Are there any serious constitutional law scholars who use the supposed unconstitutionality of the Air Force as an argument against originalism. A quick (and by no means comprehensive) Westlaw search reveals several examples. The use of the Air Force as an argument against originalism and textualism is not just a straw man. It's actually quite common.

There is a really good discussion going on in this thread about what originalism means with solid (and not so solid) points being made on both sides. If you're interested in the big question of Constitutional interpretation you'll enjoy this thread. While the matter isn't a straw man, its wonderfully useful as a straw man argument against people who make straw man arguments about the Constitution. :) The kind of people who parrot that the "Constitution doesn't say nothn 'bout abortion" are typically strong supporters of the military. Pointing out that it also doesn't say nothn 'bout the Air Force may be a fun way to make their heads explode.