The Declaration of Independence states, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are these rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

[Adaeva]

All Men are Created Equal with the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[abc3643]

You are referring to this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

It was a memo to England that we've decided to become independent of England. The "unalienable rights" discussed in the Declaration are solely for the basis of the reasoning to reject England's authority over the "United States".

That's it though; the Declaration is a memo and has no legal authority. You will never hear in an American courtroom "Yeah, but the Declaration of Independence says..." because the Declaration is legally irrelevant.

The Preamble of the Constitution spells out why the current national government was created - a government that replaced the earlier national government under The Articles of Confederation.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

For the purposes identified in the Preamble, the Constitution does satisfy that. Any specific rights after that are identified (directly or implicitly) in the document including its 27 amendments.

[Adaeva]

Then does any part of the Constitution guarantee that all people are equal or at least have equal rights?

[abc3643]

Only in some aspects of society.

The question you are really asking is this:

"When can governments discriminate (and against who and when can they not discriminate?

Constitutionally, this is based in a few amendments and various Supreme Courts have interpreted differently over time. In particular, the (poorly worded) 10th Amendment:

"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."

Because of that last part... "to the States... or to the people.", that's a logical ambiguity.
In the past, the US Supreme Court usually gave powers to the people over the states. Since the Supreme Court has become a conservative majority, the people are fucked and the states get those powers.

That's why Roe v. Wade was overturned last year.
For the past 50 years, the Supreme Court said women have the power to choose to have an abortion (provided it is early enough) or not. This Supreme Court took that power away from women and gave it to the states to decide.

Anyway, you need to learn about the legal standards for discrimination.
These are:
"Rational Basis Review"
"Heightened Scrutiny"
"Strict Scrutiny"

What these mean are, depending on what a government is trying to discriminate on, a relevant test is applied to see if that discrimination makes sense and is lawful.

(more)

[abc3643]

An example was Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that resulted in same-sex marriage being permitted everywhere in the US.

In my opinion, that case should have involved strict scrutiny, but many felt heightened scrutiny.

But, this was the issue.
"If a state wants to exclude two people of the same sex from getting married, then why?
What reason do they have to discriminate against people who want to marry someone of the same sex?"

All the states that wanted "traditional marriage" couldn't find a sound basis to discriminate against people who wanted to have same-sex marriages.

Conservatives really didn't like same-sex marriage on religious grounds, but that doesn't hold up in court because that's a violation of the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. So, they wanted to say "States rights!" and that states should get to decide. However, the Supreme Court majority in this case said (in more prosaic language that I am about to write): That's horseshit. There is no justifiable reason for any government to deny competent people from getting married - same-sex or not.

And that's why we have same-sex marriage now.

So, this is an example of how the Judicial Branch determines what is constitutional or not and how it (often but not always) protects us from the abuses of the other branches of governments - federal, state, or local.

[abc3643]

RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test

HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY aka INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny

STRICT SCRUTINY
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny

[abc3643]

This is LII's entry on Obergefell v. Hodges.
www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556

However, you're at the age and asking the sorts of questions that should make you start reading SCOTUSblog. It's an excellent way to learn about the law and constitutional issues.

This is the entry for Obergefell v. Hodges.
www.scotusblog.com/.../

You can seriously learn a lot by reading legal documents. For one thing, you can learn over time about formats and important questions (like jurisdiction and merits).

[Adaeva]

From a Korean drama, I learned that Confucius said, "It is better not to ask at all than
to ask without finding out the answer." However, your links, let alone sub-links, are so much to read, let alone understand.

[abc3643]

You can ask me questions here or in a private message

[AviatorTom]

Nope. The Constitution defines the organization of the federal government, how it is divided into 3 branches, and the powers of each. It doesn't deal with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not even the Bill of Rights does that.

[Lliam]

No. You can't guarantee life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution is the law under which out government is supposed to operate. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, specifically enumerates some of the human rights that the government may not infringe upon. Those amendments were talking about rights that are self evident, unalienable, and endowed by the Creator.

So the Constitution doesn't guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's impossible. But it does restrict government from inhibiting people's lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[SnowedIn]

They are not. The Constitution is a governing document that, it hopes, will produce a country in which those ideals might be realized.

[Anonymous]

Remember when Kamala left out the “right to life” when talking about the Declaration of Independence?

Kind of an inconvenient thing when your party has such a hard on for baby murder.

[BJP21]

People all throughout history have challenged the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and have lost.

[Anonymous]

These are laws inherent in the universe. It is the objective morality, and implies that slavery is always immoral. And government always equals slavery.

[OddBeMe]

In more complex language…mostly in the bill of rights.