Is Constitutionalism Good for Freedom?

I am happy to see so many articles on Daily Paul challenging the statist quo [sic], but what about individual liberty, particularly freedom of conscience and freedom of association? I don't see how constitutionalsim and limited government in their statist forms can help but compromise these fundamental values. The Declaration of Independence makes a valiant attempt to raise these issues, however, by the time that the constitution comes into being it seems that fundamental liberties have been compromised to get consensus; and there is the root of the present day problem; No constitution can protect fundamental human liberties while denying the secessionist principal under which the American colonies justified their separation from England.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ...
Declaration of Independence (opening paragraph)

No constitution can claim legitimacy which fails to provide the means for “...people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...” . And not just a collective “people” either. I'm talking about the fundamental right of secession down to the individual level. No person can be bound to a government without his explicit consent. Anything else in tyranny.

The other thing that is key to freedom is, putting an end to geographic government monopoly. When an individual secedes
he should be free of the government that he has rejected even though he would remain in the same place and keep his real estate and other property. . Basically it would require an end to the odious concept of State or national sovereignty. No combination of individuals can create for themselves rights greater or more powerful than those possessed by any one of its members as an individual. Let's use the immigration issue as an example. If I was to meet a person in Germany and ask them to come and visit me at my home in central North America what should any State have to say about it? If the airline is willing to carry the traveler and the airport to receive him then who else should have any power to interfere in the matter? And likewise, if I was to hire that person to do some work, damn the blighter who would try to force a change in the arrangement.

I've attended Ron Paul rallies and speeches and lurked on these forums for a while now, and I have to say that it is disappointing how few are really pushing a clear philosophy of liberty.