Non-legally speaking, the term "Right" in American law refers to guarantees which are recognized to be Natural, in the sense that you're born with them and they would continue to exist even if the government were to disappear. The Declaration of Independence, though not really a "legal" document, words it the most clearly:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
In other words, the Law doesn't "grant" you a Right to something. It recognizes that these Rights already existed, and (sometimes) forbids the government from destroying them. This is also worded pretty clearly in the of-course infamous second amendment:
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It isn't saying that "people have the right to bear arms". Its saying that "your right to bear arms can't be infringed". So, then, where does that right come from? Its Natural.
There's an interesting, somewhat clear follow-up to this recognition of the wording of the constitution and founding documents: they don't exhaustively enumerate the rights people have. So what rights do Americans actually have? In fact, the ninth amendment recognizes this:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Constitutional interpretation is a complex, contentious thing. The way I see it, which is hardly professional: they recognized that because they aren't enumerating every Right, it follows that there must exist rights that some people believe they have, and it isn't the place of the government to either Confirm that Right or Disparage it. If I believe I have a right to kill someone for no reason... well, this shouldn't be allowed in a functioning society. So it follows that Law will inevitably supersede some Rights, just by the nature of Rights being, to a degree, self-decided (by your belief system, or your nature, or parenting, or whatever). Thus, certain protections were put in place to explicitly protect rights they believed were critical (like freedom of speech), but others may actually be "disparaged", and the ninth amendment just says that this is the case: people DO have other rights beyond the ones we listed, but we can't deny them JUST because we listed some other ones.
That's why its fascinating when people throw around language like "I have a right to not breath in smoke". There's a lot at play there. First: If you believe you have that Right, then you do! No one can take that away from you; its your right to not breath in smoke. But, also, Second: Your belief that you have some Right does not, by virtue of it being a Right, lead to the government being compelled to protect it. A Right does not have to be respected, confirmed, disparaged, or protected by the government. Its just something you have, because you're Human.
In other words, the phrase "I have a right to X" gets thrown around a lot, but it doesn't really mean much except the cases where it is enumerated, unless a bunch of people recognize that they also have that Right, in which case it is codified into Law. In an ideal world.
(And I do want to clarify in my comment I made earlier: I was being too brash by saying that the OP "does not have a right to breath in smoke". Maybe they do have that right. My point was really to emphasize that the right isn't Recognized. I have a right to run down the street naked. That doesn't mean the government will or should let me do it. So, saying "I have a right" to something isn't really all that meaningful, unless you're specifically referring to the rights protected by the constitution or law.)
