People living in a 'condition of togetherness' need government. Human beings are first then arises the need for government. Historically, it took a long time for the different forms of government to evolve. A good history book can survey the many transitions. But,its unquestionable that a true democratic form of government came to be the best.Of course, the only way to achieve a true democratic government is with a three-prong approach to governing. And that further assumes that the Top will do its job and that the sides will be impartial in its "interpretive practices" and that the people at the bottom will stay within the confines of law. But, if the Top does not implement Constitutional government and if the sides refuse to interpret the Constitution impartially, why not just turn it over to the people? Hey,its their government. Of course, the Bottom could just invoke their right to "assemble" but, better yet ( since their just too many of them) why not provide them with jobs, just wages, medical care, Social Security, opportunities to own their own home, acquire a savings account,and opportunities to raise a healthy family. And the most important part, stop organizing the economy on the backs of "legal fictions". Those 'fictional persons' are immortal besides they are very stupid, because they can't do anything of themselves. They need a few real human beings at the helm. The only problem is that the human beings 'driving' these "fictions' have to be greedy. (I'm sure, thats a prerequisite.) These 'mythological' fictions don't eat; if it does something illegal, it doesn't go to jail; if it gets economically 'sick', its just dissolved and then immediately enjoys a 'resurrection' of course, with a different name but, (listen carefully) with the same drivers. The economy is a very important part of any Nation and corporations are important parts of the economy. But, if the whole well being of any democratic Nation is built on 'the backs of fictions', what happens to the real basis of government and the economy? That approch alienates the people and keeps the money that should circulate at the bottom, at the top 1%. Why not build an economy on the backs of real human beings, they could use the work and I'm positive that they and their families would be grateful. Anyway, we always select someone from the Bottom to occupy the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Offices of government. Maybe we can be lucky and get a real worker,a real family person, who loves the human condition more than some effete fictional 'person' with a huge economic grasp and who only produces money. We may have such a person. Time will tell. Of course, the Bottom can always exercise its right to 'assemble' and petition the government... .

Why was government established in triadic form? What other forms of government are possible? Well, historically we know about the Divine route, but that didn't work. We also know about the dictator route and that doesn't work either. Why don't these forms work? Thats simple:because there's no divine guidance involved in one and there's no superior human condition to govern in the other. Variations of these two characteristics of superiority also failed. The truth is that the One can never govern the Many. Every human being is free and equal. The only way around that problematic is a three-pronged approach to government. That is why the Constitution of the United States and similar governments in all other parts of the world have proven to be the ideal form. Its simple, those forms just cover all the bases. One branch rules; a representative branch represents all the people; and the third branch uses "interpretive practices" to implement a democratic government 'of people', 'by people' and 'for people'. So, why do we have problems in government? Thats simple also! Because of the unhealthy persuit of political power and the greedy accumulation of money. Power is necessary, but the improper exercise of it, is not. Money also is necessary ,but thats an economic principle, not a political one and money is a medium of exchange and needs to circulate among all the people at the bottom. The greedy accumulation of money is never a political goal. The powerfull in government must be kept within the perimeters of the Constitution. The interpreters of the Constitution must be impartial. The representatives of the people must represent the people and not themselves or lobbyists. So how can we correct all that is wrong with government. The only way is to point out the problem area and to "be heard". Government belongs to the people, nobody else! The First Amendment gives the people the right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grieviances". Thats the Constitutional right to revolution. The people at the bottom have the strength of 'numbers'. In a condition of togetherness, the bottom is stronger than all the power at the Top. But, that right must also be excercized properly. Any Constitution that does not have a First Amendment should get one and then should learn to use it.

