It's a judicial construct. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution as stated.
See Coffin v U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
Weren't you guys arguing that the right to an abortion is not in the constitution therefore there is no right to one?
Derived, implied, blah blah blah - I'm not opposed to the idea that some of that is legitimate, to be honest with you. (Yes, I wish we could go back to the days before the interstate commerce theories blossomed, but unfortunately there is no going back on that one - I view that as the single most destructive thing to the States that ever happened).
Let's be honest, most people would be hard pressed to say there should be none of that. It's a question of degree, of extent.
Do we keep coming up with gigantic new categories and basically invent things out of whole cloth, to "keep up with society's ever-evolving whims" ? I think most conservatives view liberals as basically taking that approach. It just seems so arbitrary, so baseless, so degrading to the idea of having a written law that really means much - serious, reliable meaning both from what it says and what it fails to say.
PS, it's funny to watch Kamela Harris try (but not very hard) to accuse conservatives of "judicial activism" and "activist court".
Everyone who has any constitutional law knowledge knows that judicial activism is the opposite of that, J.A. is on the side of the liberals that invent new meanings and ideas and concepts out of nothing more often than anyone else does ..... and twist the original law until it's sitting on its head to support whatever society wants today: That is, and has always been, what judicial activism means.
Harris surely knows this of course, but is hoping that it catches on with the layman watching the speech.
The funny thing is it's not a very good plan. "Activist" is seen as a GOOD WORD with liberals. They may be furrowing their brows, confused at why conservatives are being offered such a title.
The whole thing is like watching Jean Pierre try to finish a full sentence, or look someone in the eye. Face it, the Dem party has literally stopped even trying by making hires like that.