Instead of relying on a Social Contract to connect the top and the bottom, its best to interpret the Constitution as formulating a Triadic form of government. Of course, it literally creates a government of three branches, but we don't perceive its underlying form as a triad. We immediately go to the the language in the Constitution and purport to interpret its provisions. There's nothing wrong with that approach: it has to be interpreted but, my point is that we cannot rely solely on its linguistic structure. We have to find the underlying form that led the Founding Fathers to craft a government of three branches. The reason for going under the language is to attenuate the deconstructive effects of the Linguistic turn. Political language is already intentionaly convoluted and if we add to that the deconstructive effects of the Turn, we're in serious trouble. The Turn just provides additional clutter. However, if we perceive the underlying form or the triadic nature of its linguistic structure, as being what the Founding Fathers were aiming at, we begin to see the reasons for a government with three Branches. In any democratic government, three branches are absolutely necessary and thats geometric. One branch governs, one determines the democratic manner of governing and the legislative branch passes laws to regulate the government and the people. Of course, the top must govern democratically and the Judiciary must be impartial. But,it's the bottom that creates the form of government, not the Top. If we assume that the Top created government, it must have also created the bottom, i.e. the People, and that's ridiculous. We are NOT a Kingdom nor a Dictatorship. In Constitutional government, its the People that are important. Democracy is government "of people", "by people", and-the most important part-"for the people". People are the essence of a democracy, not the government. Government owes its prestigious offices to the people. Government owes its very existence to the people. People were here first, they created government. From where did government gets its power to govern? From the bottom. No-where else.The only "entitlement" in this world is the prestige the people grant to office holders involved in the difficult work of governing. That 'difficult work' is the duty of the Top to govern in a democratic manner. Any benefits derived from government or the established economy should inure to the benefit of the people, not the government nor the top 1%. Otherwise, why create democratic government in the first place? We cannot depend on the Social Contract any longer. We have a triadic government where the people create the Top and the sides of that same government described in the Constitution. Triadic, geometric government, does not lie. Neither does mathmatics, nor number and the bottom of triadic government are the people; the bottom is Number.

The Social Contract was a useful fiction, but it only created a linguistic relation between the Top and the Bottom. In other words there were only two parties to the contract and everyone knows that a contract is dependent on the interpretation of the language. At one time that contractual relation may have worked, but today, in face of all the political, and linguistic convolutions-not to mention the effects of the so-called Linguistic Turn and the lack of impartiality in the Judiciary-it's not going to work. Why not? Because, the relation created by a contract depends on the understanding of the linguistic terms used by an impartial judiciary. We have already pointed out that the relation between the Top and the Bottom is not only abstract, its real, and hence cannot be completely linguistic. Each and every individual at the bottom is real and must be related too in a real way and not just abstractly with general linguistic terms. Thats why the bottom is perceived as 'number' and hence can be quantified depending on the reach and the parameters of the statement.Its one thing to say "everyone is free" its another to really include every individual at the bottom referenced in the statement. The relation in the statement is abstract and hence applies to the entire bottom only in an abstract way. It leaves too much wiggle room for linguistic confusion by politicians. Need I add, they take advantage of all the wiggle room they can create with their words. However, the triadic form of government, which is the same as the Constitutional form, includes all the Top, the bottom and the sides of government. The bottom is the most important part of government and, if viewed in the triadic form, everyone can actually see that without the people at the bottom, you can't have a top or sides. The triadic form simplifies the structure of the Constitution and allows everyone to see the form behind the language of the Constitution. It allows for a more simplified perception of government. The essence of democracy is community at the bottom. If the top is not governing according to the triadic nature of government as set out in the Constitution and if the Judiciary is not being impartial, the bottom does not need them. Thats probably why the Founding fathers passed the First Amendment.

The Social Contract may have provided the 'glue' for democracy in the past. But today, its an effete concept because of the Linguistic Turn and the many linguistic problematics that flowed from it; not to mention the already existing convolutions found in political language. Democratic concepts are verbal and hence problematic. Its one thing to make a democratic statement, its another to carry out the performance of the concept. Real democracy can only exist at the bottom of triadic government. The bottom houses real people, and just making a verbal reference to people at the bottom will not suffice. A verbal statement may suggest some intention to perform,but its not the actual performance. How can we insure the actual implementation of political promises? It must be recognized that the the top of government needs language to communicate policy to the bottom. Thats essential, but it must also be recognized that the bottom is where democracy actually takes place. Democracy is not at the top. The top carries-out or implements democracy but, the bottom is where it takes place. If there is no democracy at the bottom, you can't have it at the top. Its impossible. Democracy is "for the people" and the people are at the bottom of triadic government. The Occupy Wall Street movement was effective because those were real people out there. What is needed is a theoretical framework that justifies the 'occupiers' right to peaceably assemble in whatever sector is conducting itself undemocratically. At present there are diverse groups of people 'occupying' different areas of the social and of government, but they are too spread-out and attennuated. There is no theoretical framework holding them together. Every individual at the bottom can be an 'occupier'; under the proper circumstances. That is the bottoms right. The bottom of triadic government exists in a condition of togetherness or community. That 'condition' is capable of 'assembling' peaceably to petition government. That is its Constitutional right. Unlike the top, the bottom is not given any political power, but it has strength in 'numbers'; strength in the 'condition of collectivity' is the essence of democracy. Real democracy must include every 'number' in the equation we call 'democratic government'. Real government is Constitutional and geometric; its triadic. Real democracy is mathmatical. "We the People" is number. Everyone necessary to the equation must be included. If any proper number is left out of the equation, its not democracy.

