Democracy cannot be implemented from the bottom. Obviously, millions of individuals in their condition of togetherness cannot govern themselves from the bottom because they need a government at the top. But, the top must be selected by the bottom. This is exactly what the Constitution is all about. This brings us to the statements made in the previous blog that language and money were two huge problems in government. The problematic nature of these two factors,actually,is not related to the form of government. The government is triadic in nature and doesn't really need these two factors to function nevertheless,these factors are begining to disharmonize the proper functioning of government. They, actually, don't have too, but having been 'misplaced', are affecting the smooth running of triadic government. The written Constitution opens itself to the fabrications of the language of politics that we are all familiar with, and also to the effects of the so-called Linguistic Turn. The other problem mentioned was the effects of money in the economy which has led us to the fabrication of a different social value. The accumulation of money has become a much sought after value. Having money, in and of itself, is not wrongful, but hoarding and greedily persuing money for its own sake can be. Limiting its circulation to the top 1% deconstructs democracy.It complicates and obstructs the circulation of money as a medium of exchange. If money does not circulate at the bottom, the economy is not working properly. Of course, money is important in our economy, but it has a 'fictional' value which allows for the exchange of commodities. Of course, it also has a functional or work value that permits each individual to labor and work for a compensation that is used in the social. The problem is that democracy as the primary value of government is being replaced by the hoarding of money. Money is being circulated only at the top. Nothing trickles down to the masses. Not even the opportunities for homes,work,labor,and wages. The replacement of democracy occurs when money is kept at the top at the functional expense of the bottom. Without money circulating at the bottom among the people, you cannot have a functional bottom, which is democracy. The essence of democracy is the manner in which it is allowed to function at the bottom. The top cannot be democratic, only the bottom can be democratic. Hoarding among the top 1% deconstructs democracy. The 1% is replacing democracy with Plutocracy.

There are two huge problems with present democratic government. One is language or the so-called " Linguistic Turn" and the other is money. In a way, neither relates to the actual structure of democratic government. At least, not if government is viewed as triadic, i.e. not if the underlying structure is viewed geometrically as the fundamental structure of a government designed to be functional of, by, and for people as a perpetually functioning triad. The first problem refered too above is that the Constitution is entirely in language. Language requires interpretation. In and of itself,that should not be a problem, but with the way politicians use language and, add to that, the Linguistic Turn,political language, talk, dialogue, is all 'sound and fury' and signifies nothing. Empty,empty, political talk that says 'everything' and 'nothing'at the same time. All the talk, dialogue, about issues are just 'free-floating' signifiers that never sink down to the 'community level' of a real democracy of real people. The war of words is purposely designed to help the candidate to ascend to office. The people at the bottom just look up at the 'war of words' to try to figure out who will ascend to the top. Would it make a difference? Regardless who wins, the implementation of new policies, programs,etc. are never really understood; it will take a book to explain 'the book' and the only thing that trickles down to the bottom are the new 'chains' and limitations on freedom and equality that we must somehow learn about or go to jail. Once in office, a politician perpetuates that position and tries to pass some favorite program or policy to help Party preferrences to ascend. The other problem is money. Money has taken the place of democracy. It used to be that money allowed an individual to live a very confortable life. Now, it has nothing to do with comfort or the economic well-being of the individuals in the Nation as a goal. All the money is at the top and opportunities at the bottom no longer exist. Hoarding of an exchange commodity that was meant to circulate at the bottom should not be allowed to exist. The bottom is the only place where democracy can exist. The government at the top, as such, is not democratic; its triadic but, it should implement Constitutional democracy. The top is not the 'place' for democracy; the top is the position in the triad that should implement democracy in the right 'place', i.e. at the bottom. Democracy exists or it doesn't exist by the determining conditions at the bottom. If the bottom no longer has economic opportunities like, work, fair wages, homes, and medical care, we are not living in a democracy. The top is not doing its job and we are victims of the new value system in the country; the money circulates among the 1% at the top and remains at the top; while the 99% at the bottom are left to grovel as they see fit. The top needs to do its job or the bottom will have to protect itself in the manner allowed by the Constitution, viz. revolution.

