Constitutional Obligations

What is the actual subject here? The federal constitution creates a government of limited powers which, in the mind of its drafters, was intended not to act directly on citizens. It isn't the constitution of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China for this reason, among others, nor is it the Constitution of Idaho. Rights, in the Hohfeldian sense, imply duties. In general, as you say, the US constitutions, state as well as federal, begin from citizen's rights and government's duties. But the legislative powers created by those instruments can and do impose duties on citizens, though not, as you seem repeatedly to propose, the duty to vote.

I think the best route to improvement, then, is clarity about the generality of your argument. Obligations imposed by laws constitutionally made are not different from duties constitutionally imposed, so what is the real point of the argument? If the subject is why our federal constitution should be replaced by one involving different theories of the distinction between "constitution" and "law," that's a worthy subject, but it should not be presented as an interpretation of existing constitutional provisions. If the distinction between plenary state power and limited federal power is no longer relevant in your view, which is certainly a tenable argument, it should be stated and the reasons given.