The importance of the People in a democracy.

Conceiving democracy as triadic allows the individual to see more clearly the importance of the Bottom. Without a Bottom one cannot have a triad. A triangle or triad reflects that the Bottom supports the Top. In government you cannot have a Top without a Bottom. The Bottom is essential to a Three Branch government and the Top wouldn't exist if there was no Bottom. People existed before governments existed. These issues can be perceived more clearly. It was the people who carved the structure of government. Once these relationships are perceived clearly, the individual can see the importance of the 'Peoples' in the crafting of government. Any individual can see these relations geometrically and this without having to take a 4 hour course in government at the university. In other words, an education is not required to see the importance of the Bottom, or the position of the People, in the governmental structure set forth in the Constitution. The triad simplifies the so-called dilemma of the One and the Many. Actually, there is no dilemma; only a real relation between the One at the Top and the Many at the Bottom. To be sure, the Top is conceived 'abstractly' while the Bottom is seen as real and constituted of each and every real individual, who is Free and Equal. Once each individual understands that s/he is the important aspect of government, s/he will understand that each individual in a 'condition of togetherness' can play a very powerful part in the act of governing. There is strength in numbers. That is the essence of democracy. Of course, government is important also, but only in relation to the duty it has to implement democracy. There are many individuals who become confused from reading the differently 'inclined' newspaper accounts of what is happening in government. Conceiving Three Branch government as a triad helps people determine whether the newspaper account is democratically correct. Its simple; democracy is "for the People"; its for the Bottom.

democracy has its own language.

Every form of government has its own language. The language is always about the particular government and its functions. Democracy also has its language. That language relates to the basic structure delineated in the Constitution. Of course, that language sets out a Three Branch government; the Legislative, the Executive and the judicial. Notice the order. The 'people part' of government is the first Branch. However, the 'not so recent' Linguistic Turn has 'compromised' interpretation. If the Linguistic Turn applies to all 'writings', it must also apply to the Constitution. But, even before the so-called Linguistic Turn, political language was already convoluted, confused, and used metaphorically to refer to political discussions about Parties and policies, Federal power vs. State power, and most importantly, Democracy. Obviously, political language was not taken by surprise by the so-called Linguistic Turn. Nevertheless, the Turn did not help these discussions. In fact it provided a barrier, behind which, most politicians, ably hid. That's precisely why government should also be perceived as a Triadic form. Well, you will say, that sounds like the same thing. But, its not. A Triadic government is perceived clearly as a geometric configuration that does not take anything from the Three Branch concept. In fact, it helps to clearly see the Three Branch concept as a triangle and the 'relation' between the Top and the bottom as a direct connection between the two points. Of course, one also sees the Judicial part, on the side, playing its interpretive function. But, in governing, that function, if its doing its job, must connect the Top and the Bottom. The only way to do that is if the 'interpretive function' applies to the whole bottom or all the People. The 'direct line to the Bottom must be 'expanded' to include the whole bottom of the triad; otherwise, you cannot have a Triad. All the Bottom must be included. This is why the Constitution places the Legislative Branch as the First Branch; then the Executive. We can better see that, because the Triadic form applies to geometry and mathematics and does not rely on 'linguistic meaning'; hence is not effected by the insidious Turn. The essence of Democracy is at the Bottom and everyone must be included.

Triadic forms of government require constant energizing.

A triadic form of government requires constant energizing or constant movement. It cannot be rigid. As difficult as that may seem, that is a must in democracies. Although the democratic form is set out in the Constitution, it is not a rigid form. That is why the essence of democracy is at the Bottom of the Triad, or 'with the people'. The Bottom does not have a 'structure' nor does it have anything that renders it rigid. The Bottom of government is where 'unconstrained life' is experienced by the People. That's also why we have a Republic, and that's why the Bottom has 'Rights'. The Top only governs, the Bottom 'lives'. Since the Top governs and the people at the Bottom are the governed, all, most, or suggested new changes in government should come from the Bottom, or from the Peoples Representatives. As we have said, the structure of the Top of government is set out in the Constitution. Of course, allowances are made for changes by providing time frames for elections. There is a 'rigid' period of time within elections where the People are 'somewhat' helpless; not entirely, nevertheless, People must wait until they can "vote the rascals out". Contrast the rigidity of an Autocracy with the flexibility of a Democracy, and the constant energizing or movement can be better conceptualized. An Autocracy is explosive, and the 'explosion' occurs at the Bottom. A democracy is creative, alive, with constant energizing from the Bottom. The Top must follow Constitutional Law, the Bottom passes 'necessary' laws. These laws allow for the 'full expression' of Life. But, the creative 'energizing and movement' of the Triad must be constant; it cannot atrophy. If the 'integrity' of all sides of the Triad are maintained, we can have a 'real' Democracy. If not, a 'new Egypt' will erupt. Egypt needs to find a basic 'structure' or 'leader' that comes from the People, not the Top, that will satisfy their 'sense' of a 'free' government. It needs a leader that will provide a new government. Until then, constant revolution will not provide 'answers', they need Government. That's why the 'integrity' of the Triad of government must always be equilibrated and in constant motion. No side of a 'happy' Triad must be 'unhappy'.

A democratic government has a theoretical and a practical side.