The structure of government should be a relatively stable structure. I say "relatively stable" because government is an ever-moving process. Its never inert. It must always be in motion and functioning. Sometime it comes close to stability and sometimes its just moving in the direction of the latest National or International 'crises'. The point is that it always seeks stability. "Unstable times" compel stablization of whatever the crises might be. The question that arises is, "how can a real democratic government achieve stability"? It cannot be stable in the same sense as a dictatorship or Kingdom. Those 'governments' were fixated and the stability was only at the Top. Those 'governments' don't care about the people at the bottom. Stability in a democracy is an achievable state that requires the top to respect the real individuality of the bottom i.e.the people at the bottom. There is no preferential categorizing-in general linguistic terms- when 'applying' democracy. Democracy must have a foundation and that foundation is the real individual at the bottom. Many factors enter the governing of the Many by the One. But, the main criteria is that the language used in governing does not "free-float" at such a high level of abstraction, that it denotes nothing at the concrete bottom. For example: "Why are we in Iraq?" The ans;"we're bringing them democracy". The answer must be a real answer; one that makes contact with the appropriate parts of the bottom. If government is to be democratic, it must include the real people in the act of governing. The Top relates to the Bottom in a real way. No 'free-floating' politicians allowed. It's OK for conversational and didactic purposes, but not for governing. Academically,it can be taught abstractly, but in the real world, governing has to be real.The only way of achieving this is to keep the triadic nature of governing ever in motion. The Top governs; the sides apply "interpretive practices" impartially and constitutionally; and the Bottom obeys the law. In this manner, the One relates efficientlly to the Many at the bottom without encroacing on the freedom and equality of each and every individual that has 'entitled' the Top to the right of exercizing power. The only entitlement in this world is the right of the Top to exercize power. The only reason there's power at the Top is because the law compels it. If law didn't exist, we would all just be free and equal human beings.

Democratic government is a government "of people","by people",and "for people". There is no other form of government that can approach democracy as a functional concept. The triadic form(a reduction of the Constitutional form) is potentially the most democratic form that can exist, provided that the three sides of the triad are constantly kept in a motion that preserves its triadic nature. Any other form would have to assume that the human condition of one or a few individuals, viz. the rulers at the top, are superior to that of the others at the bottom or the sides. That cannot be the case. In a government of humans, all humans are free and equal; unlike the antiquated "Divine Right of Kings", dictatorships, or any government established by force. These latter will never achieve democracy. People must govern themselves, and the only way to posit anyone of its members at the Top, is by a process of election. Of course, many things can go wrong in the electoral process. These problems must be studied, monitored and corrected, but we cannot neglect their different natures. The only way that the Many or millions of people can be governed is where they themselves set out the structure of government and that can only be done with language and in writing. Of course, that can be problematic, but that was what was accomplished at the Constitutional Convention. Nevertheless,that fact does not mean that the Many or "the People" will always be contained or 'captured' in a general linguistic formulation. No, the nature of the top and that of the bottom must always be respected. Instead of just using words to describe democratic activity, we must use something more stable and fixed. This step is required because the bottom is a 'community' of real indidviduals, each having its own individuality and sanctity. Hence, we must use a different language viz. the language of Number. Each is different and hence 'number' and must be included in any 'democratic formulation'. The different nature of the top and the bottom compels a real approach to governing, i.e. it cannot be just 'empty talk'. The bottom 'wants and likes' to hear democratic talk, but it wants real contact; real inclusion and exclusion. Bridging the gap between the One and the Many is not easy, but every 'social' is entitled to it. It has a Right to it. If our leaders are as brilliant as they claim to be, they must figure it out. After all they want power.( which, of course, they are entitled too) But, the top must never forget the people who put them in that position. Difficulties abound,but surely, we, the people, have evolved in our 'democratic thinking' and 'democratic doing' to a level easilly distinguished from a stupid 1% at the top and a 99% at the bottom 'way of thinking'. Also, from an equally stupid position of allowing fictitous entities to participate in elections. That is not democracy, thats pure 'egoism' ( a false center of self-importance that blocks out everyone else). Egoism is very 'undemocratic'.

