No, I don't.
I do wish to defend the Constitution; I took an oath to do so, and meant it. It was required for me to embark upon my chosen voluntary employment, but contained little that I had not, from my extreme youth, already determined to do. There are more than a couple other people who agree with me in this.
...assuming as I do it no longer has the force of law...
Enough of it survives that the President still felt compelled to campaign for re-election on schedule, and probably would have felt compelled to leave office had the vote count gone the other way. Enough of the Second Amendment survives that the would-be tyrants among us are still talking about so-called "reasonable control" rather than door-to-door SWAT-led confiscation. I could go on, but won't.
This points rather to Natural Law as what to which we must pledge our allegiance.
Please point to where the "Natural Law" is written out and everyone agrees on what it is, reather than being a nebulous construct (Like a recipe for hash) that is whatever a person says it is. For me, "Natural Law" is the "law of the jungle"-- the strong devour the weak.
...pretend to still be an oath taking culture...
Perhaps you pretend. Others, including myself, do not. I dismiss, without malice, the remainder of that paragraph.
First, there has probably never been anything upon which all persons could agree. So, arguments based upon universal agreement are inherently impossible to accomplish and a falsee argument to pursue.
Secondly, natural law is by its origins a philosophical origin rooted in deductive reasoning. The Founding Fathers relied upon a number of works and the practical experience of prior governments such as the Estates General of the Netherlands to implement certain principles of natural law in the development of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions.
It can be argued that natural law is in conflict with ecclesiatical law, feudal law, absolutist monarchial law, and more. Nonetheless, the natural law treatises have been given real world application in the American constitutions with great success. The problem now is discriminating between beneficial natural law and false claims of natural law such as though propounded by the Marxists, socialists, and communists. Remember the author who wrote in the introduction of his book a recognition of Lucifer as his example.