Every government should have two aspects. One is the theoretical aspect and the other is the practical aspect. However, in a democracy both of these aspects are always functional while in an autocratic government the practical side really doesn't exist. Why is it that autocracy does not have a practical side? Simply, because when the Top governs, it governs and no questions, no choices, no input from the Bottom is available. While, a democracy also governs from the Top but, feedback, choices, and input from the Bottom is available. Of course, if the activity being complained about cannot be stopped, there's always the next election. Theoretically, a democracy has a definite structure where the people at the Bottom elect the Office holders for a certain length of time. The form is Triadic and is set forth in the Constitution. It may not be a perfect government, but the People at the Bottom are in control of the government. The people never lose that control, except for the duration of office, after which someone can be voted out. The structure is fixed and power is clearly defined so as to insure the Freedom and Equality of the individuals at the bottom. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". In other words, all other 'controls' failing the Bottom has a Constitutional right to revolution. Properly organized, the Bottom can flex its muscle by 'coming together' to "petition for redress of grievances". By 'coming together', the People are merely expressing a fundamental basis of government, which is, the real relation that connects the One and the Many. The One governs; the Many are governed; but, the Many never lose the connection by which the Top governs and the means by which the Bottom confers power to govern to the Top. Otherwise, it would not be a democracy. The Top has power, but only because the Bottom confers it.

democracy, being a People government, depends on its leaders.

If democracy is as good as its People, then democracy depends on the People elected to positions of leadership. Actually even those leaders who are elected depend on the Bottom of Triadic government or on the People who elected them. Of course, this is obvious. The question becomes, how do the People control the leaders who govern them. Of course, we know that answer also. In the Executive Branch we lose control for a period of Four years; maybe for Eight years. Likewise, in the Legislative Branch. Some State Judicial posts are also dependent on elections within a certain time frame. The big issue that arises when one contemplates the need for constant 'democratic' activity is that most 'leaders' cannot be replaced, if necessary, until the subsequent election year. Although we have to live with wrong decisions in the selection of leaders, at least we know they can be replaced the next election year. But, how about the Federal Judiciary? They are appointed for life. Also, the person appointing them is a member of a political Party, hence Party ideology kicks in, and hence, we have Party-decisions coming from the Supreme Court that are 'tempered' for a 'long range purpose'. Consider the Supreme Court decision that first held that corporations are 'persons' and the more recent decision in Citizens that extended their fictitious nature into a Constitutional right that includes 'a freedom of speech', which translates into more money for politicians, when everyone knows that they don't even speak. How can the people keep some degree of control over obvious Judicial behavior that is not based on a democratic value system? At first it was thought that Federal Judges needed to be sequestered for a lifetime to stabilize the constant democratic ideology that should emanate from the Court. What happened? Simple! They divided into Parties. Now, the Supreme Court is at 'war' with itself. Do they have coffee together, or is that also a Party function?

Improvement rests with the People and the Statesmen.

If democracy is to be improved, it rests with the Statesmen and with the People. Unfortunately, choosing a knowledgeable Statesmen rests with the People at the Bottom. I say unfortunately because it does not always pan out. Of course, the framework for a democracy has already been given to us; that framework resides within the words and structure of the Constitution. That framework cannot be improved although, its functioning sometimes doesn't work as it should because of the elected individuals driving the 'ship of State'. For example; Jurists who interpret Constitutional terms to fit a Party agenda or jurists who interpret it with a value system that is not democratic. That interpretation can assume an 'economic value system' or a purportedly 'moral value system'. In neither case is the interpretation based on all the people at the Bottom. Hence, if decisions and laws don't apply to everyone, they cannot be democratic. The top of government only governs the People, it does not create them hence cannot demand a certain 'moral' or 'economic' standard of life. Its up to the People to acquire individual morality and to acquire the economic necessities required for living 'in a condition of togetherness'. Government only regulates, by means of law, the 'order' necessary to continue living in 'togetherness'. Its up to the individual to get along with his/her neighbor( or be in violation of law) and its up to government to regulate the interactions of each and every individual at the Bottom(That means everyone). That is done by law. The bottom should be characterized by Number, hence is easily 'countable', which makes government more accountable. No one can be left out and no sector or individual can be favored. If law 'favors' any one sector or individual, it is not Constitutionally legal. Law sets guidelines and parameters for everyone to better live in a 'condition of togetherness'.

How does anyone improve democracy?

How can democracy be improved? Of course, democracy is a political theory that arises from the Constitution. But, if democracy is only as good as the people who practice it, how can the operation of the political system be improved? Those who assume positions of leadership, within a democratic society, must implement a democratic, political, value system in the operation of the system. In other words, they cannot be guided by economic values or values that deviate from the democratic political structure. How about moral values? Democracy is a political ideology and politics cannot incorporate the value system of a morality or of the capitalistic economy. Morality and economics are important, but they do not guide government. Certainly, morality always come into the picture when an individual acts. But, democracy is about democracy and not about morality or economics. Although, these other two systems are conflated within the political, a democracy must follow the political values of a triadic democracy as set forth in the Constitution. Democracy, at its fundamental base, is about governing the freedom and equality of each individual. Democracy is a process and is never fully achieved. Its an on-going activity that continually renews itself. Its not a fixed ideology. However, it always includes all the people at the Bottom of the structure. It's never dependent, on or upon, a particular type of individual, or Party; its a political ideology that is always in activity. It cannot stop, it cannot falter, it must legislate laws, adjudicate activities, and execute actions; all with the consent and participation of all the people. The People must be made aware of the activity at the Top of government, so as to be aware of the 'goings-on' of government. Government cannot function in secret; it cannot function without the consent of the People and it must strive to achieve the maximum degree of freedom and equality for the People at the Bottom. Democracy must inform its people. Why should any of its activities be secret and why should any of its activities be for the benefit of the select few. That would not be democracy, it would be a different form of government.