There are advantages to percieving government as triadic-in-form. One of the advantages is that it helps to accent the relation between the top and the bottom. The relation is real and must be bridged in a real manner. The top is a focal point of power and the bottom is the source of the power attributed to the top. The top houses "power" and that can be described with language, while the nature of the bottom must be expressed in a quantitative manner in order to 'preserve' its democratic nature. Each individual at the bottom is unique and important in the equation called "democracy". Although the term "democracy" is a general linguistic term that can be applied in multi-farious ways, the term is subject to quantification. This quantification allows for a better determination of the democratic nature of the activities being propounded by the top. In other words, the relation between the top and the bottom is real and must be bridged both, linguistically and mathmatically. This more skeletal relation allows the top to 'talk' democratically, but it also compels a real connection between the top and the bottom. The triadic form helps to accentuate the geometric and mathmatical nature of the relation. That is the only way the relation between power and democracy can be maintained. Since each end of the relation, i.e. the Top and the Bottom, is real and must connect with each other, each end of the relation must respect the nature of the 'Other' end. The top must always use language, but it must also relate to the bottom in a real manner, viz. mathmatically. If governing is to be real governing; so must the geometric relation from the top to the people. The top and its attendant power is there only because the bottom established it when it constituted the Nation. The Constitution adds an interpretive function to the relation of the top and the bottom and that helps to describe the connecting relation; i.e. it describes the duties of government and the Rights of the people. That interpretive function, of course, is the Judicial Branch. The Judiciary has a duty to pass judgement on political issues but, it must be impartial to Party politics. Without impartiality in the application of interpretive practices, the Nation is doomed to go round in circles. There is no 'moving forward' in a circle. We must apply the triad to the nature of government.

A triadic form of government that works on a National scale can also work on the International scale. To be sure, there are different physical characteristics, languages, and cultures of the peoples within each separate National government but, the triadic form and structure applied on an international scale would respect each National 'difference' as defining characteristics of each separate Nation. There would be no colonizing nor imposition of value systems by one Nation into the 'other' Nation. Each nation would retain its own identity, its own language and its own culture. The difference in the application of triadic government on the International scale is that International Government would be a government "of Nations", "by Nations" but, "for all the People in the world"; regardless of physical or cultural differences. The same respect that allows for cultural or social difference in the "human condition", within the National government, allows cultural or social 'difference' within the International scale. In such a case, International government would be "of Nations", "by Nations", but, "for all the people". On the International scale, people in the world also need some authority to govern each separate Nation, but on the International scale, government would be "of Nations", "by Nations", however, it would have to be "for the people of the world" or, it wouldn't constitute an International government. The 'democratic' move into the international community compells each Nation to have its own democratic government and, being such, would be free to join the International democratic community. Each Nation in the International democratic community would be governed by its own triadic government and the International government, being triadic also, would hold together the Nations which would, in turn, hold together its own people within the National scale, which also allows them to fit into the democratic International scale. This molds the "peoples" of the world into the bottom of an International triadic government. As we've said,its the bottom which makes triadic government functional and its the bottom of triadic government which gives "strength to "the peoples of the world". The people of the world have a right to form governments and to gather into communities and to be treated with respect by those who are allowed to govern them. There are no superior human beings at the top of any government; there's only public servants. Each separate human being is sacred, whether he or she lives in a Nation or is just "in the world". Every human being ,whether on the National or on the International scale, has a right to his or her life, language,and culture. Each is a free and equal human being within the 'human' community. If government, whether National or International, is not 'serving the people', its time for the people to 'flex their muscles'.

