The Linguistic Turn and Number

The best way to circumvent the harmful effects of the Linguistic Turn in government is to view Constitutional government in triadic form and the Bottom of government as Number. This new manner of referencing Constitutional government does not take away anything from the Constitutional description of Three Branch government. It merely allows us to have a different perception of government, viz. in quantifiable terms. Its still the same government. Since language, even democratic language, can be 'twisted' to the point of absurdity, its best to quantify our already existing terms. Linguistically, when we say everyone is free and equal, in politically correct language, the terms used are hollow; do not require 'application'; and can be easily circumvented. Politicians say, "of course everyone is free and equal" and then proceed to follow their own 'selfish' and 'party-politics' agendas. All politics is a 'representational' activity. It should not be selfish and it should not be a 'party politics'. In a democracy, it should be democratic. Using the language of Number, allows all numerical 'references' to actually be counted. Since democratic government is a 'real' relation between the Top and the Bottom of the government triad, a quantifiable equation is possible to determine the effectiveness of government policy and Law. Obviously, its not, and can never be perfect. But, its more manageable. The reason for that is that the convolutions of the Linguistic Turn do not apply to Number. Number is also a 'language'; its a quantifiable language that can not be distorted, or 'confused', as can, language terms intended to convey only 'meaning'. Of course, political language will continue to be used, but when it comes to 'installing' a democratic policy, the 'language' of Numbers do not lie. "Look at the Numbers stupid."

The Bottom of a democracy is 'Number'

Although the Bottom of a democracy is to be considered as Number, the Bottom never loses its 'humanity'. This means that each and every individual at the Bottom, regardless his/her race ,color, creed or economic conditions, never loses his/her 'humanity'. The individual is sacred in a democracy and must be included or excluded in all democratic laws and policies emanating from the Top of government. Categorizing the Bottom as Number merely provides a tool for the enumeration of 'inclusions' or 'exclusions' of democratic policy or law. In this manner, the effectiveness of a law or policy can be established by merely counting the number of individuals to whom the policy applies. If any one individual is left out of the computation of a democratic policy, for whatever reasons, that individual is being discriminated against by government. Democracy applies to each and every human individual within the social. This automatically excludes corporations because they are not natural 'persons'. Even though the Judicial Branch treats them as 'persons' within the Constitutional framework of the social, there 'personhood' does not extend to the natural rights of the human condition protected by the Constitution. The corporate structure is a creature of the economy, not of the social and hence the protection it enjoys is merely economic, not natural. The consolidation of economic activity is protected because it gives strength to the economy by protecting the artificial nature of the corporation and by increasing and consolidating its productivity. But, the corporation was never meant to be anything more than an economic institution. It is not a 'political person' and was never intended to be considered as a 'real' human being, so why expand its Constitutional rights. The human individual is sacred and deserves Constitutional protection, but the corporation is not sacred; its a "legal fiction" and deserves to be treated as a fiction necessary to consolidate economic activity; but not to participate in politics; that's surrealist.

The human condition is sacred: Institutions of all types are necessary.

The only thing sacred in a civilization is the human condition. Institutions of all types become necessary because of the number of human beings that have to live side-by-side, next-to-each-other. Governments, economies, societies, religions, etc. all become necessary institutions because they help 'weld together' the humans who house them. None of these institutions created the human condition: to the contrary, the 'human condition' created the institutions. Hence, no institution can be more important than the human condition. Nevertheless, institutions become necessary because of the complexities that arise from the necessity of humans having to live 'in a condition of togetherness'. Fortunately or unfortunately, the People need government, as they also need institutions that address their physical, economic, social and spiritual needs. But, the most necessary of institutions is that of government. The reason for that is that the 'condition of togetherness' requires governing. 'Isolated' individuals may be able to live alone, but individuals in a 'condition of togetherness' cannot. Any 'condition of togetherness' must have government, and government cannot govern without Law. 'Governing' and 'Law' are basically the same thing. You can't have one without the other. In spite of the absolute necessity of government and Law, the human condition remains 'sacred'. Since government is required to govern a 'condition' it did not create, it must govern democratically. No one individual is more important than the other and governing requires that the Freedom and Equality of each individual, at the Bottom of government, be respected and protected. The One ( at the Top) must respect, protect, and help those( at the Bottom) who have basic needs, in order to survive, in their 'condition of togetherness'. That makes a Nation strong.

