The Constitution Article VI, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Presidential Oath of Office under Article VI, Clause 3:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Congressional Oath of Office under Article VI, Clause 3:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

   What I am about to argue is that several of our current legislators are foresworn and have acted against their oaths to protect and defend the constitution, and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of their office. Here's why:

Argument Primus 

   In any reasonable interpretation of the constitutionally required oaths cited above, both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government are swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States. In order to well and faithfully execute their duties, they cannot be reasonably be bound, by oath or deed, to any other person, institution or ideal. Therefore, Senators and Congressmen who, through actions or speech, public or private, take on allegiance to other persons, institutions or ideals are foresworn and have abandoned their Constitutional oaths. They have not borne "true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, because a person cannot faithfully serve two masters, ipso facto.

  Therefore, any legislator who, through speech or action, has declared allegiance to anything or anyone, before or after taking this oath, is not fulfilling their constitutionally sworn oath, again ipso facto. They have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore cannot protect and defend any other person, institution or ideal that is not in direct accordance with that oath. Then they cannot swear fealty, unquestioned support or any other blanket commitment to anyone or anything other than the Constitution. Some of our legislators have done this. They are foresworn and in violation of their oaths.

 Argument Secundus

  If a legislator pre-emptive seeks to avoid prosecution through a Presidential pardon, the this should be considered prima facie evidence that they have knowingly committed a crime. They swore that they were taking the oath "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion". Yet they have knowingly committed a crime and seek to evade the possible consequences of their crimes through channels of political patronage. They are foresworn and in violation of their oath.

Argument Tertius 

Again addressing the "a man cannot serve two masters" concept, legislators are elected by a constituency in a political and social contract that they will represent the best interests of that constituency with all their powers of office and persuasion. Their first responsibility is to their constituency. After all, we elected them to do a specific job for us, not to serve a political party or demagogue. Yet some of our elected officials have demonstrably and publicly done just these things.  If they are not representing their constituencies to the best of their abilities, then they are not "well and faithfully discharg(ing) the duties of the office". They are foresworn and in violation of their oath.

     I ask you to consider if your elected officials are upholding their oaths in the manner the Founding Fathers intended and you should reasonably expect. If so, I hope you voted for them. If not, then I urge you to enter into reasonable discourse by whatever means you find most comfortable and say that you find your elected official(s) in violation of their oaths and why. Say it loud and long, then pause to listen to refutations of your statements, Someone might know something you don't.  But reasonable discourse and holding your public servants accountable is what our democracy was founded upon. You have the right to expect selfless service from your elected officials. Its what you elected them to do and what you are paying them for.