What makes the provisions of a constitution something to respect and uphold?

Francis Porretto asks a some very important questions: what makes the Constitution "legitimate" and is it self enforcing?

A constitution is a unique document. It's a popular contract, either explicitly or implicitly given force by the acquiescence of the mass of the people, that sets down the terms under which the actions of a government will be deemed legitimate. If it contains provisions for amendment -- which the overwhelming majority of constitutions do -- those provisions will undoubtedly specify the exact process by which an amendment might excise a part of, or become a part of, the document.

If we leave aside the specific terms of such a document, and all the justifications, whether from Hobbes, Locke, or Pee-Wee Herman, that might be offered for it, we're left with a single stanchion to which to cling: accepted processes.
...
Today, we have a president and a gaggle of federal legislators -- never mind the state and local equivalents -- who disbelieve in constitutional constraints, and who dismiss all considerations of legitimizing process. There's been no uprising yet, partly because so many of us are in shock at the brazenness of the Obama Administration's all-out attack on freedom, the free market, and America's position as the world's guarantor of acceptable international behavior. But one thing leads to another; little violations of agreed-upon processes pave the way for larger and larger ones. When 2012 is upon us, will we have enough spine to resist the Administration's arrogation of the power to rule a candidate unacceptable because of his convictions? Will we be capable of denying ACORN the privilege of counting the votes? Should 2016 find Obama still in office, will we rise up to oppose his quest for a third term?

Unclear. Massively unclear, all of it -- and it will remain dubious and worse for so long as Americans refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of processes over arbitrary claims of power, in particular of constitutional processes and constraints over all bids for and uses of power. On what other basis can anyone strive against the social-fascists now in power? Their Ace-of-trumps argument is "I won," remember? If we can't recur to process requirements to defeat that, what can we do?

Don't delude yourself that any argument about rights or similar abstractions would carry the day. Americans aren't generally interested in such things, except as they might be used to justify some subvention in their favor. Besides, our opponents have their own definitions for "rights:" A right to health care. A right to a job -- or an income. A right to abortion on demand. A right to force their way into some voluntary assembly minded to exclude them. A right not to be frightened or offended. A right to stick their hands into our pockets to fund whatever vague fantasies they might concoct about their "rights." The Bill of Rights is just wastepaper in the hands of the imaginative statist; consider what the courts have done to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and see if you can disagree.

And pray.