[Straight Vermonter]

There are natural rights described in the Declaration, and then there is the Constitution, a social compact among We the People of the United States, that is intended to secure rights to citizens. Without that distinction, one demand that the US government secure rights deprived from citizens of other nations within their borders. The distinction among citizens and non-itizens regarding enforcement of and efforts to secure those rights must exist.

The constitution does NOT intend to secure rights of citizens. It describes what rights government may usurp. As a matter of fact Madison was reluctant to add a bill of rights because he felt that people would come to the conclusion that you (and in fact many modern Supreme Court Justices) have, namely that the rights in the bill of rights are the ONLY ones expressly protected. Madison included the 9th and 10th amendments for exactly this reason.

[Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Carry_Okie]

Please don't preach thus to a person who has read ALL of Farrand's and Madison's notes. From that same Declaration you cite only selectively:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men... which was then followed by We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish. The comment stands.

BTW, as I recall it was Hamilton who criticized the BOR on the grounds of its propensity to limit rights, and we all know what a straw man that was coming from him.

The founders were good, but they weren't perfect. There are a number of things in the Constitution that should be changed.