Its been said that the Social Contract is in danger. That's probably correct, but its a mistake to think that its preservation will keep us safe. Even if its preserved, the concept no longer does the job of connecting the bottom with the top and the top with the bottom. Notice that I emphasize the top-down relation and also the bottom-up relation, because it should relate in both directions. But, the Social Contract is outmoded, and add to that, the problematics of the Linguistic Turn, and the concept no longer serve as an efficient means for connecting the top with the bottom. The Social Contract cannot save us from the deceptions of political language, nor deceptions from the top. It presupposses a 'contract' entered into by a top and a bottom. Of course, it was called a "fiction" and everyone knows it is, in fact, a fiction. Its a fictional linguistic construct that only refers to the multitudinous people at the bottom in an abstract form that does not reach each and every individual at the bottom in any real way. Needless to add, its not a 'binding' concept; its an unreliable concept, and many people don't even know there is such a 'contract'. Stated more accurately,if Constitutional government is perceived as triadic, it can be conceived in a triadic form. The perception compels a necessary realization that the bottom is the most important part of the triad. That part constitutes the begining of the Constitution, viz."We the People". Then, possibly, the importance of the bottom will stand out-accentuated-and be perceived correctly, viz. that the individual at the bottom is what's important in Constitutional democratic government. Without a bottom there is no need for a top or the sides of the triad. Government is about people and, more importantly, for people. Nothing else. To the contrary, if the top is perceived as democratic, it will automatically be assumed that the bottom and the sides are also democratic, because "we live in a democracy". That,of course, is not necessarilly the case. Democracy comes from the bottom and is at the bottom. No-where else. The democratic bottom is where the election of the top and the sides of triadic government are chosen. Without a democratic bottom there can be no form of government at the top. One can linguistically call the top democratic, but that, obviously, is not the deciding factor. How many governments call themselves democratic and actually are not? No, democracy is determined by the conditions existing at the bottom. Thats the proper way to perceive and then conceive democratic government. We cannot allow the abstract words of politicians to get in the way of a real democracy.Democracy is not just an abstract linguistic term, it's real. A government "for" the people is real.

Party ideologies are OK, but don't be mislead by them. Of course, there are different approaches to governing democratically. Nevertheless, Party-ideology fixates one approach and does not deviate from it.If an ideologue deviates from the dictates of his/er Party, he/she is considered a turncoat. Of course, there are subtle differences within this deviation. Example, The decision approving Obamacare appears as a deviation from Party principles but, the dictum in the decision weakens several Constitutional approaches to federal soveriegnty. Future decisions can now use it to cause lots of damage to the people at the bottom. So, one Party subtly lays ground-work for future Constitutional connections that furthur weakens the bottom of government,viz. democracy. Remember, the Constitution crafts a triadic form of government; not a dualistic form. The problematic of a dualistic Party system is that ideologues hang on to their beliefs as if gospel-truth. Any Party loyalty in a dichotomous set-up, will just go from one side to the other and vice-versa; there are no alternatives. Thats why government must be perceived as a triadic form that is always in motion and seeks only to harmonise the whole triad. When government has a dichotomous party-system, it automatically endangers democracy. Why? Because a democracy is "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". Once polititians divide themselves into a dualistic system, they can no longer relate to the third aspect of government, which is the most important and the fundamental part of a democracy, viz. the bottom. Of course, a Two-Party system can function properly if it adheres to the Constitution. But, that requires an honest and sincere flexibility between ideologies and not insiduous groundwork for future party-ideologies. The reason any Party-system can function properly, if it really wants too, is that the Constitution crafts a triadic form of government; not a dualistic form. The only requirement is adherence to the Constitution. Of course, this furthur requires an impartial Judiciary; and where are we going to find that? The Judiciary is a very important aspect of government because it defines the lines of a democracy. The Judicial branch must stop playing politics. Regardless their ideologies, they must be impartial in order to be Constitutional. If they can't be impartial, what good are their marble halls?

