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.
Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague. First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles. You are not the walking embodiment of the Constitution and its principles.
Then we have your continual taking statements out of context, often leaving out the key qualifiers of such statements. It quite obvious that you do this so as to make to make it possible to avoid hard considerations and enabling you then to either repeat your self or make sniffling comments to the challenges you could not answer. Your sophistry is not very convincing.
I see that your fondness for repeating your self over and over again has not subsided. As you now demonstrate by repeating that earlier discredited notion that while "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, Article VI does not specify any exclusions." I see that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism. Cowering from that challenge, you immediately put forth the very vague and phony statement that "--Everyone in the USA is subject to laws 'made in Pursusance thereof' --- of Constitutional principles." What ever you want that to mean at some later juncture.
Then as a final quote of me, not taken out of context, that "I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply." Your answer was most enjoyable:
Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old.
You know everyone makes mistakes from time to time, don't get so upset when someone points out one of yours. Life does go on. Enjoy it.