The United States Constitution, from my limited understanding, spells out the specific powers of the federal government.  The Bill of Rights reserves certain rights to the citizens.  All other powers and rights are left to the states or to the citizens of the states.

If a state legislature makes no law further limiting the rights of its citizens, then its citizens enjoy all of the rights that have not been limited by either the state or the federal government. 

There is a mechanism within the Constitution that allows for amendments.  The process of amending the Constitution is, by design, cumbersome - and for good reason.  It prevents knee-jerk change based upon the prevailing mood of the citizens or of polititions charged with governing at the time.  If an issue is important enough, it can be changed through the amendment process.

The federal court system, which includes the Supreme Court, is a branch of the federal government.  When the justices stretch the fabric of the Constitution to find rights, or limits to rights, that just aren't there, it ursurps authority from the states without input from the states.  It also usurps power from the legislative branch of the federal government to make policy.  The function of the courts is to interpret and enforce the constitution and the laws laid out by the congress - not to rewrite the constitution and make policy.  This is how I understand it anyway. 

And this can only lead me to the conclusion that there is no inherent right to sing the blues.  As everybody knows, you have to suffer if you're gonna sing the blues.