As does the unmolested Bill of Rights.
Without the Bill of Rights, no Constitution, as we know it, was possible.
That reminds me of the abject idiots who propose modifying the Bill of Rights in any way. It is a list of assertions and self-evident assumptions and confirmations from which the Republic and its structure followed.
No more, no less. In its entirety.
Other than having things completely, totally ass-backwards... I can't see anything else of interest in your statement.
The Constitution is a Doctrine of Negative Rights. It asserts human rights pre-exist the Constitution. That is THE fundamental basis of the American Constitution. NOTHING comes before it, or depends upon it. That alone is its sacred strength and value.
The Bill of Rights came after the Constitution because there was a strong fear that it would suggest that Rights had to be enumerated to exist, when the opposite was true. That in fact, all of the contents of the Bill of Rights - or ANY Bill of Rights, pre-exists by virtue of them BEING rights. To allay these fears, the 10th Amendment was included in the BoR to reassert the primacy of the Doctrine of Negative Rights, and that all human rights were not contained in the Bill of Rights.
In short, the Bill of Rights is a list of EXAMPLES of SOME of the human rights acknowledged as pre-existing the Constitution. That's all it is.
You put the cart firmly before the horse - and proved those Founders correct who feared the Bill of Rights would be interpreted as definitive creations, rather than limited examples, and thus should not exist at all.