In a democracy the Executive Branch and the people need each other. The Judiciary's sole obligation is to be impartial and to apply democratic interpretive practices. The form underlying all the words in the Constitution is triadic in nature and allows for the simultaneous functioning of all three sides of the triad of government. All three sides must be functional at the same time as each monitors the others. The bottom is the base of the triad and the place occupied by the people. The Judiciary's function is to use interpretive practices to interpret the Constitution. But, the Judiciary must be impartial. It cannot play Party-politics. That option is only open to the bottom or the People. The Judiciary cannot favor corporations, nor play Party-politics. To favor a political ideology over the rights of the people is not democratic. To favor a "legal fiction" over the rights of the bottom is to dismantle democracy. Neither "legal fictions" nor Party-ideology are a part of the structure of government. "Legal fictions" may have a place in the economy, but not in the structure of government. They should stay in the economy and out of politics and they should be rigorously regulated just like everyone else. Party-ideology belongs at the bottom, not at the top nor in the Supreme Court. If corporations can receive Welfare or be bailed out so should the poor,the needy, the unfortunate, and those who have worked for it and earned it. The people are at the bottom; at the base or essence of government. Government exists for the people. The judiciary's sole function is to be impartial. If it wants to play politics it's members should run for political office and not sit on the Bench. Their official position is not a political office, its a judicial office. I know all of this is already obvious to everyone, but if we cannot find fair-play in the judicial branch, we will never find fair-play and thats the only factor that can hold this Country together. A devious, obstructive, "Party-ing" Judiciary is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy. A Judiciary that engages in interpretive practices designed to establish or extend some Party platform or, to favor "fictional persons" over real people, or to concentrate money at the top 1% of the social, is not practicing true democracy nor it it being a democratic institution. A devious, obstructive Executive can be replaced, an obstructive bottom or people can be handled by the law. But, an obstructive Judiciary is there for life and they know it. Democracy is doomed unless the Judiciary becomes impartial. Maybe its time for the people to Occupy the Halls of Justice. If the Judiciary refuses to be impartial, its time for the bottom to flex its muscle. If the people follow the terms of the First Amendment, the people have every Right to Revolution.

Originally, the functions of corporations in the market-place were controlled by Anti-Trust laws. Those laws still exist, but interpretive practices have Powell-ized them into effete statutes. Today, the sides of the government triad, i.e. our 'impartial-arbitrar', has been bought by the new value-system of governing, viz. money. The freedom and equality of each and every individual in the bottom of Democratic government has been replaced by the new value-system. Corporations are abstract economic-monsters and have an abstract economic grasp that is incomparable. No real human being and no small business can compete with a big corporation. The soverignty of the human condition lies in its unique independence. Fictional humans don't exist, except in fairy-tales and Constituional interpretive-practices. Certainly, the economic engine of the corporation should have some Constitutional protection, but to extend the fictional nature into a freedom of speech deserving protection is to extend Constitutional protection into the fictional sphere, which just mobilizes the profit motive into the sphere of greed, where money, without any work-effort, breeds more money. The end result; money buys government. Of course, the Court readilly admits the fictional nature of the corporation. But, its unbelievable that the Court cannot see that its replacing a democracy of real individuals i.e. unique independent individuals, by an economic principle that has no place in the operation of a government,of people,by people,and for people. The economy is separate from the government; the economy can be changed, but the democratic nature of the government cannot.Economic greed has no place in the functional aspects of a democracy. The economy needs an engine and that engine is profits, government also needs an engine and that engine is "We the People", the first three words of the Constitution. The value-system of the economy should not spill-over into the value system of democracy. It has to be controlled by the Courts and by the 99%. The Courts can properly interpret Anti-Trust laws and the 99% can hold a revolution.

The Constitution creates a Nation of people. When it refers to "people", it means each and every human individual in the Nation. Most "work-places" are corporations. As we have said, corporations are "legal fictions". Corporations are not people; at best, they are abstract entities that have been collapsed into something called "an employer". The law foresaw the inequalities that could flow from a huge abstraction called "employer" and the many real individuals performing the work. Hence, the law provided for employees to organize into Unions. These unions were free to organize and demand changes in the work place. These unions were all about the work place and the inequalities and abuses that could arise from the 8 to 5. Of course, we all know their rights are being slowly diluted. Thats another story. My point is the Preamble of the Constitution begins with "We the People".That refers to each and every individual in the Nation. Of course, it also includes every individual living within State lines. The Constitution does not stop at State lines. The Constitution constitutes a Nation of every individual living within its geographical boundaries, connected or disconnected. The important fact is that each and every individual in the Nation constitutes a democracy of "We the People". Now consider the following; If the Supreme Court, in a moment of lucidity, foresaw the abuses to freedom in the corporate workplace and upheld laws for unionization of employees, how can it not foresee the abuses to freedom that could be caused by political-miscontents in the Nation. After all, the Constitution states "We the People ...in Order to form a more perfect Union". So, you see, the Founding fathers did craft a Nation of a "Union of people". Citizens do have a right to "unionize".Now, where is that protection for the people in the Nation? In the workplace, the individual employees can form into a union and strike. In the Nation,the individuals are protected by the First Amendment. The right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grieveances. The employee has a right to strike. The citizen has a right to revolution. The Constitution created a Union of people. The Judicial Branch needs to do its job; it needs to be impartial and persue real democracy and it needs to stop persuing money.

