This is how the system of these United States has progressed:

1)  Our Founders declared a new order within the formal document of The Declaration of Independence.

2) Our Founders were then justified in creating the legal documentation of the U.S. Constitution to advance the new order.

3)  *The unofficial American Movement, a process which happened wholly outside of the electoral process, was later established to return the people to the revering of our Founders, to the legal document of the U.S. Constitution they established, and of the formal document of The Declaration of Independence from which within they declared a new order -- our American Civil Purpose.

So, in the past, the people declared their independence, created a constitution, established the American Movement process, seceded from the Union, and fought a civil war.

As many a romantic would like to try, there is no reason to repeat these events - chase our tails around in endless circles so to speak.

The Declaration of Independence should be considered "formal" because our Founders reduced down by utilizing such terms as "one people" and "all men."

The U.S. Constitution then becomes the "legal" clarifications of how to best advance our new order, with this being our Civil Purpose, because of how our Founders were justified under the highest authority (the Truth) in divorcing us out from under the former tyranny.

As our Founders developed a rational government by reducing to one, those within the infancy of the Federal government quickly corrupted this achievement by the development of a "two" party system.

Therefore, against the threat of their bullying us around into thinking otherwise, we should consider government today to be irrational (this is no small matter).  As such, this means no contempt is ever committed against the law for the sake of law alone.

Rather, the only true contempt is any legislative, administrative, and / or judicial motion enacted by government to hinder and stumble up the advancement of our Civil Purpose.

This is why the Supreme Court should shun its present menial task concerning the law and whether such is or is not constitutional, for the far simpler yet much higher duty of judges sitting over what is or is not in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.

*Notice how the development of the "two party" system is not included?