I think that you stretch the meaning of the Declaration of Independence's clause: 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 affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

First of all, the Declaration states that it is the government's first responsibility to protect the "pursuit of happiness" not the "happiness". And notice, the Federal Government did not endow these rights, it was the Creator and they are inalienable (meaning no government should be able to deny them – or in the modern day case, become the “Creator” – how arrogant, elitist, and prideful! If you uncouple the Declaration from the Constitution, as many "Progressives and New Era Socialists" do (beginning in earnest with Woodrow Wilson and FDR), then you can uncouple the Declaration’s "happiness and general welfare clause" from the enumerated powers of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Once you do this destructive, regressive, and ill-defined act of "uncoupling" of the welfare clause, then where does it end? My happiness: may be that I expect the federal government to pay for my housing, my car, my health practices (even though I might be an abuser and reckless), my sexual practices, my drinking habits, etc. - because all that is for my "happiness and therefore my welfare (as defined by me of course!), is then the responsibility of the “government” and not myself. Only modern day, Marxist influenced (and I am ashamed to say mostly my "hippie" generation manufactured these axioms and teach in our universities - and being older now - having been a reckless hippie myself - I see how much the Marxist doctrines have infiltrated our colleges and universities) learners and students have this view of history. The Marxist "tainted" doctrines of "social justice" have wreaked havoc in the world and they have been some of the most destructive, inhumane and enslaving doctrines in history (and history proves this)! Government cannot, and should not, be in the business of "making me happy". They are about safeguarding the "opportunity" or "pursuit" of happiness for me. If one minority, naturalized immigrant (like the Vietnam Boat People who came here with the clothes on their backs only) and have made great strides by self-reliance, hard work and determination (the good kind and not the independent, arrogant kind), can make it, then all can. If one individual from a deprived, poor, "oppressed", class (so to speak) makes it, then the opportunity exists for all to make it - period! Then all others can "replicate" or follow their lead and make it the same way - effort, hard work, faith (if applicable), a sharing "heart", etc. This is the extent of the Declaration and the Constitution - period! To make it anything different is to fly in the face of solidly documented history, common sense, and pragmatism, and a record of a mindset that has allowed the most vibrant, successful, charitable, and noteworthy citizenry in history!