Whats the difference between "trickle down" economics and "trickle up" economics. Well, trickle down, whether beneficial or not, seems to occur naturally; probably because downhill is easier than uphill. Uphill takes dedication, stamina, and lots more effort. In democratic government, uphill has to be insidious and underhanded. Actually, in a capitalistic economic system, it requires a revamping of the proper structure of democratic government. The proper function of the Judicial Branch is to be impartial and police the system to insure that the people at the bottom get the benefits of the economic system in the form of jobs, wages, pensions, opportunities, medical assistance, etc.. Otherwise, why have a democracy? Some benefits should trickle down. Instead, the Judicial Branch has become a Party- institution that modifies interpretive-practices to follow Party-lines and favors big-money. Its unbelieveable, that such a "learned" Branch can be so perfidious, and underhanded. Of course, favoring big-money is favoring corporations. Favoring corporations is favoring "legal fictions that exist only in contemplation of law". How can a Supreme Court interpret law in favor of a fictional entity that, everyone knows,is not anything like a real person at the bottom of triadic government. Of course, its one thing to protect corporations, its quite another to continue giving them more fictional attributes. Or, is it about the corporate structure or is it about money? The Judicial Branch wants to keep the money at the top with the 1%. What kind of Alice-in-Wonderland scheme is being practiced by our "learned" branch? Political position has always meant "power". Authority also means power; now, money, instead of being a medium of exchange,means power. A Government of substance is being taken over by an economy dominated by fictions. Money in the hands of individuals, and money produced and manufactured by corporations has become power. Money has replaced the numbers in a real democracy. In a democracy, power is at the top, but its a power given from the bottom. Without the bottom, there is no need for a top or power. In a democratic society, the bottom still retains its strength in numbers. The bottom is number and number must be included in the equation called "democracy". The strength of the bottom is in its condition of "togetherness". The Constitutional right of a peaceable assembly is the Constitutional right to revolution.

The Founding fathers crafted a government of people, not corporations. Government is about people. Corporations are about profits. Money replaces democracy in a government dominated by corporations. Money is primarily a medium of exchange, not something to be accumulated in vast amounts. Huge accumulations of money impairs circulation. If money does not circulate at the bottom of a democracy of people, by people, and for people, the bottom is undermined. The bottom of a democracy should be the strongest part of triadic government because it supports the top. A judiciary which methodically and insidiously rules in favor of corporate structures undermines democracy because its ruling in favor of a fiction. Everyone knows corporations are not people. How do we know this? Because the Supreme Court, itself, said so. So how can the Court create a "legal fiction", give it Constitutional rights held by real people, and after Citizens, allow it to 'finance' the persuit of political offices.The so-called "learned Judges" justify their stance by saying, "its not the identity of the speaker" thats important, its the "speech itself" thats important. Hell, corporations don't speak and since when has money become speech? What they really meant to say is, "its the money stupid". Government is becoming an Alice in Wonderland story. The Judiciarys sole purpose for existing in the governmental framework is its duty to interpret the Constitution. It has no other function. It does not govern. It is a useless appendage of government, were it not for its duty to be impartial. How sad that implementing interpretive practices can be so isidiously biased and un-democratic. How strange; the other branches of government are not expected to be as "learned" as the judicial branches, yet, its the judiciary that is undermining democracy. The less functional aspect of government has become responsible for the ascendacy of the 1%. Money has been substituted for democracy. Most individuals are proud to be Americans because they think they live in a free democratic Country. Well, its becoming more difficult to feel that way and that's becoming a serious problem. When a "legal fiction' can buy and steal an election from real people, we have to be thankful that the First amendmant permits citizens peaceably to assemble and petition the govermnment for redress of grievances. That the 99% right to revolution.