The term "Democracy"is a number word. It is a term that linguistically refers to a form of government, "of people", "by people", and "for people". All the three terms used to describe the form of government are important, because it excludes "the Divine Right of kings" and any "off-shoots" and dictatorships of whatever form. However, the term that stands out in a Democratic form is the term,"for the people". Whatever direction the government takes, it will always be "of people", and "by people". In such a limited application, no further distinction is necessary. But,if the governing is a democratic form of government, and if it's not "for the people", it is not a democracy. Since, the term democracy is a number word, it includes "of people", "by people" and "for people". Democracy refers to the number of individuals at the bottom of tradic government. Triadic government takes the relation of the One and the Many and gives it another relation which forms the triad. That third relation is, in linguistic terms, the Judicial Branch, a branch that must be necessarilly impartial if it is to be a part of government. The Constitution spells out a triadic form of government. The bottom part of triadic government is where the people are. They are the governed in the relation of the One and the Many. But, we said the term "democracy " is a number word, hence the term must include the whole of the bottom in triadic government. This renders any governing that takes place into an equation called "democracy". There is no governing if the equation is not completely present. If the top of government legislates for the benefit and control of the top of government only, it is not governing the bottom, i. e. the people. In such a case, its government taking care of its own self and ignoring the people it should be governing. That is not democratic government because the equation is not even engaged. This can be expressed in many ways; its the top taking care of the top; its the "haves" ignoring the "have-nots"; its the 1% ignoring the 99%; its the 1% creating "fictional persons" to help concentrate all the money at the top; its the substitution of a value system that belongs in the economy into the political system of democracy; Its functionaly and fundamentally, the deconstruction of democracy. Thats why Constituional government must begin to utilize "interpretive practices" that penetrate to the underlying triadic form of democratic government. Words can be multi-ordinal; Numbers cannot. To paraphrase "President" Clinton, " Its mathmatics stupid".

Party loyalty in any branch of government enfeebles the democratic spirit. Democracy is people government, i.e. "of people", "by people", and "for people". which includes everyone. That should mean that if we have two separate parties in a democracy, each with its own separate ideology, then each of the Parties should be persuing different programs but, the separate outcomes would still be democratic. If both programs are democratic,i.e. are "for the people", then what difference would the implementation of either program make? Very little or none, but, does that ever happen? Of course not, the adherence to party loyalty limits the application of the suggested proposal; it limits the application of the democratic spirit. Party loyalty in a democracy should not compromise democracy. But, unfortunately that is not the case. Fidelity to Party weakens the democratic spirit. This applies in all three branches of government. But, if we focus on the Judicial Branch ; a branch that has a Constitutional duty to be impartial; which succumbs to Party ideology, what chance do the people have of getting an impartial decision? Absolutely none. Not only is democracy being enfeebled by Party loyalty, but now even the branch of government which is duty bound to be impartial, has given-in to Party ideology. The judicial branch has facilitated the congestion of money in the top 1%, by allowing "legal fictions" to participate in electoral politics. Money, a medium of exchange that allows for exchanges in the economy, has replaced the democratic spirit. Its sad, but not surprising, that both the Executive and Legislative branches are sometimes overcome by greed and party politics,but when a branch that is chosen on a statement under oath that they will follow Constituional law, plays politics, then our safeguard against abuses of democracy, has been severely compromised. If the Judiciary doesn't adjudicate democracy, there is nothing else in government that can hold the other branches in check. It is necessary to legislate control of the Judicial Branch. The other Branches can engage in politics, but not the Judiciary. If the Judiciary is going to play politics, maybe its time to "occupy" the marble halls of Justice.

