> That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.

That's like saying "The right to own a pair of pants does not mean you have the right to wear them." or "The right to own that Rembrandt doesn't mean you have the right to look at it". What, if not to use or consume an item, is the purpose of ownership at the fundamental level?

> The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.

You'll be happy to hear it does neither. It recognizes rights that are inherent to human beings and (presumably) limits the ability of the government to infringe on them.