A capitalistic approach to the economy complements a democratic approach to a form of government. But, keep in mind, they are essentially different. Capitalism is about competition in the market place, which requires money and democratic government is about the uniqueness of each and every human being situated at the bottom which requires the freedom and equality of everyone. Democracy is about togetherness and capitalism is about competition. They are contraries, but both should be able to function in a healthy manner without endangering each other. Capitalism must discard the greedy and unfair persuit of money and democracy must stop considering those at the top as if they were superior human beings. Everyone is free and equal and everyone is just a human being. Except for specific genetic qualities, the human condition is the same. Democracy is about the humanity in all human beings. Success in everyday life is about healthy economic competition between individuals. Some will get ahead, some will stay behind and some will be needing help from the others, or from government. Without government, people lose control and begin to form separate groupings based on social values as oppossed to democratic values. That is wrong; a social value can never be stronger than a democratic value. I will give one example of a great division created within our economy. One word! corporations. There is nothing wrong with the corporate structure,as such, but if you add to the competitive nature the element of greed, they destroy the competitive edge in a democracy. Greed and unfair accumulation 'stops the engine' of a capitalistic economy. How can an individual compete with a corporation? Its absurd; they tilt the boat in favor of the corporate structure. I'm not saying we must go back to a Mom and Pop economy, but consider the following. The Law considers a corporation as "a legal fiction that only exists in contemplation of law". Yet, the Courts give them the protection they give to real individuals. Not only is the individual unable to compete with a corporation, but the dam thing is " a fiction" and only exists because the law allowed it to exist. Where are we going? into a corporate society? We are already there. And now the Citizens United decision allows these fictions to participate in the electoral process. The irony of this whole mess is that government created the corporate structure and it still creates them. All you have to do is file a proper application and you are a corporation. Now, money,in the hands of the 1%,the medium of exchange of a capitalistic economy, is trying to undermine democratic government. Maybe government should change our corporate laws? If it creates them why doesn't it control them? How can a fiction be stronger than a democracy of real individuals?

The biggest problem with Capitalism is that it has exceeded itself. Generally, the'economic engine'in capitalism is the profit motive. Nobody becomes a capitalist because he intends to lose money. Everyone wants a profit. And certainly everyone who goes into business is entitled to make it big. But, at what point, does the question become, " when does making a profit become greed"? When does making a profit, an economic value, cross over to the greedy persuit and hoarding of money. At what point does an economic standard cross over into a moral standard. The effects of greed on capitalism are self-defeating because it deconstructs the economic engine. Greed and accumulation keeps money from circulating. Money is a medium of exchange and is relatively useless for anything else. If its not used in a capitalistic manner, it cannot circulate. Circulation must occur among all the people at the bottom in the form of wages, work, homesteads,and other every-day necessities. The bottom is where millions of people are situated. Greedy accumulation of money is not a plus-factor for a capitalistic economy. Economic value is about exchange and circulation. But, is the issue really capitalism or is it the people or individuals who participate in it? Is the problem with capitalism resolvable by changing the type of economy or by changing the way government works? I hate to say this, but your not going to change everyone. So, does government have a function in a democracy of people, by people, and for people. Or, does government just stand by and see people destroying themselves? Some political parties call,"helping the people", entitlements, others call it socialism. But, in both cases, thats a misuse of the word because those who receive entitlements are actually those in power at the top. In a democracy, no one is entitled to the respect accorded to a president or leader but for the fact that the people at the bottom elevated him or her to the top of government. The top is not entitled to that kind of respect because of some superior human quality. They are entitled to the emoluments of office only because the bottom put them there and only for a short period of time. But, the bottom remains democratic and each and everyone at the bottom is entitled to live in a dignified manner in a condition of togetherness. When money circulates at the bottom in a capitalistic economy, the 'economy' circulates among all the people at the bottom, in the form of wages, home ownership, work, medical services, educational opportunities and all the emenities of life. Lets stop being greedy and lets be more democratic. If government has to step in, let it. It would be nice if governments weren' t necessary, but lets face it, without government the people would self-destruct.

The problematic of the 1% and the 99% is basically the same problematic as the One and the Many. I say "basically" because the relation of the One and the Many in government is a relation between people. In triadic government there is no 1% and no 99%. The bottom is always 100% and the top is elected from the bottom, while the relation of the 1% and the 99% is based on the social value of a medium of exchange viz. money. Democratic government is not about money, its about the freedom and equality of all the people at the bottom. I have already described, in another blog, how a social value,viz. money, is begining to replace the basic political values of freedom and equality, which are the basis of democracy. The possibility of such a replacement has existed for awhile,but was recently jump-started by the Supreme Court decision in Citizens. Everyone seems aware that there is no relation between a real democratic value and a fictional social value. Yet, money, a fictional and social value, is usurping real democratic values. The values of freedom and equality are being replaced by the greedy persuit of money. The decision in Citizens, justified on the basis of freedom of speech,is hilarious, but it has allowed rich corporations that only exist "in contemplation of law" to finance the rich individuals in political campaigns. Since corporations cannot run for office, the rich individuals connected to the corporate world run for office. Politics has become a contest of money. Money should circulate at the bottom, since it is a medium of exchange. The greedy persuit and hoarding of money at the top effects its circulation among the people at the bottom. Stated differently, restricting the circulation of money to the 1% is anti-democratic. A Constitutional government cannot survive under those conditions.

