As arbitrary as "Right" is, at least the application of what is a "Right" in this context, I will state that a "Right" does not exist until it is affirmed (deemed to be) by SCOTUS. Now, the meaning of "Right" is also arbitrary, because there are "Right" that are treated as though it is absolute (which it is not), and there is a contingent "Right," - wait, the former belongs under "contingent Right." I admit that the term "arbitrary" is a pretty strong term, and functions as a whim along a historical context. A "Right" is bestowed. In our case, the "Right" was generally bestowed by men who are reaching many generations from their graves a general notion of "Right."
Describe to me what "Right" means to you, and I will tell you if I agree with you. I have offered the notion, and application of "Right."
I just picked this contradictory description of "Right," random Google search: "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973633/posts
I do not agree with the above definition of a "Right." Unfortunately, the "sovereignty to act without permission" is dependent on permission. One has not Right unless it is afforded to them.
An example: There are individuals who believe that non-U.S. citizens (illegal aliens specifically) should not be afforded Rights under the Constitution. The implication is that the Rights under the Constitution are bestowed, Rights are not fundamental, Rights are not so-called "Natural Rights."