Capitalism could work; if the playing field was not so lop-sided.

The problem with capitalism is the lop-sidedness of the 'field'. Early in 'capitalism', the Judiciary saw fit to Constitutionally protect corporations by considering them as 'persons' within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. That may have been necessary and inevitable at the time. However, to continue to add more advantages, like including them under the Speech provisions of the Constitution, is a little too extreme. A corporation is a legal fiction and as such should be treated as a fiction; it cannot have a freedom of speech because it does not speak and because its a 'Legal fiction'. It has been given certain advantages by giving the corporate structure a 'center of gravity' for economic activity to help create a great economy, but how much further can the fictional aspects be taken? To be sure, it effected the concept of competition by individuals. But, to give them the power of contributing to political candidates is absurd. That seems carrying the 'personal fiction' a little too far. Those 'fictions' apply to the abstracted, artificial, fictional entity as a whole, as contrasted to the real individual. The fictions should not be considered as the 'intended' creation of some huge 'real' individual. That's why they are referred too as 'legal fictions'. Of course, the effect has been to solidify their 'huge' economic status and at the same time 'help' their own selves within the 'political field'. That can only result in a 'lopsided activity' that concentrates money among the politicians or Parties who support those new 'creations'. The real individual has a freedom and equality within the National sphere that recognizes the integrity, the dignity, and the uniqueness of the individual human condition. A real individual can incorporate his/her business, but s/he cannot create another human 'person'. What has been created remains an economic "legal fiction". Corporations are economic fictions ( government issue) but, real human beings are not government issue. Humans are real and no one can create another human being by some 'governmental activity'. Only real humans have a Constitutional Freedom and Equality. Corporations acquired protection under the Constitution: now, they should do their part by helping to implement the Freedom and Equality of the individuals at the Bottom. They could help keep jobs local, pay just wages, pay their fair portion of taxes, and never usurp the dignity or the integrity of the human condition.

What's a "strike"?

A "strike" is the legal 'togetherness' allowed by law for the purpose of pointing out some 'inadequacy' to the top of the employer-employee relation. Its really a 'mini-revolution'. It follows the same principle that the Bottom of government follows pursuant to the First Amendment viz. the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance". However, in the case of a strike, the reason usually deals with wages, while in a revolution the reason deals with a 'lack' of democracy. In either case, the Constitution recognizes the Freedom and Equality of the individual to 'assemble' and assert their strength in Numbers. The Bottom of government does not have any power, in the political sense, but it has strength in its 'condition of togetherness'. The Constitution recognizes this and respects the superiority of the Bottom to the Top. The Top of any corporation is the arrangement of a business with a duty to implement a 'structure' that relates to the Bottom of the relation. However, the Top cannot function without a Bottom, viz. the individual that carries out the instructions coming from the Top. The Top reaps 'great rewards' ( money) from its Constitutional status as a 'person', so why deny a fair wage to the individuals who make it possible? On a much larger scale, the strike is a small exemplar of the need to consider the Bottom of government as a Numerical component of the social. There is strength in Numbers, but People need to stop 'talking' and start 'doing'. A strike is a 'doing' and the whole issue becomes, "how many strikers"?, "how many employees are involved"?, " what is their strength"; how will it effect the Top. A 'strike' is a Constitutional Right of employees, as a revolution is a Constitutional Right of the Peoples of a democracy.

Why does democracy work?

