There is an article in the Washington Post today about the US government and it's fear of an assault by terrorists or non-states on our network of global defense satellites and systems. I guess in terms of attacking terrestrial systems, we do have that case to make. An attack on any land or sea based mechanism of defense is clearly an attack on us. Yet something about the article stuck out...
No nation, no non-state actor, should be under the illusion that the United States will tolerate a denial of our right to the use of space for peaceful purposes," said Joseph, undersecretary for arms control and international security.
With so many conservatives who choose to pick and choose their constitutional arguments on whether or not there is specific language actually in the Constitution that would validate their argument (such as the language of the 2nd Amendment supporting gun control or a lack of a specific privacy clause again, well, privacy), I cannot for the life of me imagine, by any stretch of the imagination, that there is language contained within the Constitution that grants us rights to space, peaceful or not.
Again, just for clarification:
"We reserve the right to defend ourselves against hostile attacks and interference with our space assets. We will, therefore, oppose others who wish to use their military capabilities to impede or deny our access to and use of space. We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets by active or passive means."
I have no argument against defending ourselves from hostile attacks and interference with our space assets, so long as it involves attacks on terrestrial or sea based objects. Asserting we have a "right to space" is absurd, especially if you're a Constitutional styled conservative.