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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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