The only reason democracy works is the fact that the entire 'form' is dependent on the individual at the Bottom. Without the individual, democracy could not work. The reason for that is that any governmental form, other than a democracy, that originates at the Top and exercises power towards the Bottom, has to, eventually, justify the source of that power. The Divine Right of Kings had a theory about the "Kings two bodies". One body was 'Divine', the other was 'mundane'. The 'mundane' body allowed the King to be just one of the guys; while the 'Divine body' was used to justified the divine source of his power. In other words, he was half human and half Divinity. Furthermore, his 'power' and his 'political position' was inherited. In todays world, the Divine source of power doesn't work. Leaders assume their positions at the Top through inheritance, accident, force, fraud or the ballot box. In a democracy, its the ballot box. The Peoples at the Bottom vote the leaders in. Its not near perfect, but it works and, of course, also gives rise to political shenanigans by opposing political ideologues(Parties). But, the entire process is dependent on the individual, and hence, the vote. Even though imperfect, consider the 'form' of government as a 'whole', i.e. as a political entity. What, or who, is more important in the 'whole'; the political entity or the Individual? The former is abstract; the latter is 'real'. The latter does not have any 'attributed' power like the 'former'. But the individual in a relation of the Top and the Bottom, has his/her dignity and integrity as a human being and has 'strength' in the 'essential condition of togetherness' that they find themselves in. As individuals they, each, is an expression of 'Life', whereas the political entity is an abstraction, malleable, and can be changed; circumstances requiring such. Consider the following; " political entities don't create individuals, individuals create political entities". Democracy, although not perfect, is the most intelligent manner of arranging the relation of the Top and the Bottom.

Democracy is a 'triangle'.

Democracy is triangular in nature. It has three sides, or better yet, Three Branches. The executive is the Branch that governs. The Judicial is the Branch that helps resolve cases and controversies and generally, defines the 'triangular' form of government as 'constituted' in the Constitution. The Legislative is the Branch that 'houses' all the People; its at the Bottom of government and constitutes the essence of democracy. Its the Peoples government; they 'build' it; they elected the office holders; they are the underlying support of the Top. If their was no Bottom, there would be no need for a government or a Top. That's why, its absolutely insane for any political Party to take the political perspective that 'we do not need Central government'. Government is an essential aspect of the 'condition of togetherness' and 'democratic' government is a Constitutional government that has been arranged in the 'form' of Three branches. Of course, most people know this and most people 'talk' democratically, i.e. 'politically correct'. But, 'talk' of democracy is different from 'doing' democracy. Talk is abstract and deals with generalities. Sometimes it deals with 'specifics', but when it does, they are also abstract. Unfortunately, talk can be 'empty' and 'political talk' usually is. But, 'real' democratic talk 'embraces' the activity talked about in an established policy or law, i.e. democratic policy and democratic law. A complexity of 'democratic talk' is the reduction of the policy to the 'level' of the activity at the Bottom. It has to be more than mere talk. it has to be 'real'; it has to function; and it has to 'embrace' the individual at the Bottom in a 'real', concrete manner. That's the only reason to have a government at the Top. And that's the reason why we need more government, not less. Its time to revamp government to include all the People at the Bottom and not just the 1%.