The advantages of viewing the Constitution as triadic government can increase the insights we can have about government. To just view it as a document suggests that one has to read it in order to understand the meaning of the document and the democratic government provided therein. Of course, many scholars, office holders, educated people and, of course, politicians are well versed with the provisions in it. However, the average person on the street, the uneducated, the poor or the underprivileged as well as many educated people are not as familiar as they should be with its provisions. Of course, it has other provisions other than the creation of a triadic government. It has other Articles and Amendments.But, these other provisions do not change or effect the triadic nature of the government it crafted. Perceiving government in a triadic form allows everyone to see how democratic government works and where, in the triad, the essence of democracy is located. The bottom of the triad supports the sides and it supports the top of the triad. The bottom is constituted by millions of living individuals who live day by day under democratic government. Each individual at the bottom is an aspect of the essence of democracy. Thats where we are. The people at the bottom elects someone to the Executive Branch,a political branch,for four years. He or she would not be up there if it were not for the people at the bottom. The sides of the triad is the Judicial branch that has the duty to objectively interpret the relation between the top and the bottom provided for in the Constitution. The Judicial Branch should not be a political branch but, because of Party politics, we all know thats not the case. The top governs the bottom and the sides should insure that the Constitution is adhered too. Simply put, the top should govern the bottom but only if the structure and provisiona of the Constitution are followed. But, the Founding Fathers were not oblivious to the possibility of undemocratic or abusive government. Thats probably why they provided the First Amendment. Part of it states that in a proper case, if all is not right with government,the bottom,i.e.all the people, have a right to "peaceably assemble" and to "petition the government" for "redress of grieviances." That is the only way to protect the bottom in a democracy from a top that usurps its power or a judiciary that is not objective. In other language, that is the Right to revolution. In a government "of people", "by people", and, much more important than the other two,"for the people", the people have the Right to revolution. In triadic government, each individual at the the bottom is real, is concrete, is 'number' and must be included in the equation called "democracy", and if the Top or the sides are not providing it, he and she has the right to correct it ,at the proper time, or to revolution.

Certainly, money is essential to an economy because it has exchange value. But,money, per se, is an economic value, not a democratic value. Democratic value is a political value. So why is it that only people with lots of money can run for office. Why is it that the top 1% are hoarding money and trying to get more at the expense of the 99% at the bottom. Why is the 1% defending greed. Something is not right. The economy is out of balance and the first step in trying to balance things is to examine the corporations. You ask, why pick on the corporations? Simply because the corporation is a "legal fiction" and exists only in contemplation of law. Its an artificial economic monster that was created by State government. Each corporation has Articles of Incorporation that were issued by government when it approved the articles giving it the legal right to exist.Since a corporation is not a real person, why not require that the articles be amended and that each one be more responsible to the democracy that allowed them to exist. Do you realize that a corporation can do no wrong. You can't accuse a corporation of commiting a crime. You can only accuse the officers who operate the corporation of commiting a wrong. But, in order to do that you have to "pierce the corporate veil" to get to the officers or owners behind the corporation. That is not easy! A real person can commit a wrong and he will be punished.But, a corporation or a "legal entity" can never be punished. So here you have a "legal fiction" that has been created with an immeasurable economic grasp, who can do no wrong! Where are the controls? And now they have been given the Constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. That means more money for the people connected to corporate America so they can solidity the fictional existence of the corporation and their so-called Constitutional right to freedom of speech and that is a tremendous contribution to the top 1%. Corporations compete against each other for profits by manipulating the availability of products used by the people.No human being can compete with a monster corporation. The bottom where democracy resides, has been deprived of democratic values like the priviledge to compete, a job, a fair wage, a home, or the right to medical care. Big money is becomimg the new value system and the bottom is at the mercy of the 1%. Look closely at the Constitution. It created a real people government,( check the Preamble) not a government ruled by money and legal fictions. The Constitution and the First Amendment are the only recourse for the bottom. The Constitution provides the underlying structure of triadic government and the First Amendment the right to revolution. We have got to learn how to use that right within the provided structure.

Certainly, an economy that uses money is important. But, its a medium of exchange, not a democratic value. A democratic value enhances the freedom and equality of everyone within the Nation. Money is an economic value that requires circulation. But, circulation cannot occur at the top of government. The top houses the administration of the Constitutional structure and its democratic value system. The bottom of triadic government is where the people are situated. The circulation of money must occur at the bottom, not the top. Actually, neither the bottom nor the top should hoard money unnecessarily, nor contribute to its stagnation. Money must circulate. Of course, corporations are important, but they are "legal fictions" that "only" exist in "contemplation of law". They were created to allow a greater economic grasp. Obviously, they are protected by law to allow greater growth within the economy. But, to state they have a freedom to speak, so they can contribiute to political campaigns, is just to long of a stretch, even for a recognized "legal fiction". Certainly, 'incorporated people' can accomplish more than the individual, and hence the advantages of the corporate structure. It certainly more efficient than any individual. But, all those advantages effect economic competition because no individual can compete against a corporation. So, it undermines democratic competition and creates a potential for greed which reflects negatively on a corporation as well as on an individual. Neither corporate greed nor human greed is a positive economic value. Stop the race to the top 1%. Of course, money can be used as a positive economic value that contributes towards democracy. Since, a democratic government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, money must circulate at the bottom and not be hoarded by the bottom nor the top. For a government to allow corporations to contribute money to political campaigns is to allow a misuse of a medium of exchange and to undo democracy at the bottom. If government does not help the circulation of value at the bottom in the form of work, wages, housing, medical care, and other 'people' opportunities,the triad of government will not hold. The top 1% is creating unnecessary fictions and undoing democracy.

