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.
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.