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.

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.  
 
   
     
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

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

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