"It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders’ motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world."
(I think we will on that last point.)
More great quotes on this topic here.
The Constitution may have been based on individual rights, but it didn't state them explicitly and it didn't enforce them. Because of these errors (almost certainly intentional by subversive agents) they were taken away from the very first addition (Bill of Rights, end of 5th amendment).
Even the DoI didn't state it explicitly but implicitly. Leaving out "property" (as the original John Locke statement) and putting in "pursuit of happiness" was also almost certainly intentional fuckery. Only Sovereigns are allowed to own property. By leaving that out as an "inalienable right", and by not making an explicit statement of Sovereignty of the people enjoining the Social Contract (not implicit, which is what the DoI did) it left room for future laws that coerced away more and more of our "inalienable" rights and led us to believe we are proper vassels to the Sovereign government corporate entity called the U.S. Government.
One sentence was all it would have taken to truly be the document everyone wants it to be:
Done. No possible future fuckery can ensue with just this one sentence.