Party loyalty can sink democracy

Party 'stances' can be harmful to real democracy. Although both Parties purport to be democracies, that does not mean that they actually are democratic; that still remains to be demonstrated. But, any Party that is against the involvement of government is 'automatically' non-democratic. The political stance, "the less government the better", can't possibly be based on the Constitution. The political stance, "People are lazy, they need to get out and work" has to be a 'view' "from the top of the Corporate ladder or the 1%". If the government is not involved in 'governing', who will govern us; the 1%, or a 'corporate society? But, of course, this does not mean that the 'opposition Party' is automatically democratic. It too has to demonstrate that it's democratic. But, back to the previous statements. If government is not to be involved in governing, who will serve as 'governor'. Someone has to do it; the millions cannot govern themselves, and that is not a reflection of their 'laziness' or their 'wanting hand-outs'. Its a reflection of their wanting to be properly 'represented' by those in office and who ask only that those in office follow the Constitution. Its also a reflection of the 'dilemma' of the One and the Many. No one individual, and no 'group' of individuals, is a 'superior' human being who has been 'granted' the political authority to govern millions of 'Free and Equal' People( The 'king is dead, long live democracy) Its impossible, we need government, but we need democratic government, and the attitude about "less" government is the same as the 'attitude', "your biting the hand that fed you, remember?". No, democracy is essential and Party leaders need to remember what they learned about democracy in high school. Its not a difficult concept; just, for a bit, forget greed, power, and selfishness. We 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness'.

Competition between the economy and government will never work

Competition between the economy and democratic government is not functional. All democratic governments are structured as a triad and hence require objectivity in all three Branches in order to function as a democracy. The duty of democratic government is laid on each of the three branches and on their proper function in 'political objectivity'. The objective functions of a democracy is proper Representation of all the People; proper 'execution' of the laws by the Executive Branch; proper 'interpretive practices' by the judicial Branch. All three are necessary and no one Branch can do without the other two Branches. However, a successful economy needs only a dialectic i.e. two factors, an investment and a profit. Its purpose and its end result is profits; and no business entity functions for long, when there are no profits. Businesses last only as long as their profits last; whereas democratic government 'lasts' as long as their is 'democracy' i.e. Freedom and Equality of each and every individual.( This excludes corporations because they are not real 'persons'.) Hence, its easy to see where profits can never 'motor' a democracy. A democracy needs Three Branches and furthermore, each of the branches must remain politically 'objective'. By political objectivity, I mean each branch must fully function in a truly 'representative' manner and must perform the duties of the political office. The economy does not need, nor does it want, Objectivity, Justice, Freedom or Equality. It wouldn't be able to function; it needs profits. Whereas, a democracy requires Freedom, Equality, Justice and Objectivity. Democracy can function without profits, but the economy cannot function without profits. Hence, we must find a way not to co-mingle the two principles.

The lopsidedness of our economy was created by government

The present economic 'lopsidedness' cannot be corrected, because those in positions of 'economic advantage' will not give up their 'advantage'. Nevertheless, the economy exists within the 'political parameters' of an acknowledged democracy. Although the economic advantage 'taken' by the few may have been 'unfair' and not 'competitively assumed', the individuals who benefited from the advantage still live within the parameters of a democracy that afforded them the "freedom" and "equality" allowing those fictional entities to increase their profits a thousand fold. But, keep in mind that it was never a real individual who made those profits; it was a "legal fiction". The legal fiction was 'given' certain human attributes that every real human individual knows that it has never possessed. That sole legal move rendered competition between humans in a democracy impossible. The 'lopsidedness' of the economy arises from two factors; the 'profiteers' are fictions, and the real individual can no longer compete against them. Hence, the 'greatest lopsidedness' of the economy was created by law. Since law is established by the government, it can also establish conditions in which 'real individuals' within a democracy can be allowed to actually 'compete', or they can be allowed by law to function as "free" and "equal" individuals, by changing the law, in the economy, to that effect. The Top 1% did not get there by their 'democratic' ingenuity. It was through 'economic ingenuity'; after they received 'help' from the legal system. Sometimes democracy 'hangs' itself by not distinguishing a real human being from a fictional person, or by being influenced by economic "greed". Is it not strange that we can have laws against usury by individuals, and not have laws that can 'balance-out' the unfair economic advantages of the "legal fictions".

