TexasCHLforum.com

Trying to look at this objectively. The Constitution included a mechanism for changing it. Heck, even the 2nd Amendment is a result of that built in change process (although that wasn't so much a change as a clarification).

Regardless, I don't think we can say that people are violating their oath to "support and defend" the Constitution when they try to change it. If we go down that path, then every single amendment would have resulted from folks violating their oaths. Since the change process is part of the document, then advocating for an Amendment would actually be supporting the Constitution, IMHO.

Now if someone was to instead try and pass a clearly unconstitutional law, while bypassing the Amendment process, then I think we'd be alot closer to a violation of their oath. And doing something that is clearly unconstitutional by executive order or regulation is another huge step in that direction (bump stock ban, anyone).