If the entire basis for this discussion is a misunderstanding then sorry for boring you. Apparently your point is that the basis of the rights of American citizens is the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution. I thought you were questioning the basis of rights, rather than pointing out an error about which document they are granted by.
Likewise, if there was any confusion about the fact that I was talking about rights that had a force of law behind them - that is, rights that you could actually have enforced rather than rights that were concepts only - I apologize for that. Given that, to me, rights are not rights unless there is a way to enforce them, I would still maintain that without the Bill of Rights the rights of the people the US would be significantly diminished. If not having a Bill of Rights means people would have less rights, then that seems like it is giving people rights, even if non-explicitly through court interpretations.
Also, referring to a perceived fallacy on my part “boring” after writing this is mildly ironic.