There's an interesting article in Mother Jones by Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery, that states that the holding in Citizens boils down to a holding that, money is speech, corporations are people, and that under the first Amendment, government can't stop corporations from spending money on politics. Wow, this by the Supreme Court of the land. Even a child, after someone explains that a corporation is a fiction, can understand that a corporation isn't real, in the sense that you and I are real. No one has ever seen or spoken to a 'corporate person'. Someone wrote in a comment on a Blog that he or she would believe corporations are persons when they put one in jail. I would believe they are a person when I hear one speak. Has anyone heard a corporation speak? And now, thanks to Citizens,these fictional entities even have a Constitutional freedom of speech. Everyone knows that the law recognizes a corporation as "a legal fiction that exists only in contemplation of law." So, how can a corporation be called a "legal fiction" and a "person" with the same breath? Furthermore, how can it be implied that a corporation speaks? According to the first Amendment, a real person does have a freedom of speech and furthermore under that same Amendment the real people have the right to "peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grieveances".In other words, the people have a right to 'revolution'. The Supreme Court is playing with words. The governmental branch that should be the most objective in its interpretation of the Constitution, is playing politics. If we can't have objectivity from the Judiciary, the triadic structure of government is not going to hold. If the Law is not doing its job, the only option is revolution. Big money, corporations, and many politicians are trying to solidify their position at the top. I think they are going to have to answer to the 99%.I think the 99% are entitled to an answer. If the people don't get an answer by this next administration, the people will have to exercise their Constitutional Right to 'assemble' under the first Amendment.

"Its the economy stupid". We've heard those words from many sources. But, do we really understand what that general formulation is trying to tell us. To focus on the economy in a general way will not suffice, nor will a dismantling of our economic system. Obviously, the economy is vital to our survival in the world. Nevertheless, we must reflect on the constitutive nature of the economy to try to find what may be the problem. Of course, that's a huge job but, we must try to locate its kinks. The begining point has to be that we are a democracy; a democracy that respects the freedom and equality of every breathing individual. All individuals are at the bottom of the triad of government: they form a community of millions. Those who hold office in their respective places of authority are also from the bottom but, were elevated by us to their representative positions. They, of all people, should be at the forefront of any effort to correct the economic problems. All people have value systems and these systems vary but, the systems relate to different views of individual morality, different religious views, life styles,different wishes and desires etc.. Regardless, their differences, personal values relate to the human condition,its strengths and frailties. Some of those values relate to the economy i.e. to work, get paid well, to make money, to own a home, have sufficient food and necessities. There are many more economic needs that are essential to a 'people' who live in a condition of togetherness or community. NOW, ask yourself, what is the value system of an economic corporation? Its considered a "legal fiction that exists only in contemplation of law" Thats the official legal position. It enjoys some of the protections afforded real individuals by the Constitution because of its necessity in the economy. Hey, human beings with jobs, wages, and homes are also necessary. NOW, if the corporation is to be treated as a "person", what is its value system. We all have one and if we step outside it, we can get in trouble. Well, the SOLE purpose, hence value, of the economic corporation is to make a profit. Failing this, it's voluntarily dissolved by its incorporators and given another 'arising' elsewhere under a different name. It has no other reason for existing. In and of itself, making a profit is not bad, but the constant push towards greedy accumulation is. Greed for any purpose is obviously undemocratic. How can a corporation designed only to make a profit be tolerated in a democracy? Of course, it has a place in a democracy but, the purpose for its existence must change. Why, if state governments create corporations i.e. approve articles of incorporation, which gives them their 'arising', can't they also require that they contribute to the welfare of the populace that they depend on to purchase their wares? Certainly, not in terms of money or profits or handouts, but in making efforts to provide more jobs, wages, or less expensive products for those that cannot afford the high quality stuff. Need I add, outsourcing. After all, a corporation is a fiction and an individual is a real live human being. Of course, some will say "thats the governments job". But, if they want to be treated as a 'person', why not assume a few obligations like those of a real person. Corporations should be required to be more democratic and failing this, involuntarilly dissolved. A corporate fiction cannot be more important than a human being. The decision creating corporate 'personhood' may have been necessary,at that time , but we cannot ignore that it also created an 'economic monster'. Governments are necessary, but 'economic monsters' are not.

