciplines and what have we come up with? Each discipline has a limited explanation within its own paradigm; one that usually excludes the limited explanation of the other disciplines. They can't even agree that we are all members of the same human race. They always apply a different criteria to the Other. They never agree. Can we say that we just don't know the answer? I certainly don't have a descriptive answer, but I can tell you that both, you and I, are an expression of the human condition and no one is going to tell me or you, that we are not like Other humans. We are Free humans and we are Equal humans. End of story! Of course, there will be differences, but not in the human condition. Maybe in possessions, money, property, prosperity, social status, and other cultural artifacts, but certainly not in our humanity. Another difference is the so-called 'political difference' that exists in the different Nations. Sure, we're born into a Nation that allows certain things that other Nations don't allow. But, all Nations are what they are because the People allow it. Leaders don't 'possess' power, leaders have been 'granted power' by the People. Whether the 'grant' of power was institutional and intentional, as in a democracy, or whether it arose through some default or neglect, political leaders are in positions of power because the People are allowing it. Truly, real strength is in Numbers and not in 'institutional power'. The mystery of life at the bottom of all political structures is what life is all about and no one can hold that back.

The essence of democracy.

The essence of democracy is 'the People'. 'The people' are constituted by each individual. Individuals, each and every one, are all human beings and each human being is a unique expression of life. Everyone is in the same unique situation on this earth viz., how do we survive? If there were only three or four human beings on the planet, it may not have been necessary to have governments. Who needs government? Better yet, who needs institutionalized government? Well, the case is that there are millions and millions of people on the planet and hence there has to be some kind of order among the multitudes. At this stage of life, everyone is born within an established Nation or Country and no one, really, has a choice as to where that will be. As someone said of the 'soul', "we are born in a dying animal". Similarly, we are born into a Nation or a political entity. 'Life' is not a choice, its an 'expression'. Each Nation may be politically different, but there seems to be a move in the direction of the democratic form of government. Why is that? Simply, because the 'condition of togetherness' has become necessary in order for any one individual to continue in his/her life on this planet; hence its necessary to come together. The many different forms of government become necessary in order to protect the individual within their jurisdiction. But, what is, or what should be, the unifying principle behind the formation of any government? Simply; the individual human being. Democratic government is a triadic form where power sits on Top and the Judicial interprets the expression and uses of that power and everything that is done is for the benefit of the individual at the Bottom who exists and continues to exist, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Without the 'condition of togetherness', we cannot survive. But, keep in mind; the most important aspect of any and all government, especially the democratic form, is that all government should be "for the People".

A real relation between the Top and the Bottom

Democracy works if the relation between the Top of government and the Bottom of government is kept 'real'. There can be no transcending of the relation by the use of words and 'meaning'. Language and meaning are abstract and unanchored in the 'real' world. That is an off-shoot of the so-called Linguistic turn. Of course, language doesn't have to be completely unanchored, but meaning free-floats in abstraction and is subject to political shenanigans. Political language has always been used to cause confusion. The so-called Linguistic Turn just confirmed its many inaccuracies and described its 'weak' referential aspects. Nevertheless, language can come under more control by referencing the 'object' of discourse in a mathematical manner. Reference can still work fine, but the object of the reference must be categorized numerically. Number does not lie nor does it misrepresent. If democracy is about the People and policy and law are introduced to keep democracy viable and functional, then the Bottom of government must be quantified. A government "for the People" must be for the benefit and protection of the People. There can be no other reason for having an institution called "government". The Constitution sets out its triadic nature. Of course, each Branch must do its share, but the Judicial Branch must, of necessity, be kept objective. Its "interpretive practices" must be objective and if there is any part of government that should not be subject to a Party ideology, it's the Judicial Branch. The Constitution is not a 'Party document'. Its an objective classification of what must take place in any purported democracy. That's why the People are given the Constitutional right to "assemble" and petition the government for "redress of grievances". The Constitution protects the People. That's why the People have a right to revolution.