The essential structure and the rationale behind the concept of democracy at the bottom is that it attempts to resolve an age old problem. That age old problem was the so-called relation of the One and the many. The One could never be reconciled to the Many. Historically, governmental systems followed this structure and posited a One at the top and the Many at the bottom. For example,the Chief was ruler of the many in the tribe; the King was the ruler of the subjects at the bottom; the dictator, ruled the people at the bottom, by force. Obviously, these systems worked for awhile, but, I imagine, the people began to notice that the individual at the top was the same as those at the bottom. It seemed that only the top mattered, the bottom was invisible. Of course, each system rationalized its form. Examples; Kingship; it was said the King had two bodies. One ruled by authority from God, the other was human. All the other relations of the top to the bottom were based on force,strength,conquest or blood-line. But, as people became more aware that 'all human beings are in the same boat', the otherwise irreconcilable relation of the top to the bottom began to fall apart. That may have given rise to the justifiable concept of Revolution. It may have also given rise to the First Amendment of the Constitution. People have always wondered, how on earth is any other equal human being entitled to be at the Top? The essential problematic is language and the so-called Linguistic Turn has not made it any easier to formulate. The 'generality' of governing many individuals calls for the use of general linguistic terms. The top cannot be reconciled to the boom except by general linguistic terms. ( Now, here's the problematic) The individuals living at the bottom are each as real and important as any Other individual, including the individual at the top who purports to govern. In other words, the top uses and governs with language, but each individual at the bottom does not correspond to the generalality or specificity of linguistic terms because each individual is real and must be included in any general or specific formulation. Each must be included in a real way. Consequently, the bottom must be alluded to as Number because number includes everything it needs to be itself. Each number is real and must be figured into the computation. That computation figures in the equation called "democracy". Democracy at the bottom includes every individual in a real sense. Hence, the bottom of a triadic form of government is the essential feature of a democratic government. Without a bottom we cannot have a top; hell, without a bottom who needs a top.

Triadic government is the same as three-branch government. Its the same as Constitutional government,but the term triadic is a more 'geometric' formulation that allows a better perception of the necessary connections between the parts of its triadic nature. Basically, its a perception of the underlying form of Constitutional government. If Constitutional government is perceived as triadic, every part of the triad must function in order to hold and retain its nature. In such a perception, it is obvious that the bottom is the most important part of the triad. Without a bottom, the other parts of the triad cannot retain or support its geometric nature. Its the bottom, not the top,that makes government democratic. The bottom is where the people reside.The top can be called 'democratic', but the bottom constitutes the real democracy. A top without a bottom would be similar to a dictatorship or a kingdom. In those forms the bottom i.e. the people, don't have a say-so in the government. In a democracy, the bottom determines the character of the government. The underlying form of democratic government is set forth in a Constitution. The Top is the Executive Branch, the Bottom should be represented by the Legislative Branch and the sides are the Judicial branch. The sides should interpret the Constitution in an objective manner i.e. free from Party -loyalty. The Legislative should represent the people, not the Party. Although different parties have different views; they all claim to be democratic. So why are the end results of the alleged differences so un-democratic? The answer is the multi-ordinality and variability of language and the greedy persuit of political power. Of course, language is essential and it has its problems, but politicians take advantage of the variability of meaning to befuddle the bottom; and this is done intentionally. If we view the underlying form as triadic, we can see that its not a question of Party-loyalty but a question of people-loyalty. Neither is it a question of the 1%, its a question of the 100%. People matter.Each individual human being constitutes the bottom and each must be considered in the equation called "democracy". If one individual is left out, the equation fails. That's not good mathmatics and that's not good democratic government. If we view all governments as triadic, we may be able to circumvent some of the inaccracies and mis-uses of language by politics. If the top doesn't do its job; if the sides don't do their job; and if the legislators don't do their job, the bottom ,by far, outnumbers the others and are under the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment.

When is a Presidential debate not a debate? Answer: When there is a Commission on Presidential Debates. How on earth can two people debate when they are given guidelines within which they must stay and the subject matters to be debated? Thats not a debate; thats a show! Debates have become institutionalized to the point that they have lost their connecton to the real parties engaging in the debate. They have become fabrications. This is one of the problems that arise when I say the Top must use language to communicate with the real people at the bottom. Political language has been taken over by advertising language. Clinton rightly said in measuring the success of his particular policy, " its arithmetic"; its "mathmatics"- Excellent. I say it differently, I say the whole bottom is number. I say it in that manner, so the reference is inclusive with the particular verbal category being referred too. Number has everything it needs to be number. Nothing is lacking and nothing needs to be added to it. Democracy at the bottom of triadic government is number and every individual must be included. Hence, verbal policy at the Top, to be democratic, must actually reach all the individuals said to be the recipients of the policy. If the verbal formulation is "freedom", the formulation must reach and include each and every number at the bottom in a real way; if, its "equality", that formulation must also reach every individual at the bottom in a real way. Both "freedom" and "equality" are universal human values and hence must reach everyone in a democracy. If the verbal formulation is "jobs", the term must reach each and every individual capable of working at the bottom. Thats arithmetic, thats numbers. The bottom of democracy is number, and number doesn't lie. The only way to measure success in a democracy is when the verbal formulation at the top, reaches all the numbers, or individuals, included in that formulation. When a formulation reaches a measure of 1% at the top and 99% at the bottom, something is terribly wrong. If the top can establish guidelines by a commission, not provided for in the Constitution, for debates, the bottom can invoke the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and " peaceably assemble" for "redress of grieviences", or stated differently, the bottom can invoke the Constitutional right to revolution.