Economies began as agrarian, 'crafts', steam, electrical, then computers

All economies began as agrarian; then crafts; then machines( steam, electrical)then assembly lines, and eventually a computerized economy. The early forms of the economy all contributed to the well-being of the Peoples by creating jobs and sustenance. Of course, money was involved then also. But, today the focus has shifted from the saturation of products in the economy to the amount of money that the product can create for its owners. The idea of a 'well balanced' economy changed to how much money any one entrepreneur could acquire. The 'value' system of the economy shifted from the democratic values that allowed it to flourish to the money created by the economy. After that, the economy created 'useless' products only for the sake of profits; money was then hoarded, and hence the economy created tremendous imbalances of economic value. Jobs became unimportant. Notice, none of the preceding effects the political values of democracy. Those values are still intact. But, the mixture and substitution of economic values created a 'class' society of 'haves' and 'have nots'; in other words, a 'non-democratic' society. Corporations and their 'economic grasp' nullified 'healthy' competition in the economy and in some cases, corporations even have more money than government; hence, the contamination of democratic values by economy values, or just plain money. Originally, corporations were protected by government and now they 'run' government. How can a value system of an economy usurp the democratic value system that allowed it to flourish? We still live in a democratic society. Why is the 1% trying to take over the government? The problem is that the individuals that hold public offices are as much enamored with money as are the corporations and their owners. Hence, the corruption of democracy. To be sure, the 'haves' cannot be voted out. But, the individuals in office can. Also, the laws establishing the required by-laws of the corporate charter and the 'term' of its existence should be modified. We pass new laws 'everyday', so lets pass some that require the corporation to be 'more democratic' by requiring them, in exchange for the 'personhood' they get from government, to pay their fair share of all the benefits they reap from being allowed to 'exist' in a democratic society.

Governmental indifference leads to economic inequality

Democratic government is 'motored' by democratic values. The economy is 'motored' by profits. The Top of government is an essential part of a democracy because it provides the 'form' of government. However, the Bottom of democratic government is the essence of democracy. An economy is essential to every political entity, even if its not a democracy. Of course, the reason for that is that each and every human being has to live in the world. That is the case, regardless the ideology, or the political system. However, in a democracy the Top of government sets the parameters of the democratic value system. I refer to political values. Political values are not dependent on economic values, although economic values are dependent on democratic values. Nevertheless, the economy of every Nation is important because it 'provides' sustenance, and a 'life-style', for the Bottom. The 'well-being' of the Peoples of a democracy is greatly determined by the government's attitude to its economy. As a general formulation, the term "the economy" is a general abstraction that refers to a 'level of efficiency, distribution, and accumulation' of 'economic value'. Every government should 'want' to establish a 'well-ordered' economic system. So, why does democratic government remain 'aloof' of the inequalities established by its economic system. Its insane to show that the top 1% 'holds' the majority of the money acquired by 'successful' entrepreneurs. Economies were never intended to be politically 'transformed' into 'Plutocracy' or any other form of government. Economies are not governments; they function within governments, but are not intended to change the nature of the government within which they flourished. That's greed at its worse. A big culprit in the economic imbalances that exist are caused by corporations. Democratic government should have more 'control' over its corporations.

The Triadic form of democracy is delineated at the Top.

The Top of government furnishes the form of democracy while the Bottom of democracy 'lives' and nourishes the spirit of democracy. One cannot exist without the other. Nevertheless, the Bottom is the essence of democracy because it is constituted of millions of individuals who 'grant' the political power of Office. The Top cannot exist without a Bottom and the Bottom cannot exist without government. However, a Top without a correlative Bottom cannot exist as a government of the People. The reason for that is that although a Top may have power, if it does not get it from the Bottom, its not governmental power; it's illegal, unjustifiable power. There can be no justifiable power at the Top, if it does not originate from the entire Bottom. That would not be a government; it would be an 'illegal' usurpation of the Top, taken by force, fraud, or the substitution of some 'economic value' in lieu of a 'democratic value'. That may happen, if the 1% takes over government. Government by a 'few' over the Many at the Bottom based on an 'economic value' would not be a democracy. A plutocratic government is not a government that implements democratic values. That might be an oxymoron, or it's just a plain subjugation of the 'less fortunate' by the 'more fortunate'. The problematic is that democratic government is rule by democratic values not economic values. Once, 'governing' loses its direct connection to all the People at the Bottom, it loses its 'democratic form'. Once the democratic form is lost at the Top, the Bottom will lose its 'democratic spirit'. The end result of that could well lead to plain revolution, and I don't mean, 'justifiable assembly'. "Justifiable assembly" is democratic but in an illegally established government, it can serve as a 'strong' antidote to Plutocracy.

