The fact remains that the constitution, on rights, is deliberatly vague. The founders didn't want to list specifics, because they knew that people, - like you, - would assert that anyhing not listed was not a 'right'.
Instead, they tried to outline the principles of a free republic. Tough sell to many here.
OK, one more post, because I'm a masochist.
Do you honestly think that the Founders intended for judges to be able to pass final judgement on all laws, based not upon whether they were explicitly unconstitutional, but only upon whether the judge approved or disapproved? Because that is the issue here.
Under your scheme of things, a judge can overturn literally any law based merely on a whim. Is that really what you want?
Personally, I prefer to live in a republic, where the representatives of the people have the legislative power, restricted only in limited and clearly defined ways.