Democracy is as good as its people

Democracy is as good as its People. How can that be the case? Simply, democracy is a government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the people". OK, but isn't that first sentence a little simplistic? Not really! Consider an Autocratic or Divine structure of government. That government is as good as the person on Top. How can it be otherwise? Of course, that position of power can, and in most cases, is abused. How many 'autocrats' are concerned with the welfare of the people? None! Nevertheless, democracy can also have People problems. Normally, the problematic in a democracy is that the People themselves choose, by the electoral process, who is to govern them. But, how are they educated about the person who wishes to govern them? Usually, the candidate himself or herself, speaks on his, her behalf. There is lots of publicity about the candidate; some is favorable, some unfavorable. The masses have to choose the 'right' person. All candidate come from among the ranks of the People whom the candidate will govern. Usually, they come from the 'moneyed ranks'.(not necessarily the most wealthy group,the 1%, but certainly from a financial 'level of comfort'). How often do the People choose the 'wrong " person? Or, how often are they mis-informed, mal-informed or just plain 'not informed' about the real wishes or goals of the candidate? Who does the, not, mal, or mis- informing? Well ,here's where the Party mentality kicks in. The electoral process is not perfect, but it needs less party devotion. Parties choose candidates and their selection follows the Party platform, which is based on the Party ideology. Party ideologies have many different approaches to the same issue. However, the basic issue in a democracy is the Freedom and Equality of all the people. Of course, its not the only issue, but, if that position is respected by the Party, the Party can claim to be democratic. If not, the Party is only seeking to put one of theirs in a position of power from which the members of the Party can gain. Unfortunately, that is about power. Hence, real democracy is about People. Imperfect as they may be, they are our only hope.

Democracy can be real

Democracy can be real, if it is more than just a word. The word is abstract, but the reality should be real. Of course, I understand that its necessary to use words to organize and establish a government. But, we don't have to allow the government to just remain on the level of words and not on the level of activity. Every word must be made real; experiential. Otherwise ,we are just babbling about political theory. If democracy is a government "of People", "by People", and "for people", it should be obvious that the 'creators' of government and the 'operators' of government are the same People who are to be governed. But, the cycle "of", "by", and "for" must be precise, stable, and inclusive. These are well defined delineations and if a government is trying to undergo changes or to revamp its leadership, it must do so pursuant to the rules of change inherent in the democratic form. There is nothing more clear, that in the democratic form, the originators of change must be the people. Organized political Parties or the Military do not have a say so in this function of change. That would only substitute one organized faction in place of an existing one already in power. That's not a revolution; a revolution begins and ends on the outside of government but from the Bottom; its a 'People' thing, not a different political Party or the organized Army, that starts the process. If its a Political Party on the 'outside', that's just 'sour grapes', if its the Military, it doesn't understand its proper function. An army is never established to govern; its established for a different purpose, and if they are involved in trying to bring about political change,( as an Army) they just don't understand their function. There is no end to mayhem in a wrongfully brought about power struggle. In a democracy, the proper way to create change in an established government is by the People; not a competing Political Party or a Military Unit.

The abstract nature of the word "democracy" is captured in the following sentence.

The abstract nature of the word "democracy" can be captured in a sentence taken from President Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope". I paraphrase, " the problem is between the magnitude of the challenges and the smallness of our politics". Truly, the 'view' from above is always enormous. While the 'view' from below is always very small. The view from the Top is a general abstraction that should apply to the 'span' of the abstraction. While the view from the Bottom is generated in a specific manner, which arises from the trouble area, but should apply to each and every aspect of the general abstraction. There is too much 'wiggle room' between the two views. Nevertheless, 'politics should be tapered to fit the problem and should not leave out any areas of the 'trouble area'. That omission is what renders the politics "small". Even if the linguistic formulations address each specific area, the Parties get too caught up in preferences and selective politics. Hence, the problem may not be between the "magnitude of the problem and the smallness of our politics". The problem may be between the division into Parties and the different perception by each Party. How can both Parties be democratic and yet emphasize different aspects of the same political problem? Could it be that one of the Parties is not as democratic as they claim? If the "magnitude of the problem" is the issue of democracy, that should be simple. There's no room for disagreement. Both Parties need to see that the people at the Bottom who are effected by the problem are the key to its solution. The People are sovereign, period. Parties are too concerned with their own power struggles and pet policies. Hell, they wouldn't have positions of power if it wasn't for the People. Maybe its time for the people to 'assemble' and let them know the People are sovereign. The Top can divide into Parties, but democracy cannot be divided. The word may be an abstraction, but the reality is in the numbers at the Bottom.

The word "Democracy" is just a linguistic abstraction.