Democracy begins at the Top

Democracy begins at the Top of triadic government. The reason for that is that the theory of democracy provides the framework for the exercise of democracy and a government needs a framework before it can judge 'activity' at the Bottom. The Constitution, which 'constitutes' the Nation, does that. The actual practice of democracy is at the Bottom of government. That is why we have said the essence of democracy is at the Bottom where all the People 'live'. It is just as important that the framework of democratic government, as a constant triadic movement, be retained as is the actual practice, by the People, of 'real' democracy. Both, the 'implementation' and the 'practice' must complement and support each other. The Top is duty bound to implement the basic structure; the Bottom to 'live' it. If the Top fails to implement the basic structure, the Bottom has a Constitutional right to invoke the 'strength' of the First Amendment, to wit; " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Notice, I state the 'strength' of the First Amendment. The reason for that is that the Amendment does not grant 'power'. Only the Top has been granted the power of Office. The Bottom has the 'strength' that comes with the right to 'assemble'. The strength of Numbers. The Top enforces its 'power' through law; the Bottom its strength through 'assembly'. That is a Right, in a proper case, to revolution. That's why law must be Constitutional and 'assembly' peaceful. However, the Judiciary has established a distinction between 'Public' and 'private'. The public sphere is governed by law, hence the government 'controls' assembly and, by that means, can curtail the Constitutional exercise of 'assembly'. No law should curtail the proper exercise of a Constitutional Right.

International problems are many times more complex than National problems.

The International sphere is more complex than the National sphere. Of course, everyone says, "we know that!". But has the issue really been considered. The National involves differences between the political Ideology of the Nation( lets say democracy) and its People. Some differences are resolved with Legislation; new laws, and some with the expression of different opinions, decisions to run for Office, support for those who run for office, and stated more generally, the expression of the Freedom and Equality everyone enjoys. All the 'internal' differences within a democracy and all the attempts to 'right' the 'wrongs' in the political structure can be resolve with a properly functioning Triadic government and a proper expression of real political freedom and real political equality. The former is political and the latter is personal. This is not to say that's easy. However, on the International scene, the differences that exist are both Ideological and Personal. Each Nation has its own ideology. Some are purportedly democratic some are not and, unfortunately, never shall the ideological 'differences' meet. But, the human condition in both spheres is the same. The 'human-ness' in the human condition is the same within an Autocratic government as it is within a Democratic government. The 'Peoples' of all the different ideologies have the same 'humanity'. Human beings are all the 'same'. The 'human condition' can be a unifying force to 'respect' the dignity of all other human conditions on the planet. Humanity is the same and should serve as a 'unifying' medium. Political Ideology separates us and does not treat the 'human condition' as it should. International politics is too busy fighting for advantage on the International sphere too really 'understand' and 'appreciate' the human dignity that exists within its own borders and which it purports to Represent. Truly, human beings that serve in political Offices must not lose sight of their own humanity and the humanity they Represent.

The problematic of democracy is People.

