[Dimensio]

Suppose a man states that it is pursuing happiness to kill off his annoying coworker? Suppose he says he cannot be happy as long as that coworker is alive, and then he kills them? If the right to be “happy” is a higher good than the right live, than society would have to oblige this man.

I never offered a ranking order for the rights of life, liberty and happiness (or the pursuit thereof), I was just asking why we don't seek to prevent people from giving up the latter two if we're going to federally enforce the first.

In your scenario, the individual in question is trampling on the supposed right to life of his co-worker. In pursuing his happiness he is denying the rights of another. I can see why that would be considered a "bad" thing.

I recommend you read Keyes’ speech at Missouri Right To Life. If you argue that you can deny yourself your own rights, you are saying there are no unalienable rights. If you allow an exception to the right to life in the case of suicide, who's to say that the exceptions will stop there?

So Keyes (and you, apparently) argue that by allowing a person to voluntarily abdicate their own personal rights we slide down a slippery slope where we can decide to remove the rights of others on a whim?

Sorry, but I don't see the logical connection.

[Gelato]

You argued that the right to happiness is greater than the right to life.

The right to life must come first. Period.