Major Revision:

So . . .

To abolish the cruel traditions of Old World legal precedence, our Founders utilized the formal precedence of Natural Law.  Indeed, as they gathered together to build upon that which they had already inherited as a foundation, they performed a monumental achievement within the Declaration of Independence, the little masterpiece within which they established a whole new Order, a natural law justifying the divorcing of the people out from under the rule of tyranny.  After finishing the formal document, they then signed their names to it holding themselves accountable for their actions under the judgement of God.

Indeed, they established a whole new Order, a formal precedence which, as of today, should be superseding every prior legal precedence.

Our Founding Fathers then set themselves about establishing the U.S. Constitution upon the base of this new established order.  As I pointed out in the last post, the U.S. Constitution isn't just legal documentation in how to institute a new ideal government, but it is also a declaration of the powers of the people within the "Bill of Rights."  As civil rights are our legal rights, a natural right is a formal power as such an inborn entitlement, according to *John Locke, reduced on the physical level all the way to the Soul.

Again, this is why the Supreme court being the most supreme of courts should be restricting itself to what is formal precedence - to what is or is not in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.

As we live by a new order today, the U.S. Congress should be delegated back the responsibility of dealing with the whole new legal precedence originating out from this new order - with the dealing in matters concerning what is or is not constitutional.  In turn, the Supreme Court should be the ones holding Congress to their conscience any time they are deemed to be in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose.

Again, as government has never been nor will it ever be controlled by the implementations of endless laws, holding the conscience of each member under judgement of the Truth is the best that government will ever work.

Also, we should be aware as of today that there exists two kinds of lawyers within these United States:  1)  One is the loyalist legal precedent lawyers who are obedient to the laws of  the Old World tyranny, and 2) the other one is the formal precedent lawyers who are obedient to the new Order established by our Founders within the Declaration of Independence.  Of the latter, they would also be submissive in their understanding of how our "Bill of Rights" within the U.S. Constitution go beyond the acceptance of our legal civil rights to that of a declaration of what are the people's natural inborn empowerment.

Therefore, the U.S. Constitution is neither legal nor formal documentation, but transitional documentation from which the legal interpretation of its primary purpose pertaining to the remarrying the people to the authority of a more perfect Union is wholly dependent upon our prior formal divorce within the Declaration of Independence.

Only the worst kind of drunkard would deny the people their natural rights with the point being it just isn't possible to do so.  To deny the people of what has been so thoughtfully provided to them is tantamount to telling a mother that she isn't to care for her children and a father that he isn't to fend for his family.  Even if one were to kill both the mother and the father dead, the will for them to care for their children and to fend for their family would still live on.  Therefore, from this day on, any government official attempting to strip the people of their natural rights should be viewed as a persecutor of the people.

While our government can strip away our legal civil rights from us, in their doing so, they would be in contempt of our Civil Purpose and would be held to a greater penalty for trying to strip away those formal natural rights in which we are all born empowered with.

Once again, as our legal civil rights developed out from our formal natural rights as defined by John Locke, the "Bill of Rights" within the U.S. Constitution contain both legal civil rights and formal natural rights.

In the way they function today, the Supreme Court is holding up the old laws of tyranny over the efforts of our Founders and the whole new order they declared for us as a natural law, with this being the formal precedence they established for the people.

Again, as the Declaration of Independence is our formal divorce from tyranny, the U.S. Constitution is our legal remarriage to a more perfect Union.  But the formal documentation of our Bill of Rights within the Constitution is also a declaration of the people's empowerment.  When taken together, in establishing a New World order, a whole new legal precedence is established cutting us off from the Old World.

*The enlightened time of John Locke was from 1632 to 1704 meaning that he lived a full generation before the enlightened times of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who endured from 1712 to 1778 and Immanuel Kant's  enduring of 1724 - 1804.  While both Rousseau and Kant were founding fathers of the French Revolution, the latter was also known as the father of epistemology.

Simply put, the cognitive sciences did not exist during the time of John Locke meaning that a natural law literally reduced on the physical level much like DNA not just to the level of the human soul, but, as the ancient Greek philosophers envisioned, all the way to that of the collective Soul.  

Therefore, while our Bill of Rights do provide us with legal civil rights, they provide the people a much greater power as formal natural rights.