They exist [some enumerated, some not] in the Constitution & its Amendments themselves..."
Its quite apparent, by my next four sentence of that paragraph that their are constitutional principles, as I stated that "those that have been proposed" lack popular acceptance and can not even agreed upon by those who dedicate themselves to the subject. As far as making the point that some of the principles are enumerated in the Constitution, I didn't say they weren't. My reply here was in light of your use of the words "principles of the constitution" and not the Constitution itself. I would say that such a distinction is appropriate as much of what you refer to as "principles of the constitution" is not in the Constitution. Which you also concede.
But they did agree, in principle, that all men have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. - All else follows.
I agree that they agreed with the principle that all men have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I do not agree that all else follows. Especially if all else includes this vague notion of "principles of the constitution."
So? You've made no point.
The point I was making about libertarians, was that even within a particular faction, of a very small party and movement, considerable disagreement can be found over supporting the Constitution or not. Such disagreements could easily be multiplied many many times if we expand the discussion from the Constitution to a broader "principles of the constitution."
Your prior statement that "we are all obligated to support our Constitution as the 'Law of the Land'" as per Article VI," with the now concession that the people are specifically not included, but are still so obligated as that article "does not specify any exclusions," sounds a lot like a judicial activist position to me.
Your statement that it is "logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land," was not supported with argument or explanation. Your merely stating such does not make it so.
Members of the underground railroad throughout the northern states did, not only, not support the laws of the land, they violated such laws as their conscience dictated, in their active role of smuggling run a way slaves to freedom in Canada. So also today, their are people whose conscience dictates that they also can not support the laws of the land. As a member of a jury, I'd convict them of any violation of such laws. But I can not condemn them for not supporting that which they do not believe in or agree with. I for one, am very thankful that our founding fathers also did not come to such a conclusion.
I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply.
I agree that they agreed with the principle that all men have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I do not agree that all else follows. Especially if all else includes this vague notion of "principles of the constitution."
Our Constitutions principles are not "vague" at all. You just imagine them that way because it suits your politics.
________________________________________
You've made no point. -- We do have Constitutional principles that we are all obliged to follow.
The point I was making about libertarians, was that even within a particular faction, of a very small party and movement, considerable disagreement can be found over supporting the Constitution or not.
So what? Every political movement has odd factions.
Such disagreements could easily be multiplied many many times if we expand the discussion from the Constitution to a broader "principles of the constitution."
Your comment does not make a valid counter argument to the issue about our Constitutions principles. -- Try to focus yourself.
Your prior statement that "we are all obligated to support our Constitution as the 'Law of the Land'" as per Article VI," with the now concession that the people are specifically not included, but are still so obligated as that article "does not specify any exclusions," sounds a lot like a judicial activist position to me.
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.
Your statement that it is "logically obvious that everyone in the USA is obligated to support the "Law of the Land," was not supported with argument or explanation. Your merely stating such does not make it so.
Not true. While judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, Article VI does not specify any exclusions. -- Everyone in the USA is subject to laws "made in Pursusance thereof" --- of Constitutional principles.
I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply.
Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old.