Rights are the items of a citizens characteristic which are outside the ability of that government to control within its charter. Rights come before a government forms. If they didn't then you would not be able to [draft a charter]
Well, that's one view of rights. However, most attempts to base so called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human existence) have been largely unsuccesful. It's a tough argument to make.
Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them as well. I am really not saying anything about 'natural' rights though. The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.
Rights are entities that are granted to individuals by governments/agencies in a position to do so. They exist only after a charter is drafted, because it is their existence in the charter that gives them their power. The most obvious response when a right is asserted is to ask where it comes from, e.g. to ask "why do you have a right to privacy?" An answer that makes sense is to say that it is implied in this country's constitution, and therefore is applicable in this country.
To suggest that such a right exists independent of a legal context gets you into some pretty tricky territory. You now have to make some claim about rights that are instrinsic to human existence, which implies that these rights must be common to all forms of social organization, a claim that is real tough to make about such "rights" as privacy and property.
Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?
A value can exist prior to a charter... I might say, "gee, I value privacy, and I think this value ought to be legitamized by my new charter," but until that charter has been accepted, the right doesn't exist.