The legal and political blogs are full of discussions of "negative liberty" (rights to have the state not do things to you) versus "positive liberty" (rights to have the states actually do things for you). Some fret that Obama-appointed judges might interpret the Constitution as embodying positive rights, such as a minimum income.
But I have bad news for them -- one need not even get to the Constitution. As I wrote in a law review article a couple of decades ago, "a browse through the United States Code indicates that Congress often exhibits a great generosity -- perhaps even a grandiosity -- of spirit." The Code is full of statements such as "The Congress declares it to be the policy of the [U.S.] that every citizen is entitled to an education to meet his or her full potential without financial barriers."
In the past, the Supreme Court has resisted the idea, which has indeed been argued, that preambular language creates actual, enforceable rights, but such precedents are written in water. A truly radical judge might enjoy telling Scalia that he/she is just dong what Scalia wants, and deferring to Congress.