An abstraction is only as 'good', 'proper', 'useful' and effective, as its rendition into activity. The word "democracy " is such an abstraction. Of course, it can be called a 'political ideology' or a 'system of government' or a 'form of government'. I, personally, like " the ideology of a form of government". As such, it is effective only to the extent it 'reduces' its linguistic generalizations into real activity. This also applies to its 'specific' linguistic usages. Just because, language makes a 'specific' ( as distinguished from a generalization) reference does not mean that it is, or was, applied in any 'real' specific manner. The first is political mumbo-jumbo the latter is a real, actual application to a real situation. If it's 'mathematical, it will work!! if, it's not just a 'political ideology' or a case of 'politically correct' usage. Language can be made real. Words ( which are always about something other than itself) must 'mean' things, but real democracy is a 'thing', a real thing. So, we must be careful not to be caught in the 'webs' of linguistic usage. Proper language use is particularly important in the understanding that we are a Country established by different races. Of course, I prefer the term a 'Country of many different human beings'. The human condition is the same. The word 'races' calls for distinctions. There are no distinctions in the human race as there are no distinctions in the actual application of democracy. I understand the need for individuals from different races to publish and circulate news and information within its particular linguistic grouping. For example; the recent Blog, Latino Rebels.com by Julio Varela recently given coverage in the magazine entitled PODER. The Blog is striving for 'content' as opposed to just being 'influenced' by Brands, PR, or Advertising. A genuine, democratic goal that can be established, and is being established by other Races with their own publications. The important part of the enterprise is to balance out the inequalities that exist between the two linguistic terms "race" and "Human being". We are all human beings and this Blog stands for the proposition that we are all Free and Equal.

Racism can upend the Justice System

Racism can upend the Justice System because the standards set for judging cases doesn't allow for the possibility or the 'control' of racism. Everyone knows that in a criminal case the standard is a factual finding of guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In a civil case the standard is a factual finding 'by a preponderance of the evidence'. Well, if in a criminal case jurors must 'find' beyond a reasonable doubt and one or several jurors are 'racist' or 'mildly prejudice', the juror is going to lean in the direction of his or her prejudice. Lets face it! Any resulting judgment from that will not be Just. In other words, if a juror cannot establish the existence of a reasonable doubt based on factual findings, that juror will find a reasonable doubt based on 'racist' reasons. If a Nation cannot 'control' racism within its own Justice System, how can it control it on the International sphere? Its ok to have an 'American system of justice', but we must insure that prejudices do not creep into the system. Since the history of America is rife with racial discrimination, its time to start thinking in terms of Human Justice. Its not about American justice, its about Human Justice. It will not be easy, but we have to start somewhere and someone has to start the process. Maybe racism can't be abolished( lets hope that it can) but, it can be abolished in the American Justice System. That would be a beginning. And its not just American, its world wide. Lets stop thinking about the different Races in the World and start thinking about all the human beings in the world. An individuals Race is important to him or her, but it should never be a standard for 'better' or 'superior'. We know what can happen with the 'superior race' phenomena, so why even go there. There's nothing wrong with starting 'small' and going 'large'. After all, we are all in the same boat.

Democracy can escalate its problems by neglecting the human condition.

Democracy can escalate its problems by ignoring the Freedom and Equality of the human condition. Of course, by 'ignoring' I mean that a Nation that neglects the Freedom and Equality of any one of its different, constituting races, is asking for internal problems. Why? People in the world are not alike. The United States was founded by peoples from many different Nations. At the same time, People are all humans no matter what race, color or creed. The United States houses many different races, colors, and creeds and each is entitled to Constitutional protection. In the International sphere, each Nation is different and follows different creeds. In a democracy, all individuals are to be treated equally. The neglect or the ignoring of the freedom and equality of any one individual or race, issues from the Top (which governs the Many at the Bottom inclusively but, abstractly), but, nevertheless, applies at the Bottom (where the millions of people actually live.). The impact of the neglect at the Bottom is not linguistic, its real. It has real human consequences. The Bottom lives a real life and not an abstract life. The bottom will 'feel' the impact of the neglect, hence is allowed to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. When any one human being or race is singled out by the Top for unequal treatment, the Top of organized government is going to experience a revolution. But, keep in mind, the Bottom can 'petition' the government legally or illegally. If it acts illegally, the action will not be effective. But, if it petitions legally, the 'neglect' must be corrected; this, whether the neglect was the result of incompetence or intentional. If the neglect was due to unfair laws, they must be changed or improved. If the neglect was the result of incompetence in carrying out the law or policy, the incompetent individuals must be replaced. Neither unfair laws nor incompetent enforcement of the laws is to be tolerated in a democracy.

The problems of democracy.

The problems of Democracy are the problems of the integrity and sanctity of the individual in its 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, every single Nation or Country in the world is constituted of human individuals. The "condition of togetherness" of each and every Nation or Country is generally perceived as constituting the 'concept of the State' for that particular Nation or Country. The 'State' is a larger 'political entity' housing human individuals in the 'condition of togetherness'. In the old days of the Founding; first 'curiosity', then land, then gold, helped to expand the parameters of the 'early groupings' called 'Colonies'. From there we expanded into the different 'States', then into the 'Nation' and now, thanks again to land, oil, gold, and (this time we add, oil and the internet) even into the International sphere. However, we are now more influenced by the political power housed in the 'larger political entities of togetherness'. (that does not mean they are no longer influential) Now, we are engaging in 'power struggles', in the local as well as the International sphere. Gone, or at least attenuated, is the urge to 'colonize'. That initial urge to 'help and assist' has been replaced with the urge to conquer. Now, the issues are issues of power. How shameful! Nevertheless, our progress into the International sphere has left behind National, State or local issues that also need to be addressed. One important aspect of democracy is the right to speak and the right to select leaders for the States and the Nation, i.e. the right to vote. That right has been attenuated and compromised by re-districting and local laws related to voting procedures. The candidates 'compete' to get the vote by redistricting and sometimes by passing restrictive laws related to voting. Since the Individual has 'progressed' into the International sphere as a result of the Internet, why can't s/he vote by mail or the computer? We take a census, we can determine who is an eligible voter and then determine to either use the mail or the computer to request a vote. Each individual is responsible to vote without having to comply with restrictive conditions at polling places and restrictive laws set by local authorities. We should look into that possibility.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom must be real.