Democracy as a form of government is not perfect, but its the best we can have. The political problems of democracy have to be laid at the feet of the People. The form of government; its triadic nature; the functions of government; are ideally structured and arranged to create a 'real' democracy. However, the People who implement it fall short of fulfilling the expectations of the triadic form; viz. the proper functioning of the Three separate Branches of government. But, all the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the different branches. The People at the bottom who should be reaping the benefits of democracy and who should be 'practicing it' also fall short of 'living' a democratic life. Although individuals are considered free and Equal, many individuals do not actually consider the Other as an equal. In other words, there is too much racial discrimination; economic discrimination; 'class' solidarity, and 'class' discrimination. The individuals who engage in these practices align themselves with the political Party that supports their personal viewpoint. Some, if economically able, even run for Office. The Bottom of government contaminates the Top of government. After all, the People at the Top come from the Bottom. Nevertheless, the Top has a function and anyone occupying a political office is duty bound to carry out those duties. There is absolutely no other reason for occupying a political office. However,the only duty required at the Bottom is to live within the boundaries of law. Of course, that makes racial and economic discrimination easy because it becomes a personal thing. Hence, not all individuals at the Bottom practice the Equality guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. How can People be made to understand that without the 'condition of togetherness', we cannot be expected to survive. We can only survive in a 'condition of togetherness' if we consider each individual forming the condition, an Equal. We have to be better human beings.

All secular governmental structures take the form of a Top and a Bottom.

All secular forms of government have a Top and a Bottom. The Top always governs the Bottom. Religion has a similar structure, but is different because the Top relied on the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The 'Top' is never really defined in any fixed form. However, in secular government, the form is always fixed, even though there are many different ways to 'assume' the position of the Top. In olden days, the 'strongest' ruled; then the 'wise', then the 'King", then the 'inherited throne', etc.. Today, the 'elected' rules. Some forms took the 'Top' by force and ruled or governed by force. Even the elected form can take the Top by fraud. But, the Top only has a 'limited' power and authority. It can govern 'well' or it can govern 'poorly'. The last sentence means with the approval or the disapproval of the Bottom. However, the 'majority' at the Bottom is never the 'entire' Bottom. Too many individuals are left out of the 'democratic equation'. Hence, majority rule can be pretty lop-sided and undemocratic. Its the entire Bottom that must elect and tolerate efficiency or inefficiency. If 'inefficiency; then the Bottom waits till the next election. However, in a real democracy, if the inefficiency is 'severe', or 'egregious', a properly worded Constitution would provide for the 'Right to assemble' and "petition the government for redress of grievances". That is the Constitutional right to revolution and 'covers' the 'egregious misuse' of government power. Only a real democracy has such a provision. Of course, the Top can 'carve' a controlling element on the 'Right to assemble' by dividing the social into the 'Public sphere' and the 'Private sphere'. Laws cover the Public sphere and they can be used as a deterrent to 'assembly'. Nevertheless, a Right, in conformity with the Constitution, should prevail over a State law or a Federal law that is not in conformity with the Constitution.

The political "Top" is different from the religious "Top"

The political 'Top' is a place of honor and respect for the People because it has a 'conferred' power and a 'conferred' authority. But, it gets the power and authority from the political Bottom and that power is Constitutional and secular. Recent issues concerning the place of religion in Constitutional government are being re-visited by the Supreme Court. That's an issue that was properly handled when the First Amendment was passed. Of course, the Amendment confers only a 'freedom of religion' and specific issues will arise and must be resolved as they arise. The basic problematic is that religion, like secular government, is also a relation of the Top and the Bottom. But, there are great differences. The most obvious is the fact that a government "of people", "by People" and "for People", is a "People" government. There is no question as to where the political power to govern is coming from and who is conferring it. In religion, the One, 'at the Top', is a 'Divinity', in whatever form the individual chooses to believe in. In such a case, the One is a 'mystery' or an undefinable source of spiritual power. In such a situation, the One, or the 'Divinity', is never clearly defined. That's why, there are many different religious belief systems; however, the property they all have in common is that they apply to the 'spiritual realm', not the secular realm. Hence, no religious belief system could possibly govern the secular part of life; because the source of spiritual power is never clearly defined. The Middle Ages tried it with the Divine Right of Kings theory of government and they resolved the issue by saying that "the King had two bodies", one was 'secular'; the other 'ecclesiastical'. That didn't work for long. Religious issues belong in the spiritual realm; not the secular realm; even though religious 'warfare' is similar to so-called "class-warfare". Interestingly enough, religious 'warfare' has the same 'form' in religion as "class warfare" has in the secular, or political. In each case, its a 'selected few' telling 'everyone' how to 'believe'; and in the other, telling 'everyone' how to 'live'; one is religious, while the other is secular, but that 'value' system in the secular, is economic, not democratic. Religious values and economic values must not be co-mingled with democratic values.

