A parallel argument against writing the Bill Of Rights was that it was completely redundant: every enumerated right was already protected by the limited granting of powers to the government.

This argument is a no-go. There are plenty of places where the government infringes on individual rights while pursuing legitimate government ends using otherwise reasonable powers. Restricting the ends and powers is not enough, unless you beg the question by defining the powers to not infringe on individual rights.

I'm well aware of the difference between positive and negative rights, and that distinction does nothing here (nor is it so easy to define, in practice). Judges might hold that there are rights to privacy, rights to family, rights to tradition, and a million other things. Thoughtful people have disagreed on these things since before the US existed.

and the legislative & judicial processes exist solely to identify & resolve these conflicts when they do arise.

Vague to the point of being useless.