Except that's not really true, is it? It may be the flavour-text of US tradition that the government is protecting your rights rather than bestowing them, but the outcome is the same. Nor is the US government particularly fastidious about protecting them: one need only ask the average person of colour whether they feel equally protected under the law.

It is your Declaration of Independence that recognises inalienable rights endowed by one's creator, not the Constitution, and is thus legally unenforceable. We know this because none of the rights enshrined in the Constitution are actually inalienable. For example: the First Amendment says that Congress can make no law prohibiting the right to peacefully assemble... but then how does federal incarceration work? The US has one of the largest mass-surveillance apparatuses in the world despite the Fourth Amendment. The President has also attempted to end birthright citizenship via decree, something which your Supreme Court is currently entertaining instead of immediately overturning as patently unconstitutional.

There's a common refrain that rights do not exist without remedies. Whether rights are given by one's deity or by one's government is immaterial: if you cannot remedy a violation of a right, that right does not exist. While I can certainly agree that certain systems do not entrench rights as much as they should (here in the UK, all our rights persist at the whims of a simple majority), words on a page matter less than access to remedies.