A very important aspect of government is the relation that connects the Top with the Bottom. The usual 'connection' between the Top and the Bottom is linguistic. In many cases its just a lot of empty political talk. That's a huge problem that arises in the Executive branch. Many of the laws and much of the policy implemented by the Top of government remain general, empty, linguistic, political slogans. I do not mean to isolate the linguistic problematic to the Executive branch since the laws are passed in 'linguistic form' by the Legislative Branch and interpreted by 'interpretive practices' by the Judicial Branch. Hence, the Executive Branch implements those policies and laws, but it does not have to apply them merely in 'linguistic' fashion. By this last statement, I mean the application can be direct and can 'touch' the individuals effected and not be merely 'politically correct'. By direct I mean it must 'touch' each and every individual to whom the policy or law applies. It cannot 'carve-out' the application to preferred sectors of the polity. In other words, it cannot merely be a linguistic application, it must apply, in a real way, to each and every individual covered by the statement. For example; the freedom and equality of everyone is an undisputed characteristic of a democracy, hence when freedom and equality are issues covered by policy or law, each and every individual must be assured of his/her freedom and equality in a real manner. This can only be done if the Bottom of democracy is quantified and the actual individuals to whom the statement is applied is actually 'counted' as having individually received these rights or as having been 'touched' by them. Its very difficult to delineate the distinction between 'just a political slogan' and the actuality. Of course, politicians rely on these difficulties to abuse the system. Remember the bombing of Iraq; remember the question, "why are we bombing Iraq?"; remember the answer? "We are bringing them democracy". hell, we were killing lots of innocents! Political slogans can be used to muddy the waters and politicians know that. That abuse exists in all the Three Branches of government. That's why we need Statesmen, not politicians.

Democracy must 'touch' the individual.

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

Party-ideology can be problematic

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

Eves-dropping 'a la package deal'.

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

Life is about democracy

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

democracy is about Life.

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

democracy is about the diurnal

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

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

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

Law is always evolving

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

Media can be destructive towards democracy

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

Government is useless. Government is important.

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

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

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

Freedom and Equality are important

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

Political values vs economic values.

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

A government without People cannot exist.

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

The Bottom must express itself.

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

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

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

governments are artficial constructs

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

Democracy doesn' just happen

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

What is the human condition?

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

The essence of democracy.

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

A real relation between the Top and the Bottom

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

Party loyalty!? Parties separate or divide-up the essence of democracy i.e. they fracture the Bottom of a triadic form of government which is the essential support of the Top of a democratic form of government. The Bottom may have parties but that's only to gather the individuals around the voting booths to support any one candidate. If an individual is a good worker, a good father, mother, a good tax payer, a good supporter of his, her, family, what difference does belonging to one Party or another make? Parties would be ok if they both supported democratic values. Unfortunately, Parties do not support the Constitution as written. In our form of government only the candidates for the Supreme Court are asked if they will support the Constitution before they are selected. This is supposedly to insure objectivity in implementing interpretive practices. (so much for that) Party has no place in Constitutional adjudication. Party loyalty only weakens the underlying form of a democratic government i.e. it weakens a government "for the people". Parties that say "less government" don't know what they are talking about. Equally the case, Parties that say "more government" is not the answer either. Real "less" invites anarchy while real "more" invites autocracy. Surely, power is necessary at the Top of government, but just plain "less" or "more" government is not going to work. Power must be exercised "for the People", if its a democratic form of government. Parties just 'fracture' the unity of the Bottom of government into factions that acquire an "imaginary" feeling of being in control of the political aspects of the social. "Party" divides the People. Democracy unifies the People at the bottom into a "strength" that emphasizes the Freedom and Equality of each individual. The strength of the Bottom is in Numbers. "Strength", in the social and in politics, comes from a political beginning point that celebrates the Freedom and Equality of each individual.

How can political power be confined to the political sphere. A democratic government gets its power from the Bottom or the People. There is no other source for political power. Autocrats don't have power, they use fear and violence to govern. The economy does not house power, it only houses 'buying power', which is not political power. 'Buying power' is merely a medium of exchange that allows for the purchase and ownership of whatever one wants. Buying power is economic power and that is separate from political power. Economic buying power should not be co-mingled with political power. Political power arises from the masses at the bottom, while economic power relates to the profit engine. No amount of economic power should be allowed to 'buy' or contaminate democratic political values. The economy is not democratic and the values of democracy have nothing to do with profits. One way of keeping political power and economic power within their respective domains is to eliminate all economic conditions from the exercise of democratic values required to run for office. The economic status of the individual running for office is not important in a democracy. No individual seeking political office should be hampered by economic demands. Hence, the process by which any individual can participate in a democracy must be purified. Another way to keep the democratic values pure is to eliminate all corporate influences from the political structure. Corporations are legal fictions and as such are not 'persons' nor 'citizens'. They may need protection within the economy but they have no business in the democratic process. Politics needs to purge itself from the 'corporate economy'. This does not mean that politics would be against all matters corporate, only that the corporate economy should not intervene within the democratic value system. One can visualize a healthier economic system without the interference of democratic values and a healthier democratic system without the interference of economic values.