Party loyalty in the Judicial Branch is criminal. Its not surprising that the Executive Branch is loyal to Party ideology, but malfeasance can be corrected at the end of the term. The Legislative Branch, instead of representing the People, engages in the same warped sense of loyalty, but that can also be corrected. In spite of the lack of control over human greed and an individuals panting for political power, these malfeasance's can be corrected even though the correction may occur after-the-fact. But, there is no such democratic control over the Judiciary. What happened? Why isn't there some kind of control of the Judicial branch? Could the Founding fathers have assumed that the Courts would always be objective in their interpretive practices? If they did, they were poor judges of human character. Our political history is peppered with unjust, sometimes ridiculous decisions by the so-called Learned Brethern on the Court. There has to be some control over the duty to be impartial in adjudicating Constitutional issues. Thats the only duty they have. They have no other function. They should be required to be impartial and that impartiality should be subject to some kind of oversight every so-many years. Surely, there are some standards by which objectivity can be quantified and measured. Government is "of people", "by people" and "for people". That doesn't seem to be very difficult. There is no room for Party-politics in the Judicial Branch. If there is no democratic control over the Judicial Branch, these "life-long", Party-decisions become fixed and cemented into the political fabric. If a Justice is not being impartial, he or she has to be removed. If not, democracy will deconstruct. No Justice and no Chief Justice has a right to a life-long tenure when he or she is playing politics. All this at the expense of the people for whom the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution. I've said, the Bottom is Number. Every-one has to be included in the equation we call "democracy". We do not live in a Plutocracy; we live in a Democracy. The bottom of triadic government is necessary for a democracy. If the Judicial Branch is not doing its job, its time for the people at the bottom to " peaceably... assemble...and petition...for a redress of grievances".

Democracy is about people. People; every kind, male, female,young, old, type,race, or color. There are no distinctions in the human condition. Government is about governing Many people. Government is the One and the people are the Many. If a government is purportedly democratic, it should be about the people, not about power, possesions or self-importance. Every Leader of a government, regardless its type, is an individual. How can it be otherwise? There are no superior 'human conditions'. If you're a human being, your like every other human being, whether your at the top or at the bottom. Every one is equally human. Many polititians immediately make distinctions between 'intelligence', 'social wealth', 'culture', physiology, etc. to make the furthur political distinction that we are not the same; that we are different. We are not talking about difference, we are talking about political equality. They do not understand the term "equality" nor the term "political equality". The Many at the bottom of triadic government is the so-called Many. The 'Many' is as much a numerical term as is the term 'equals'. Thats why in triadic government, the Top is the One and the Bottom is the Many. The Bottom is Number, and each number has within itself everything it needs to be that number. Number doesn't need anything from outside itself to be what it is. So is each and every human being in the governments of the world. Democracy is a social equation where every individual is equal and every number most be included in the equation called 'democracy' in order for the equation to be correct; otherwise its not democracy. Democracy must include every individual in the Nation; the World Government for that matter. The Top of every government is a social construct an is filled with someone from the bottom. Although, the Top of government is equally human, it has been given power by the bottom; otherwise he or she could not rule. Thats the only "entitlement " in the world; it goes from the bottom to the top. What comes from the top to the bottom should be democracy and that includes, "human rights", privileges, benefits of government, opportunities and a sufficient circulation of a 'medium of economic exchange' that creates, jobs, ownership of homes, wages, and other economic benefits. Otherwise, why have government?

Triadic government is Three Branch government; is Constitutional government. What I am suggesting is no different from Constitutional government, as we know it. The suggested new perception of a Triadic nature merely helps everyone see more clearly the underlying geometric form of Constitutional government. In its triadic form, we can see how the bottom of the triad viz. the people, supports the top and the sides. The bottom is the 'Many' and they understand that they need a 'One' or top to govern them. But, the 'Many' create the political position that exist at the top. The Founding Fathers created the Constitutional parameters of the bottom, the top and the judicial. The top has power, the sides have judgement and the bottom has strength in numbers. The bottom is Number. The top of government has power because the bottom has given it power. There is no other reason for the existence of political power. Without a bottom,i.e. without people, there is no need for a top. Any individual elevated to the political position of the Top is no more human or superior than any one else at the bottom. Every individual at the top comes from the bottom. In a democracy everyone is Free and Equal. In a democracy everyone has duties and obligations. No exceptions. Every government should function as a triad. Power,Judgement and Strength working harmoniously determine the solidarity of a Nation. Money does not determine political power. Money should circulate in the economy and has no place in government. Power can only be excercised Constitutionally, Judgement can only be impartial and strength is in Number. The bottom has strength in numbers because if the top is not Constitutional, and the sides are not being impartial, millions and millions of people have the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances". That, is the right to revolution.