The political 'responsibility' of the Top is selflessness.

The political responsibility of the Top of government is 'selflessness'. The political responsibility of the Bottom is 'equality'. Since the Top acts in a 'representative' capacity, it must act for the benefit of the Bottom. It should not act otherwise, because the Top has only the power it was given to it by the Bottom, i.e. to act in a representative manner. It cannot, or should not, act selfishly. Unfortunately, policy and law that benefits the Top and the corporate structures are not designed to benefit the Bottom. That would be an 'installation' of an 'economic' value, in lieu of a democratic one. Now, that would be a 'selfish' act that inures to the benefit of selected 'individuals' and the 'political organization' of the Top. The 'individuals', I refer too in the preceding sentence are the 'officials' at the Top and the "fictitious persons" or corporations. The Bottom also has a responsibility and that is to realize that every individual at the Bottom is equal to every other individual at the Bottom, as well as to those who act in a Representative capacity. This 'realization' helps to understand that the 'condition of togetherness' is a 'collective' activity, not an isolated personal one. Although each individual at the Bottom is free and equal and can act and live any way they please, they must also understand they must act within the parameters of law. A 'selfish life' causes a limitation of the democratic spirit and the Bottom is the essence of democracy. The Bottom cannot exist without laws. By the same token, the laws must not dampen the democratic spirit. Laws that 'dampen' the democratic spirit are not 'Just' laws. Unjust laws are laws passed by the Top that impair the 'Freedom' and 'Equality' of the Bottom guaranteed by the Constitution.

The need for 'real' Democratic 'Ideology'.

The heading sounds like an oxymoron. But, that's the only way to 'talk' about 'real' democracy and at the same time, try to 'do' real democracy. The difference between a verbal statement (talking democracy) and a 'doing'( doing democracy) is an 'activity' that actually carries out the verbal generalization into a 'real' specific, program, policy, or law that can be 'counted' or 'measured'. Democratic talk cannot remain 'just talk'. The Bottom does more than 'talk', it actually 'lives' and it should live democratically. The Top does a lot of 'talking', but it should also carry out 'real' programs. Of course, everyone knows that, or at least, everyone says they do. Surely all politicians and statesmen know that. But, why do they continue to 'hide' behind political gibberish. For example; The Top, wanting to correct a mistake created by the complexity of rendering something theoretical into something practical(over which the Top has no control) is excoriated for 'changing his mind' to better achieve the ideal of providing medical care for everyone. The political result is that now the Parties argue over Party members going to the 'other' Party, etc. thereby causing a shift in Party 'loyalty', or 'damaging' Party lines. Why is the political 'concern' focused on the Top instead of the Bottom? I thought democracy was about People solidarity, not about Party solidarity. Do you think the 'warring' Parties are not aware of this distinction. Of course, they are, but they are so concerned with their own personal welfare and political reputations that the People become the 'forgotten' of political 'gibberish'; political 'posturing'; and political 'hypocrisy'. 'Hiding' behind Party lines gives to so-called Party-Politics a certain 'fixity' that it cannot have, if it claims to be a 'real' democratic Party. The complexity of keeping a straight, real, line from the Top to the Bottom is not as easy as some would have it. But, it should not be used by politicians for advantage. If both Parties are 'democratic', why can't they work it out to the benefit of the People.