Please understand, the democratic form of government is not a panacea; its not some universal cure-all. The problematic with government, all governments, is that they are 'arrangements' where-by a Top(the locus of power) purports to govern the millions of People at the Bottom. In order for the arrangement to function, the Top must house power. Of course, the Top, in all cases, is also constituted by one or several individuals that are exercising the power. Of course, it can be said that a government is probably as 'good' and 'effective' as the individual at the Top that wields the power. But this, should we make it a requirement, only changes the locus of power from the structure or form of government to the 'nature' of the individual at the Top. This does not work! Consider the Kingdom and autocratic forms. The problematic in the relation of the Power of One over the Many arises from the fact that the One ( at the Top )that rules the Many( at the Bottom) is always equal in his 'humanness' to each of the individuals constituting the Many(at the Bottom). There is never any superior human quality in the One. Nevertheless, it's also true that power can corrupt and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. Unfortunately, the human condition seems unable to wield 'power' in a 'healthy' manner. Hence the necessity, at the time that government is being formed, for the establishment of basic laws to form and structure the government. These laws should define the parameters and limit the exercise of political power. Political power should always take the form of a government of three Branches. One Branch exercises power, the other defines it, and the millions of people legislate the laws through their representatives. These basic laws delineate the parameters of political power. Of course, its at this point that we can renew our statement that democracy is not a panacea, (the fact should be obvious) viz. each of the Branches is occupied by some individual that is equal in his or her humanity as those s/he purports to govern. But, remember, power corrupts.... How can we attenuate this conundrum?

Any form of government can be changed or modified except the democratic form. A government that is established or determined by the Top i.e. from the place that houses power, is instantiated at the Top, defined by the Top and governed by the Top. Hence the source of power determines the forms power will take and the means by which it will enforce its laws or policies. Not so with a democratic form. A democratic form originates at the Bottom where the people reside. It is a government "of People" ( of course, other forms are also governments of People, but in those cases some group or individual acquires power, whether through conquest, fear, or violence, except, maybe, the so-called Divine Right of Kings.) A democracy is also a government "by the People" i.e. by the same People who are going to be governed. All elements in a democracy are important, but the most important is the third element: a government "for the People". Hence, a democracy is a government "of People", "by People" and "for the People". If a government " of People" and "by People" is formed but, if it is not "for the People", it is not a democracy. Even a government that purports to be a democracy; i.e. a government "for the People", but, in fact, is not, that government is a purported democracy, but not a real democracy. A real democracy also has political power at the Top, but its a granted power; a power granted by the electoral process exercised by the People at the Bottom of Triadic government. The Constitution describes a Three Branch form of government. That's a triadic form of government. The essence of any triad is the bottom of the triad because the Bottom supports the Top. Without a bottom there is no need for a Top. Furthermore, the Top does not create its own self and it sure can't create the Bottom. No government ever created you or I.( that's another subject matter) A democratic Government is created by the People and the bottom line is it is created "for the People". A real democracy "of the People" can never be changed. A non-democratic government that does not 'help' its People should be dismantled.

How can a democratic Country be changed? The truth is that it can't. A democratic Country cannot change itself from the Top of government, nor by means of the 'interpretive practices' implemented by the Judicial branch. Neither the Top, nor the Sides of Triadic government can change the nature of democratic government. Why? Its obvious that a government "of People", " by People", and "for People", can only be changed by the People at the Bottom. Hence, any real change in government must originate at the Bottom where the voters are. Of course, the Bottom is constituted by voters who are Constitutionally considered Free and Equal and hence are not about to impose limitations on their Freedom and Equality. Democracy is about the sanctity of the individual and hence voters will not limit access to the polls. Any statement about changes at the Bottom that are made by the Top or the sides of triadic government are at best vacuous. A democracy does not change except by force or political chicanery. Any attempt to change a law with respect to voting rights is an example of political chicanery and only the Top, and/or, the Sides can seek to implement that. The Bottom will never limit its own Right to the polls. Its impossible. To attack a law because 'the Country has changed' is to misunderstand the very basis of democracy. An Autocracy, a Dictatorship, or a Kingship, can make such a statement because in those forms of government, the Top defines the nature of the Country. Not so in a democracy. The Bottom defines the nature of the Country. The laws with respect to voting rights are good descriptions of the history of a Country's past practices. Those practices may be cultural aspects of a Country, but they are not legal aspects. The legal aspects are simply a Country "of People", "by People" and "for People". Hence, a law that reflects a cultural aspect must be kept intact, because it reflects historical practices and sets the foundation of present practices. To remove those laws is to remove the very foundations of the particular law and to open the door to future undemocratic practices. It's a move backwards instead of forward.

If 'conditions of Justice' on the National level are to escalate into the International level, they must be well established on the National level. Otherwise, the escalation into other Nations is not acceptable. It would not be acceptable because it would be more of an encroachment than an escalation of the dignity of the human condition. It is very important that the origins of the escalation into other levels have a method by which to objectively judge the success of the 'conditions of Justice'. Lets face it, economics has no place in this determination. Nor does political ideology, if the ideology is founded solely on linguistic definitions. That's what makes it a different ideology. Never shall the twain meet. When referencing 'the People' in a democracy, we must be very careful how we categorize the particular class of individuals referenced. Of course, the class "all" should not be problematic. Hence, we have to be careful not to 'carve' out certain individuals from the class because that would not be inclusive enough to be democratic. In other words, we must use Number in our category and not a nebulous verbal definition. "All" is all. If we use Number its signification does not change. It's application remains fixed for all time( no pun intended). Of course, other categories are not as easy as the category "all". But, the essential characteristics of a democracy is that it's a Peoples government and that means a government "by" and "for all" the People. The two essential ingredients of a democracy are the Freedom and Equality of each individual. That's one hell of a good beginning point for crafting a viable democracy. Sub-classes may be problematic, but if the two essential aspects of a democracy are kept in mind, the solutions are less problematic than if we use verbal definitions. Hence, we have to configure a methodology for applying democracy by using some kind of algorithm for democracy. Where are the Statesmen?