Triadic government is not without its problems. The greatest problem is conceiving the form in a manner that relates to all the 'sides' of the triad. The bottom must relate to the top and the top must relate to the bottom and the sides must monitor these relations in a real manner.It is there, where the relations to the complete figure, gives rise to one of the more important problems. The problem is that the top can only relate to the many at the bottom linguistically. To do this, as well as to interpret the Constitution, requires the generality of language-use. That generality 'lumps' the individual into categorical 'exclusion' as a real individual, or at least, to eliminate the individual from a sincere referencial relation.Thats a problem. The individual, as individual, is real, which is not the case when language 'lumps' everyone together into a language-term. No, the individial is not just a linguistic term, he's real and his diurnal life is 'specific', not a generality. A real, concrete individual at the bottom of government, is best referred too as number. Why number and not language? Number and geometry are languages and best encapsulate the unquestionable integrity of its contents. A number is all it can be. It doesn't need anything from outside itself to be itself. What does number mean is never an issue. When you place each individual,in his or her integrity, together in community, you have a democracy. Democracy includes 'everyone', and no individual can be excluded. Like I said in the previous blog, " Its the people stupid". Of course, the problem with journalistic and book references to 'the people' is the simplicity of the formula and the usual responses of the publishing world. In the publishing world, if you are not 'grammatically correct' you cannot be 'politically correct'. Hence, the requirement that you stick to grammatical correctness or not get published. The bottom is not a general term, its a geometric or mathmatical term that includes every individual in his or her complete integrity. The 'top' is language ,the bottom is 'number'.

Obviously, millions of people in a condition of togetherness need something to govern themselves, otherwise chaos would be the rule. That "something" is a Constitution that 'constitutes' all the people or stated differently,a form of government.The Constitution is the written structure of the government,while the form is the underlying spirit of the structure elaborated in the Preamble of the Constitution. If one relies entirely on the linguistic structure of the Constitution, that 'reliance' becomes subject to all the problems of language and the so-called Linguistic turn. Of course, to some extent,that is inevitable, and maybe even necessary. However, that does not mean that we should ignore the underlying spirit of the instrument. To ignore the spirit is to ignore the problems the Founding Fathers had to overcome. The only place where this 'form' could have been expressed in language would be the Preamble. The 'body' contains the structure, the Preamble the purpose of the arrangement. The stated purpose in the Preamble, in contrast with the existing governments of the then existing colonies or states, immediately caused a division into Parties. We still have those divisions and some individuals are still attempting to create 'new' parties. People are still disatisfied with the purpose of the Constitution, which is the union of people. They still harp on 'State power' as constrasted with a 'centralized' power. The problem is that both Parties are wrong. Its not about power, its about people, a'union of people' governed by a triadic form of government. A triadic form of government is a 'union' of people, 'self' organized to function 'by the people' and 'for the people'. It is a government 'of people', not a government of power. Please don't get me wrong, power is necessary to govern. But, that power is given by the Constitution. The greatest 'entitlement' of Constitutional government is the power that the people 'grant' to those who purport to be our leaders. Power, government, duty, service, in a political entity, all comes from the 'bottom'; the union of people. Democracy is 'people rule', not 'power rule' and not 'money rule'. We are fond of saying, "its the economy stupid", I prefer, "its the people stupid". But, the sad fact is we are becoming a 'digital world' where the real human condition is being 'forgotten'. Once we forget ourselves,i.e. our real human condition, we forget democracy. After democracy, God only knows what will become of the real individual. In our condition of togetherness, we can at least live in conditions of well-being, maybe even, happy lives. Individual 'unhappiness' is not good for community. Leaders beware! Some 'individual unhappiness', can lead to individuals asserting their strength in their condition of togetherness. After all, that right is protected by the First Amendment;the right to 'assemble' at the bottom and holler, " Hey!, whats going-on up there?".

