I'm getting pretty weary of ignorant (not stupid; there's a big difference) people spouting off about the Constitution when everything they say when they're questioned on the details of said spouting makes it painfully clear they know nothing whatsoever about it.  Former Senate-hopeful Christine O'Donnell gives a good demonstration of this:

 Now, some folks say that  because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in that exact form in the Constitution, that's not what the Founders intended.

Which is, of course, silly.

 The Constitution is a finite document, and obviously can't include every single phrase of every law that would ever be Constitutional from 1789 to the end of time.  Of course it couldn't.  Like the Ten Commandments, it's the framework.  And then it's up to us and the Supreme Court to decide the details, just like it's up to my rabbi (and other rabbis for the last few millenia) to fill in the blanks in the Decalogue.  Otherwise, folks would be saying, "Well, the exact words "don't covet your neighbor's Lexus" don't appear in there; how do we know that the word "anything" in that Commandment applies to his Lexus?  I don't think it does!  What would the ancient Hebrew know about Lexuses, anyway!  And besides, they weren't even speaking English!  If God had wanted me to not covet Lexuses, he would have said so specifically, and in English!"

(N.B.: why do you think the Talmud is so friggin' long?  3000+ years of idiots like me asking rabbis questions like that, which they then argue over and wrote down!) 

Here are a few other places where the folks--generally "tea partiers"--need some help in the learning and comprehension department with regard to the Constitution.  I present it here to assist you in the event you (alas!) get drawn into an argument with one of these folks:

. . . promote the general welfare . . . Right wingers are really big on the phrase right before this one--"provide for the common defense".  God save you if you suggest cutting the military budget to one.  But they blip right past this one.  To me, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other social safety net programs erected over time are "promoting the general welfare."  And if your interlocutor argues with you, ask him or her how they would do it, because after all, it's in the Constitution! Expect a blank stare and lots of mumbling and dissembling. 

I mean, c'mon, Republicans!  It's in the friggin' preamble!  Right up front!  They must have thought it was pretty important, don't you think? 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

(It bums me that this is called "The Establishment Clause," because it should really be called "The Religion Clause".  But what are you going to do?) 

This is so straightforward it's astonishing to me how much it gets mixed up.  Despite the constant bleats of the religious right, we are not a "Christian Nation".  (And I do wish they would stop lumping us Jews in with them by saying "Judeo-Christian", but that's a whole 'nother post.)  Putting the Ten Commandments up in a public building without posting something from Koran, the Hindu holy writings, a few Buddhist quotes, a chunk of the Code of Hammurabi, and any other active religion, is an attempt to "respect an establishment of religion."  How hard is that to understand?  It's simple:  in the public sphere, keep your friggin' religion to yourself.  Why is that so hard?

I know a lot of Christians want to proselytize.  I think proselytizing is inherently obnoxious, but I understand their desire.  But jeez, can't you limit yourself to the private sphere?  Go bother people at the bank or the grocery store or something; why do you have to insert your religion at our public buildings and institutions?  It's nuts.  And unConstitutional. 

And similarly, no one is allowed to legally limit your religion.  Period.  So worries about a "war on Christmas," or that Christians are "under siege," and other worries of that nature, are nothing more than silly nonsense. 

Finally, righties are dead wrong:  freedom of religion does also mean freedom from religion.   If the way I "exercise my right" to religion is by not having one, that's my right!  In the Constitution!  I mean, there it is; read it, you doofs!

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ask yourself:  with 100,000 cops on the street, a standing army in the hundreds of thousands, a military that cost more than the entire rest of the world's defense budges combined, is "a well-regulated militia" necessary for the security of our free state?  Obviously not.

The second part of the phrase is modified by the first part, right-wingers.  And since we don't currently need a well-regulated militia, your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed.  Sorry to bum you out, but that's what it says.

Does it say the government can take away all your guns?  It does not.
Does it say you can keep as many guns as you want?  It does not.
Does it say the government can't pass limits on how many and what type of guns citizens may own.  It does not!
Does it say that if you start disagreeing with the direction of the country, you can form a militia and dispute the lawfully-elected government of the state?  It most assuredly does not. 

Right-wingers want to ignore the first part of that amendment.  But it's there, like it or not.   Sorry, guys.  It's plain English; you might consider reading it.

I might also add that the Constitution is neither sacred, nor perfect; if it was, it wouldn't be possible to amend it, and it wouldn't have one amendment  (21st) that cancels out another amendment (18th).  Not to mention the three-fifths compromise.

So right-wingers:  if you're going to fall back on the Constitution for your arguments, better read it first.  Seriously.  Because it's pretty clear that you are just spouting talking points, and it sounds pretty silly.