The sanctity of the human condition has always been the primary reason for forming governments. If it was not for the fact that millions exist in the world, there would be no necessity for governments. It was the People who created government and it was because they saw the need for Law and Order among the millions of People. Truly, we cannot live without government, nor without Law and Order. It was necessary that government be granted the power to govern. This became political power. If it was not for that particular grant of power, no one individual would have political power and everyone would be Free and Equal. The Freedom and Equality of all individuals is a condition of the Natural world. No one human being can be, nor should s/he be, superior to another. The only power in the world is that granted by the people of a political system. Hence, political leaders should govern by Law and Order and should not abuse the power that has been granted to them by the system. Political power is not greater than the Freedom and equality of the individual; the sanctity of the human condition is the paramount consideration. Of course, historically there have been different kinds of government. For example, there was The Divine Right of Kings; there were those who took power by force or conquest; or, those who just rule by brute force or fear. That is not political power; that's plain and arbitrary 'rule'. Government today is government "of People", "by People" and "for people". The most important part is the latter; "for the People". Government is no good, if it does not serve the People. The People are the sole beneficiaries of government, not the 'governors'; they are just doing their 'jobs' and usually only for a short time. The human condition can only survive if it's justly governed on a National level and ,eventually, one hopes, on an International level. Truly, Justice can escalate into the International Sphere, but it must first exist on the National sphere.

Values of Land, Gold, and Oil unified the 'old world' into one vast planetary world. Now, the electro-magnetic spectrum has made the planet more 'intact' and has connected everything closer together. Now, we can communicate on a personal level as well as on a political level. The political level is ideologically different. Can there be consensus and agreement across National political boundaries even if it's just to live together peaceably? Individual political difference and cultural difference can and should be protected even while there is some agreement on some aspects of 'peaceably living together' on the same planet. Its only right that any and all Nations should insist on their individual political and cultural differences and identities. Where, then do we go for some common element to help bring different peoples, different cultures, and different political identities together? It certainly cannot be an economic value. Economic value or capitalism is motored by profits and the struggle to upstage the Other. Capitalism is adversarial from its inception. There can be no economy and no capitalism without competition and competition is just another word for deconstruction. Call it what you like, but competition is just deconstruction on the level of the adversary and the level of the economy. So, is that bad? Absolutely not! Not for the economy. We need healthy competition. But can an individual compete with a huge corporation. Hell no! So, the smaller parts of our economy may still have a healthy competition, but the big corporations, at the top, still control the 'small' at the bottom. Hence we cannot look at the economy to furnish us with some binding values for the unification of the peoples of the world. The problem has to be perceived from the individual perspective. What does the individual human condition possess that is common to it, regardless a Nations political identity and its cultural difference? We have to look for a political system that incorporates into its structure the common values of the human condition. The answer is the democratic form. A government "of People", "by People" and "for People". People are people. Their Freedom and Equality is a universal quality of life that brings together every living human being within all political systems. The Freedom and Equality of each individual is what can unify us into a human race. we cannot be 'governed' by economic values; only by democratic values.

Today, there is less concern with land, gold or oil (although oil its still there and gold has been reduced to a 'collectible') than with the 'digital'. Computers, the Internet, the digital world has shown us that we no longer have our feet on the ground and that our concepts free-float across National boundaries on any one day. ( of course, we have to learn how to 'feet-float' instead of 'free-float) The land areas of the world expanded and connected with other areas and cultures. They made connections where there hadn't been any connections before. The world became larger so that it could later become 'smaller'. We now live in a 'smaller' world; a world connected by the electro-magnetic spectrum. Anyone can now communicate across National boundaries. Before the revolution with the electro-magnetic spectrum, the great motivators were land, gold and oil. From the Westward expansion, to the 'gold rush', then to the 'oil rush', those were reasons to go 'elsewhere'; even to go International. Now, the conditions and reasons for 'expanding' have greatly changed. The 'digital' moves in the 'opposite' direction. It moves to the 'integrity of the human condition'. At the same time it 'opens the door' to communicating with other human conditions. Of course, it also allows for just eliminating the 'Other' by focusing on the creation of weapons of mass-destruction. But, think of the possibility! If we could succeed in communicating the value system of a democracy i.e. the values of Freedom and Equality, how much 'better' we could form (across National boundaries) a "more perfect Union" of People. Of course, its not that simple! I know that! But the digital revolution has opened the door to 'expand' the lives of all human beings. And this process is not limited to politicians and Statesmen. No, all of us can play a part in the process because now, all of us can cross National boundaries with our 'talk'. Now, we can improve our own lives as well as the lives of 'Others'.

