But, the buck stops there. By including as a primary statement that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", it means that THIS part of the Constitution is deemed to be unassailable and nondebatable, with all other constitutional components to be measured against these 'truths', not to ever consider changing the truths, but only how to, if need be, change the Constitution.
Take another look at your constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.htmlthat quote just isn't in there. The Declaration of Independence is the document with that ringing phrase, but that is not the governing document of the United States of America.
There is certainly some overlap between the two documents, with the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights having a strong overlap with things mentioned in the Declaration. However, they are not identical, nor should they be when you consider the widely divergent purposes of the two documents. The changing of the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to "Life, Liberty and Property" is one of the more notable changes. Perhaps the writers were just a little bit older now? 1776 / 1787 Yes, they were probably older.
When you are young and own nothing, pursuing happiness sounds pretty good. The pursuit is half the fun, and wow, just imagine when you catch it. Then you get a bit older, buy a farm, build some barns and a nice horse and buggy, and you start to feel responsible and start worrying someone will take it all away from you. Perhaps your property has become your happiness (You are what you drive).
The inalienable/unalienable word is not there because the constitution spells out restrictions on the government's rightful ability to alienate a person from their rights. While certainly more restrictive on the state than the Divine Right of Kings, it certainly does not claim inalienability for any particular right. Even the "Life, Liberty and Property" so sacred to libertarian constitutional scholars. Looked at from a "strong state" perspective, the Constitution merely spells out the conditions that must be met before you can make a person a prisoner or an ex-person. I wonder if that's what the Original Constructionists on the Supreme Court of the United States of America are really reaching for? I certainly hope not.
