Initially I see an immediate problem addressing this idea of yours. First off, there are no specifically set out "principles of the constitution." Furthermore, those that have been proposed have no popular acceptance. Even those who dedicate themselves full time to the subject can't agree on principles. The founding fathers couldn't. All of them, in one way or another compromised some of their own positions and finally agreed only to the Constitution. Many quite reluctantly at that.
Now I have known radical anarchist Libertarians who support the Constitution while working for its elimination. And I have known libertarian minarchists who believe in government as an ends, who do not support the Constitution. And all that addresses only libertarians, a small fraction of that part of society concerned with such matters.
As far as conflict between the articles of the Constitution and ones personal beliefs go, I and most all libertarians have lots of them. But most of us believe the best way to resolve those conflicting differences, at this time, is by constitutionally allowable means.
More than once on this thread I see you have posted the words:
We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.
Article VI sets out who is "obligated to support" the Constitution, the people are specifically not included. Thus you are quite wrong regarding Article VI. Go re-read it.
As a Libertarian supporter of the Constitution, I look forward to all the changes and amendments that we will ultimately bring to the Constitution. But those are all for the future, when the people are ready for it. When they are demanding it.
As for now, in my life time, I am very leery of any changes being instituted. I just look forward to seeing our republic remain strong and at least as free as it is now. I also in the immediate sense, look forward to a doubling or possibly tripling of the population of those who understand what libertarianism is and how it would work.
Initially I see an immediate problem addressing this idea of yours. First off, there are no specifically set out "principles of the constitution."
They exist [some enumerated, some not] in the Constitution & its Amendments themselves, as Jon Roland explained.
Furthermore, those that have been proposed have no popular acceptance. Even those who dedicate themselves full time to the subject can't agree on principles. The founding fathers couldn't. All of them, in one way or another compromised some of their own positions and finally agreed only to the Constitution. Many quite reluctantly at that.
But they did agree, in principle, that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. - All else follows.
Now I have known radical anarchist Libertarians who support the Constitution while working for its elimination. And I have known libertarian minarchists who believe in government as an ends, who do not support the Constitution. And all that addresses only libertarians, a small fraction of that part of society concerned with such matters.
So? You've made no point. -- We do have Constitutional principles that we are all obliged to follow.
As far as conflict between the articles of the Constitution and ones personal beliefs go, I and most all libertarians have lots of them. But most of us believe the best way to resolve those conflicting differences, at this time, is by constitutionally allowable means.
Congrats, -- that's just what I've been saying here all along.
More than once on this thread I see you have posted the words:
We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI. -- Indeed I have.
Article VI sets out who is "obligated to support" the Constitution, the people are specifically not included.
Not true. While judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, it does not specify any exclusions.
It's logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land". -- It is not logical that some people are exempt, and can ignore our Constitutions principles.