If we lived in a Plutocracy, our leader would probably be thinking, " Democracy is dead, long live greedy accumulation"; an exclamation that reveals the 'spirit' of that which has come to rule our lives. Its personally disabling to realize,that such an artificial means established to make possible the exchange of commodities, rules our diurnal existence; but to have allowed it to dominate the political field and to overthrow the principles of democracy constitutes absolute negligence.Of course, we have been neglegent in other respects also; like creating "legal fictions" to monopolize the creation of 'money as a social value'. In spite of the social necessity for such a creation, there should have evolved commensurate levels of control. Of course, we are all aware of the antitrust laws that were passed to control potential abuse by our "legal fictions", but we are also aware that they are being 'Powellized'. Slowly, the holy dollar ascends to the pinnacle of power. The statutory control to prevent abuse by corporations, which obviously hasn't worked, could also be applied by regulating the provisions in the Articles of Incorporation of economic corporations. Corporations don't have to be immortal! Since they're legal fictions, their existence can be controlled by limiting their existence in the same way that human existence is limited. Why should a legal fiction have a "perpetual" existence when a real human being doesn't. Maybe, a requirement that follows the statistics of the Life Expectancy tables? For example, a requirement to renew corporate charters, every so often, could require a 'history ' of compliance with the antitrust provisions, as well as some contribution to the democratic spirit of society. The latter is the most important aspect because if human beings are expected to 'behave' democratically, why not also a legal fiction? The only reason for such a provision is the failure of the Courts to be impartial.The so-called Party loyalty enshrined in Court decisions by Judges is harmful to the democratic spirit. Neither Party has a right to enshrine Party ideology into Court decisions. That is not the function of a Judiciary. That deconstructs democracy. Court decisions should not be 'politically devious': they should impartially interpret the Constitution persuant to the underlying triadic form of a democracy, a government "of people", "by people" and "for people".

Its not the Social Contract, per se, that is in danger, its democratic government and the principles underlying the concept of democracy. In a democracy every individual is politically free and equal. Those two universal human qualities refer to the sanctity of the human condition. That's what is in danger: and the underlying sadness is that it is being overthrown by an economic principle; not even a better human principle nor a superior political principle. That economic principle is the medium of exchange used in the social. Obviously, money is a medium of exchange that must circulate within a wholesome political body. If we contain this circulation, the political body can become stagnant. The social will deconstruct. When the circulation of money in the form of personal income, personal ownership of property or, corporate income and corporate ownership of property, is restricted to the top 1%, there is no circulation of money in the form of jobs, wages, benefits or,generally speaking, as social and economic opportunities among the 99% at the bottom. Economic greed usurps democracy. Keep in mind, economic greed is the results of an economic principle gone oppressive. Its not even a political principle, much less a democratic principle. Economics must be kept out of politics. The greatest beneficiary of the economy are the corporations and they are not even human. They are legal fictions. How do we know that? Because the so-called 'learned Justices of the Supreme Court' said so! Ha! we've gone full circle to the so-called just, impartial arbitrars of democracy. If we can't get impartiality from the Court, from where are we going to get it? The Executive can be fair and democratic if, he or she chooses to be, if not, we have to live with him or her for at least 4 years. The legislatures function in a representative capacity but more often 'represent' their own self-interests or some lobbyists. The Judiciary is the only branch of government that has a duty to be impartial. They must develope interpretive practices that protect the democratic principles of a democracy as set out in the Constitution: "We the People...". That first phrase in the Constitution already excludes corporate fictions. Corporations are not counted in the census because they are fictions. The last place for Party politics in our democratic government is in the Judiciary. The Courts are not the place for political games. If they want to play politics they should run for office, not the Judiciary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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