So in your post you are already acknowledging that there are many different versions of rights, no? You mention that the government had the "right" to enact prohibition, but you very clearly believe that this was not "right." So it starts to get confusing, because there is obviously a distinction between "moral" and "legal", which is what I think you are getting at, yes?
There is a similar confusion between the "rights" of the Bill of Rights and the Unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The way I read the Declaration of Independence is not that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are "moral" or "legal" but rather that they just "are." That's why they used the words "self evident", because they were merely stating the way things are, and they used those words because they were specifically trying to divorce themselves from the previous way of looking at the world, which was all built on religion. The old way of thinking was that God gave us life and therefore it was conditional, or that God gave us divinely blessed kings and thus that our liberty was conditional.
So, the Declaration of Independence set out to frame the question differently. They expressly refused to frame the reality of what they saw in any framework. They said -- "look -- this is just the way it is and we don't need any specific reason why it needs to be this way, because trying to come up with a reason doesn't change that it is, and only mucks up our future decisions about what to do with what it is. So let's stop trying to reason out why it is this way. It just is. It is self evident. We all have life, and we are all free to do whatever we want regardless of whether there are kings or whether we are slaves, and even if there are kings or even if we are slaves we still continue to make decisions to pursue our own happiness. And -- we are all equal in this regard. So -- we can try to set up a hierarchy, or we can all agree that at least on these basic conditions of the existence of life, our ability to choose our own course no matter what external restraints we find opposed against us, and our desire to all pursue our own happiness -- we are all equal."
This was their way of disposing of the previous belief that somehow God ordained the way things are and ordained who was supposed to be in charge.
So, here's the question for you -- if you are in the jungle, do you think you would be able to come to a reasonable compromise with a hungry tiger? Do you think the hungry tiger cares about your right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness?