Like I said, I respect that using the word "primary" is contentious. If that's your only true point, then there's little argument to be had other than a subjective nature of what I consider primary. If your argument extends past that, about the term "Constitutional right" itself, then, again, you'd be wrong to imply that "rights and rules" derived from Constitutional interpretation aren't Constitutional rights. That's not judicial wordplay. It's common language.

Example:

----------------------------

"What to Say to Invoke the Right to Silence

The new Supreme Court decision raises weighty questions, such as whether it’s reasonable to place the onus of asserting constitutional rights on everyday people, most of whom have never cracked the spine of a criminal procedure or constitutional law book. The more practical question is what, exactly, an out-of-custody person must say to inquisitive police officers in order to claim the right to silence. To be safe, they should make clear that they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence and have nothing further to say. That way their subsequent failure to answer any questions cannot be mentioned at trial."

by: Micah Schwartzbach

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-...

----------------------------

This writer uses the term "constitutional rights" in context. He later says, "...invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence..." (i.e. "... invoking their Constitutional right to silence...") in direct context. I won't dig up numerous other examples from lawyers who write about this subject in-depth. Court rulings continually change the landscape of rights. They change what's inherently so-called "Constitutional" at any point in time. Many issues become topics of people's Constitutional rights once they're challenged on the basis of the Constitution. This is irrespective of a changing landscape's rulings at any point in time.

Outside of that language, we may agree more than we disagree.