There is a great difference between the structure of the Constitution and the form of the Constitution. The structure must be rendered in language to be understood. Structure is an expression of an underlying form that exists in the mind before it is expressed in language. Possibly, one could characterize the term "form" as the spirit of the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution is better expressed in the Preamble as the stated purpose of the Constitution. Why was it written? The end-goal had to have been each and every individual who was to be a participant of the Top as well as the Bottom of a triadic form of government,namely a government of people, by people, and for people. A form of voluntary self-government where there are no "superiors' but, only participants at the top and the bottom of the triad. Of course, the form must be made 'perceptible', so language becomes necessary. Of course, the problem with language is that one language can differ from another and, either language can be confounded by the writer or the speaker. But, the form or the spirit cannot. If different ideological parties start to bicker about governing,we create our own linguistic problems. Government is for people, by people, not some manufactured ideology. Liberal and conservative are just ideological postures that attempts to regidify governing into some fixed institution. Sometimes , its just an excuse to do what you want to do, thats all. Governing involves all the people,not just 'certain' people. When we favor riches, money, Party-loyalty or so-called social status, we are abandoning the bottom, the individual, and when we abandon the bottom, we abandon democracy. Self-government, properly organized, is possible. But, if we abandon democracy, government will self-distruct, because government can only be supported by the bottom. Without a bottom you cannot have a top.

Read an interesting book entitled Occupy the Economy:Challenging Capitalism by Richard Wolff in which a statement is made that "the Occupy Movement has allowed the people to see what the system would rather not want us to see...". That is also the advantage of perceiving Constitutional government as a Triad. We can "see" behind the structure into the underlying form of the Constitution exactly what "the system would rather not want us to see". That simple "seeing" penetrates to the basic triadic nature that underlies the constitution. The distinction between a triadic form of government that requires all sides of the triad to exist in a harmonious manner is preferable to seeing it as an easily confused, linguistic explanation of a government with three branches. Of course, the linguistic structure is important and this statement is not to be interpreted as suggesting that the Constitution needs to be replaced or changed. But, if it is ever changed, the triadic form must be kept intact. The Constitution was crafted in the right manner and it literally constitutes us. I'm only suggesting a manner of perception that tries to circumvent the harmfull effects of "political language" as well as the effects of the Linguistic Turn. Too often, politicians hide behind the variability of meanings in language. By perceiving the triad of government directly in the underlying form that gave rise to its linguistic structure, in which it was crafted, the importance of all the sides of the triad become apparent and we begin to see that the bottom of the triad is the most important part of government because that is what holds up the sides and the top. That is the form implemented by the Founding Fathers. We need to "see" beyond the written structure, which is important, to perceive the underlying form of democratic government; then we can "see" a government of people,by people,and more important,For People. Politically, we are all in this together and no one can be left out of the equation called "democracy". leaders are never entitled to more power than that which is granted by the Constitution and they must understand that they are at the top because of the bottom and not because of some superior human quality. The candidates sometimes speak badly about "entitlements" for the needy and for education, but it is the top that is not entitled to any political power except by virtue of the bottom and the Constitution. The leaders and office holders are not entitled to the respect and courtesy of the bottom because they posses some superior human quality. They are merely elected to do a job and to serve the people. They "work" at the top and they should provide "work" for the bottom. They only have political power for the duration in office. Once out of office ,they can be respected as plain human beings. The bottom keeps triadic nature in motion, the top and the sides merely monitor the structure and are duty-bound to keep it intact. Once we stray from the democratic "motor" at the bottom and switch to a value system of "money", fixated by the 1%, and not being circulated, we're in trouble.

Democracy must be restored to its proper place viz. the bottom of triadic government. A democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We all say, "everybody knows that", and rightfully so. But if we view government as triadic, we can get a better handle on the 'separate' components of government as set out in the Constitution. If we view the top of the triad as just the "executive branch" and attribute power to it, we make a terrible mistake. Of course, the top has power,as it must,but its not an unencumbered power. Its only a power to govern, not power to do as the Top pleases; a power to govern according to the dictates of the Constitution. The power arises from the democratic bottom.The electoral process grants that power for the duration in office. Think about all the powerless ex-presidents and officials that are out of office. Who listens to them? They may live off the "glow" of previous accomplishments, but they're just ordinary human beings, without power. Some may even be nice human beings. Of course, governing according to the Constitution requires some interpretation and that can be problematic because of Party politics. But, that constitutes the triad; a bottom of millions of individuals who elect a president and other officials including the Judicial, to serve in their official and limited capacities. All that grant of power comes from the bottom. Before and after election, officials are just plain human beings, like you and I. The bottom, in their state of togetherness, is strength. The bottom is number, and the equation called "democracy" must include each and everyone at the bottom. If it's not a government of people, by people, and for the people, its not democracy; its not even government. Its individuals devoid of conscience, playing politics and using the "language game" and the "money game" for their own self-interest. Dictators use physical power,so they're easy to identify whereas politicians use social institutions to 'squeeze' in between real democracy. That's subtle. Its unfortunate that politicians can't see that by dividing into Left and Right, they have opened the door to linguistic deception and the persuit of the holy dollar; all at the expense of real human beings, who have been left without jobs, homes and a real wage; real human beings at the bottom. The accumulation of money at the top 1% deconstructs democracy. Its no wonder the Founding Fathers passed the 1st Amendment and allowed for revolutions.

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?