The elevation of money to the level of a 'pivot' in democratic government is a terrible mistake. The concept of money belongs with the concepts of the economy, not in government, whereas the concepts of government relate to the essence of democracy. That essence is at the bottom of the triad of government. The essence of democratic value is the freedom and equality of each individual at the bottom. The 'pivot' for democratic government is the Constitutional basis for the freedom and equality of each individual. The strength of the economy is the circulation of money, not its hoarding. Money makes money, whereas freedom and equality allows the individual to assist the circulation of money. The circulation of money should take place at the bottom of the triad of government. Hoarding and greed at the 'top' merely stops the circulation and places money at a point where it can, without any more effort by the individual,i.e. with 'casino capitalism', creates more money for the top. Its incomprehensible how any individual, through the use of the freedonm and equality afforded him or her, uses money to dismantle the democratic values of a democracy that allows him or her, to freely engage in economic activity. Money is a medium of exchange and anything that blocks that exchange is harmful to the economy and the Nation. Money is a 'variability' whereas democratic values are stable qualities in each individual that reflects the sanctity of the individual human condition and permits engagement in economic activity. The engagement of economic activity should take place at the bottom where money can circulate. To fix accumulated money at the top 1% only allows the bottom to crunble and the top, eventually, to fall. The bottom without circulating money cannot support a fixed top that hoards most of the money. Little does the top realize that it can not survive a fixation or rigidity of the top 1% of the money in a social. The top 1% must not realize that there are already attempts to even reduce the 1% to a lower percentage. In other words, they clearly struggle against the bottom but don't realize that they also struggle, more insidiously, against their own selves. There is no respect for freedom and equality of the human condition at the economic top. Thats why freedom and equality are Constitutional guarantees. And that's why money cannot be a democratic value. Democratic values are fixed, economic values must circulate.

The term "social darwinism" is an oxymoron. How ironic, applying evolutionary principles of physical characteristics to social, political, and economic phenomena. The social is establihed after many years of living in a condition of togetherness or community. Community is an intangible. The political is established when a social follows the form and structures of self-government set out in the Constitution. That's democracy and thats an intangible, but the relation of the top to the bottom is real. The form of the economy is established when the means of living and work are stabilized in a community and are used to produce products and the necessities of everyday life. For the latter, money is essential. Money is an arbitrary social convention that originaly had gold as its underlying support. That no longer exists. Money, like words and some language, free-floats in mental space. Ungrounded, in anything of value except for the paper its printed on and the metals upon which its imprinted. Its value is printed in the form of a number on the paper or imprinted on the metal. Money is not a social or political value and its certainly not a democratic value. Its a medium of exchange that facilitates exchange values. If all monies stays at the top of the social, the bottom will deconstruct. But, where will that leave the top? A top without a sympathetic bottom? That condition is no longer a government or a community. The top does not realize that its creating a rope with which it will hang its self. The bottom will mobilize and the result will be a real revolution. The mathmatics supports that result. The top are just a few, the bottom are legion. The top is intangible and abstract. The bottom of triadic government is 'mathmatical'; its real, concrete, and each individual at the bottom has to live. Its 'mathmatical' nature refers to each and everyone at the bottom. Hey, it refers to you and me.

Darwinism may work in the animal kingdom but it doesn't work in the human condition. Human beings may not have complete control of the physical constitution of their inherited characteristics, but they certainly have control over the social and political institutions they have created. To apply Social Darwinism to human institutions is to inject a warring attitude into social and political solidarity. Since social and political institutions require a certain solidarity, the survival of the fittist would necessarilly inject a 'struggle' between individuals in the same group to the point that it would destroy any semblance of solidarity. Thats what happens when 1% struggles to keep all the money at the top at the expense of the social and political solidarity at the bottom. It ruins the foundation of government. What happens to teachers, schools, policemen, proffesionals, the middle class, small business and the poor? They're destroyed. If the bottom of the triad is dismantled, the top will fall. Social Darwinism is a deceptive concept. It doesn't result in the survival of the fittist: the real, true result of Social Darwinism is the survival of the greediest. Money and greed have taken over our human value system; not money to have a confortable, even a great life, but an accumulation of money to just have more than the Other. Its a race after an abstraction. The harm is made worst by 'casino capitalism' which disorganizes the solidarity of social and political instituions. Money was an exchange phenomena, not a cumulative one. Exchange was necessary to facilitate the creation of new social and political institutions. Its very important. Without money we would still be exchanging apples for oranges. Animals may have no choice in the direction of their evolution, but humans have a choice in the construction of social and political institutions. Human greed is the eqivalent of the carrot at the end of the stick. The donkey thinks it has a sense of direction. Having more money than others just means "having more money than others".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.