The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. The Cato Institute, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Preface, p. 2 (2002). This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record. The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural viz., "unalienable" rights. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans that think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution; and yet people persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer. Then they claim their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed. Indeed, such persons are the first to complain that "there ought’a be a law!" Well, the truth is that there is. Then they realize that all men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. Then they shall see the supremacy of the law; and that in its sway rests the security of their individual rights and liberty.
Where I come from, they have a term for this ... it's called 'weaseling'.
Clearly, you are getting your information from a single perspective - one that is convenient to what you wish to say.
But, I will take a single instance to prove you wrong ..
"... the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not
unalienable, they are subject to law."
You have missed the whole concept. The purpose of laws is not to dictate your rights, but to define the manner in which those rights may be exercised. There is not a single right denied by the Constitution. However, there are several laws that define the way in which you seek 'life, liberty, ....".
Let me be, apparently, the first to educate you. You are allowed to do anything - absolutely anything - in this world that you desire ... providing, of course, that when you do it, you do not interfere with the rights of others. The popular colloquialism "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" exactly captures the intent, and content, of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Think of it this way .... you live in a box ... inside that box, you can do whatever you damn well please ... as long as what you do doesn't affect my box.
The government was intended to manage the interfaces between those boxes ... where collisions would inevitably occur, the government was supposed to determine a fair and equitable solution ... not a winner, but a compromise.
That is the INTENT ... it has been subverted by people who believe they know better, and people who believe that they somehow have license to impose their perception of right on others ... people like you, frankly. We have a whole political class who believe they know better, and that "the citizenry should just shut up and do what they're told, because after all, we know best, and we have their best interests in mind."
You are seeing the people wake up and realize just how far into their box you've gotten, and they are starting to push back. The Tea Party is an example of that ... just as the Posse Commitatus movement is a more extremist view; not in intent, but in methodology. There are those of us standing up and yelling ... "Stay the hell out of my box."
It will be a long and drawn-out battle ... but, in the end, the people will win.