First, there was the 'land rush', then there was the 'gold rush', then there was the 'oil rush'; now, the oil rush spills over into the International scene. When the oil rush spilled into the International scene, the persuit of oil became an International issue. No longer did an individual or a Country have to be the 'owners' of the land to justify it's acquisition. Economic 'Value' immediately trumps democracy; the 'desire' for economic 'value' goes outside the National boundaries. In some cases, it lead to war. In contrast, Democratic values are personal values that are inherent in each and every individual. They never 'leave' the individual. The individual can interact with other individuals, even across National boundaries, but the individual always retains his personal integrity and dignity. That dignity is what the Constitution protects and that dignity resides at the Bottom of the democratic structure of government. Equally dignified and sacred, are all the individuals across all National boundaries. Where did it go wrong? Where and when did economic value foreground democratic values. Governments are upside-down. They emphasize economics over personal freedoms and equalities. Governments are more concerned with economic values(money and possessions) and 'weapons of mass destruction' than with democratic values. Yet, its democratic values that 'holds' a Nation together, The Nation also has a dignity and an integrity( or should have)and that integrity is determined by the cohesiveness of its people; not by economic values under the soil. Any government that does not respect, protect, and support the integrity and sacredness of its individuals is slowly, but surely, self-destructing. Lets remember that 'life' and human dignity does not come from government. Government merely has a duty to organize, respect, protect, and support the cohesiveness of human dignity. Otherwise, there would be no need for government.

There is something inherently wrong when a medium of exchange is not used as such. Money is a medium of exchange and if it is to function as it should within a capitalistic economy, it should circulate. The goal of such an economy is to make a "profit" and to provide the essentials for the People at the same time. But, what happens when money is hoarded or kept in the hands of just a few people? Money can be hoarded, in which case, it is kept from circulating. How does this phenomena compare with democracy? Democracy is a government "of People", "by People" and "for People". If money does not circulate, profits suffer and so does providing jobs, wages, homes, etc. "for the People". How can such an economy be brought under some control to insure the 'up-keep' of the social? Well, controlling a Mom & Pop business will not help, but controlling a huge corporate giant will. Mom & Pop businesses are 'people business'. They are run by actual people, whereas a corporate business is a collection of real people operating behind a fictitious entity. The sole purpose for organizing a corporate structure is to increase its 'economic grasp' and to protect the real people behind it. Well, if the structure is a fiction, it obviously cannot reap the rewards awarded by the fiction. But, the real people behind the fiction can reap the rewards. So who, then, benefits? of course, the 'owners' do. If there is to be any control exerted by government, to provide for the social, it seems that government should control corporations and not 'Mom and Pop stores". The 'economy' is using fictions to amass huge profits and either hoarding the profits or keeping profits 'centralized' to increase its size and strive for even greater profits and greater 'hoarding'. For a democracy, its a no-win situation. Its understandable why corporations are said to be 'to big to fail'. But, the dilemma is they are not providing for the 'social'. Why? Is it because they are hoarding all the benefits derived from the corporate structure? If capitalism is about profits, maybe its time to control the use of some of those profits. Example; Corporate tax rates used to be 90%, then reduced to 70%, and now 35%! Why? Its a case of the rich taking care of the rich and the government isn't helping when it changes from the value system of democracy to the value system of profits.

The power that exists at the Top of the triadic structure of government can never give-in to other value systems. The economy exists to create profits, it can never be a substitute for governing in a triadic fashion. Economics is not about governing and hence its value system can never replace government. Government can only be replaced by other governmental forms and that is not going to happen in a governmental form where the people have had a taste of Freedom and Equality. That's why Plutocracy doesn't have a chance in a democracy and that's why other forms are also at a loss. The only way that a 'Plutocracy' can govern is for some individual to hold all the cards(money) of a government. Of course, that assumes that economic values have been substituted for democratic values. In this way, that individual would have all the power. But, If that should happen or if 1% of the populace is hoarding most of the money, it wouldn't be long before the 1% begins to fight against the others within the remaining 1%. Lets face it, the motor for profits 'gone wild' is greed and if greed characterizes the top 1%, it wouldn't be long before the 1% is at war with itself. The same holds for other forms of Autocratic rule. Change from democracy to Plutocracy or Autocracy is not possible. Democratic rule is people rule and the people at the Bottom of triadic government are too many and too strong; especially in a democracy where it is Constitutional to rebel against a 'dis-functional' government. The First Amendment has given the people an 'insight' into their importance in the governmental structure of a real democracy. Consider it carefully; why should the governed have a Constitutional right to revolution? All the People have this Right because it was 'they' who granted the power to exist at the Top of government. 'They' select who 'sits with power' at the Top. Democracy will reign supreme so long as there are a few People at the Bottom. People with money do not have political power; they just have lots of money! ( thanks to democracy).

If the economy, capitalism, corporations and money are becoming the new value system of the social to the extent that government is influenced by it, maybe its time for government to get more involved in the economy, in capitalism, and in re-defining the proper place that money has in politics. By this, I mean its time to redefine the part that the economy, especially corporations, play in the governing process. Corporations are "fictions", yet, they are the largest most efficient producers of profits. At the same time, there are real human beings behind the 'corporate veil'. Corporations were created by government; they were defined by the Supreme Court; and they were afforded protection under the Constitution. Yet, corporations are not real human beings. How can they deserve better treatment than a real human being or how can they work to the detriment of real people? How can government protect the real human beings that lurk behind the corporate veil? How can the Courts continue to enlarge the corporate power base? If Government can pass law that protects it, government can require that they participate in the democratic process. Why not? It was democracy that set them up, why can't they be more democratic? Corporations are 'centers' of economic power while government is the center of political power and political structure. Hence, government encompasses an 'area' larger than the economy. The economy would be meaningless without government. In all probably, it could not exist. Whereas, government could exist with or without the economy. Just because the economy is important to the Nation as a whole, does not mean that the economy can upend the government. The economy must 'contain' its economy and that means some measure of democratic control. If there is no control over certain economic activity, its time we got some. Originally, some measures were enacted into law, but they have since been diffused or 'thinned out'. Laws designed to control corporations have no 'teeth'. Its time for government to get its 'bite' back.