Well, all they would have to do is come to the conclusion that the Constitution as it was originally written in 1776 is no longer adequate, feasible, practical, or appropriate to safeguard and direct modern society...because of many great societal changes in the past 250 years. Thus their higher "duty" to the country would be to get around the Constitution somehow or subvert it if they can't legally change it...or to set about legally changing it...whatever seems most feasible at the time.

There's nothing new about that sort of thing. Old sacred codes (whether political, religious, or legal) in all societies are brought into question as new situations arise.

As for oaths, such as..."I swear to protect and defend the constitution of the United States"...or...."I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this court of law"....or "we will remain together until death do us part"...

In real life people say all those kind of oaths mainly because they are required to by the rituals of some social power system that they are under. They have no choice about it. They can't make the next formal step without doing the ritual! ;-) So they do it. Do you honestly think that everyone who speaks such an oath has given absolutely full thought and consideration to everything that oath implies and is moreover absolutely bound to obey that oath in future, no matter what happens? I sure don't. Has everyone who speaks a solemn oath, and even everyone who really meant it at the time, remained true 100% to what he said as time went by? I bet that 97% of those who have spoken such solemn oaths have later in some way violated or deviated from the specific requirements of the oath.

It's a formality. There are rather few people who are of such unbreakable moral fiber (or such a cumpulsively single-minded nature) that they will go to their deaths to honor the requirements of an oath...specially in western society. Now, if you were to look at Japanese soldiers in the 1940's on the other hand...well, they grew up in a society where honor was more important than life itself, and they died en masse honoring oaths to the Emperor and to their country. That was a different mindset, an almost medieval mindset.

But it's not like that in our society now. People take oaths like they do anything else that they have to do to ascend the next rung on their career ladder. In the case of an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, some will feel the moral depth of that when they say it...others will say it just because they're supposed to...but in either case they will mostly deal with a future situation of crisis more on their gut instincts and best judgement at the time than on the basis of an oath.

I think the neocons' gut instincts and their money-driven philosophy are telling them that the Constitution is an archaic, anachronistic document, one that can no longer effectively serve the country...and that a new path must be taken. I easily understand how someone could come to such a conclusion.

But....I think that if that's what they do think, they're absolutely wrong. What they're really doing is engaging in self-serving wishful thinking. They are supposing that what is good for them (in terms of money, power, and control) must just naturally be the best thing for the world too. That's what most people do most of the time....they normally think what's best for them is best, period. It's how the human ego functions.