Where In the Constitution Do You Find the Right to...?

I had a different post in mind, but after seeing this video I felt the need to express some frustration.

A common refrain heard from tea-party types is "Where in the Constitution do you find the right to [enter policy issue here]?", most recently health care but not limited to that. Of course, if someone actually tries to provide an answer to that question, they are told that it's only their interpretation of the Constitution, that's not what it actually means, and that in fact the government has no right to that policy issue. (Can I just say health care from now on?) But this is ridiculous. This question could be asked, without acceptable answer, about almost anything the government has done. Off the top of my head:

-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to form a national bank? (Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Randolph thought there was no such right, but Alexander Hamilton and some guy named Madison thought there was) [For Madison, it was in the form of the Second Bank of the US, for Hamilton it was the First]
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to treat truth as a defense against libel? (The Zenger trial preceded the Constitution)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to treat actual malice as a requirement for public officials to sue for defamation? (New York Times vs. Sullivan 1964)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to purchase the territories of Louisiana from France? (Thomas Jefferson was against this, but President Jefferson was for it)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right for judicial review? (Marbury vs. Madison, and just about everything after that)

There are obviously more. I wanted a couple more involving the founding fathers, but these are just the ones I thought of right away. I may update later with more. But even these show that the idea that something is "what the Constitution allows for" is somewhat nonsensical. Is Jefferson's view of the Constitution more correct than Hamilton's? And, incidentally, which Jefferson is this, the man or the President? What about Madison, should he hold a special place, his opinion valued over that of the other delegates  of the Constitutional Convention?

Could you devise a Constitutional argument for health care reform? I am sure you could.
Could you devise a Constitutional argument against health care reform? I am sure you could.

Either way, people who are for health care reform will say it is right to do it, and people who are against it will say that it is wrong to do it. Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't play a role in it, and here is why:

If you are against (for) health care reform and I explain why it is right (wrong) in Constitutional terms, will you accept it, or will you say that I am wrong, despite using the Constitution, because my use of it is wrong?

My guess is you will say I am wrong, presuming that your view of the Constitution is the right one. So really, its your view that is guiding you, not the Constitution. And thats the way it has to be, because the Constitution does not have a voice with which to speak, it is not being in itself which can tell what fits with it and what doesn't. Thats for us to decide, and we decide that with our views, not with some inherent structure of the Constitution which accepts or rejects ideas.

So please, unless you are willing to accept any argument that someone can put in Constitutional terms as correct, don't ask "Where in the Constitution....?" because what you really should be asking is "Why do you think this is right?" Because if it is, then we will be sure it fits with the Constitution.