http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfNicO6sNA
My favorite moment in this you tube commentary by Nader (from a press conference arranged by Ron Paul) is where he shows off the Constitution that he carries in his pocket, as his alternative (to wearing a flag pin) way of expressing patriotism. It's a great way of making a point.

I was reading the Constitution just the other day (imagine that!). I never cease to be amazed at the fact, as I see it, that political discussion today is often based on assumptions about the Constitution that are often crucially and sometimes wildly inaccurate ... and this doesn't just have to do with matters of interpretation. It often has to do with the plain text.

Now, it's true that Habeas Corpus is not explicity guaranteed in the Constitution. Its guarantee is only implied SO STRONGLY that to deny it is absurd. Still, one must acknowledge that a degree of (obvious) interpretation is needed, in order to see the implied guarantee.

Again, the right to privacy is implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution; the Bill of Rights is founded on it and protects it. Yet one must admit that some degree of (obvious) interpretation is required to see that.

Impeachment: the Constitution strongly IMPLIES that removal from office can be based on a variety of improper behaviors, that it is a judment call to be made by Congress. Yet it does take some (obvious) interpretation to see that. It is possible for a Nancy Pelosi to pretend that impeachment can only happen when there is an indictable offense, that impeachment standards and procedures are the same as those in a Court of Law (even though that stance seems to be an infringement by Congress on the Judicial sphere).

On the other side of the coin, supposed constitutional principles are often taken for granted that are speculative to the point of fiction. For example, one often hears today that officers of the government serve "at the pleasure" of the President; well, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. In fact, the Constitution implies the exact opposite - that Congress that establishes the rules for officers, Congress that has ultimate judgement over their conduct and that appointing officers of the government is a sacred duty of the President, for which he or she can be held accountable.

A related example: the Unitary Executive theory is a bizzare and wildly speculative monstrosity. Ironically, it seems to be favored by the so-called 'strict constructionists', even though it is based on - what? - interpretation (indeed, on speculation that chokes credulity to death!)! The Constitution strongly and repeatedly implies that Congress is first amongst equals in our tripartite system, and that Congress' determinations are both alpha and omega for the Executive branch.

Such is the political 'reality' today. Many people ignore interpretations of the Constitution that are obvious and indulge interpretations that are speculative to the point where they really should be called fictions.

But some of the statements we regularly hear, that are supposedly based on the Constitution, can't pass as interpretations, even with the utmost in verbal and logical contortions. They are simply whoppers, belied in plain language by the Constitution itself. I ran across one when I was reading just the other day.
Remember how we kept hearing that the President has the right to fill any vacancies during Congress' recess? That's flat out false. Here's what the Constitution actually says, in black and white (I mean sepia and beige):

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

How is it that routine political 'wisdom' today has replaced the eminently sensible idea that if a vacancy ocurrs while Congress is not in session, the President has the option of filling such a vacancy, with the wildly absurd notion that if the President and Congress don't agree on a nominee, the President can just wait for Congress to adjourn and pop into place anyone he wants? This is just one example of today's accepted 'wisdom' about the Constitution directly contradicting the actual text.

Another example: we've been told that for Congress to make rules about the handling of prisoners infringes on the perogatives of the President as Commander in Chief. Well that too is specifically contradicted in the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To ...make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

On and on it goes. A Constitution that no one seems to read is Dead Letter, isn't it? It's long past time to change that.