Well, both of us can make 'arguments from authority' citing high powered law professors.
Those on my side however, do not want to "eliminate the current Constitution" seeing that they have sworn an oath to support it.
Y'know, you've got SERIOUS problems with logic, basic knowledge of history, and reading comprehension:
1) your "Marbury vs. Madison" argument fails because it is logically impossible for the Constitution to "be repugnant" to itself, which would be the case of any attempt to "judically review" a Constitutional amendment.
2) your "Eighteenth Amendment" argument fails because the case under discussion was the Volstead Act and NOT the Prohibition Amendment (thanks jwalsh07).
3) "I" certainly nowhere said I "want to eliminate the current Constitution". But the fact remains that the people, via their state legislatures, have the LEGAL power to exactly that.
4) it matters not a whit if you have "sworn an oath" to protect the Constitution. If the people, by means of a legally called Constitutional Convention, decide to toss it out and start over from scratch, your "oath" becomes moot, as they will have used the legal Constitutional power reserved to them by that same "old" Constitution. Any action in opposition on your part to impede that process would place you "in rebellion" against that very Constitution.