> I think first you might be misunderstanding positive and negative rights. Positive rights are rights that are asserted onto others. Negative rights are rights an individual has that others may not violate. The principles of the enlightenment and individualist freedom and liberty require negative rights as part of natural law, such as what John Locke called the first right, the right to self defense.

Indeed, my first interpretation was that negative rights meant the same as limitations, but after doing some reading later on (after having already replied), I noticed that they weren't the same thing at all.

The German constitution starts with a set of basic human rights - most if not all are negative rights.
And only afterwards does it regulate the structure of the state and other aspects which sometimes overlap with these basic rights (like the death penalty would probably be in conflict with article 1 of the constitution anyway - but I guess better be explicit about it).
Also included is a law that prohibits changing these basic rights - even if you had complete control of the legaslative branch you wouldn't be able to for example abolish freedom of opinion (or any of the other basic rights).
Resistence against anyone that seeks to destroy the democratic order is also codified (although seemingly it is unclear at what point in time one can start to intervene; armed resistence is believed to be covered when appropriate though).

> In essence, America is the only country truly founded on the principles of the enlightenment and individual liberty and natural rights.

Not to be too negative here, but that sounds like pure propaganda to me.

> I'm guessing the German constitution was designed by the Allies post-WW2 primarily as a way to control the country via complex bureaucratic layers that ignore these principles.

It wasn't designed by the allies (although they did have a huge influence on it and had to agree to it), but by a German comittee that was tasked with designing a new constitution that should prevent a rise of another authoritarian regime.
While it might have been possible to do so without involving the principles of enlightenment, individual liberty and natural rights, they are the corner stones of constitution I would say.
And if one looks closely one can see that parts are heavily inspired by the US system (like strong federalism).
In my opinion (as a German, so certainly to be taken with a large grain of salt) the German constitution as we have it now, is better suited to protect liberties than the US one (since it is essentially one with training wheels after the previous one didn't work out so well because the population wasn't quite on board with this democracy thing yet).

> Once someone asserts positives rights over anothers negative rights it becomes so completely subjective that it is an easily corrupted process, at least in theory thats how I would see it play out, but I don't know much about German law (even though I have visited). So, you tell me, how corrupted is the German constitution and/or law?

The basic rights of the constitution are deemed more important than any other law and in fact form the foundation for the whole legal system.
And to ensure laws cannot conflict with the constitution (for long anyway) we have the constitutional court (like the supreme court in the US), which can kill any law it deems unconsitutional (lower courts can dismiss cases too if it is obvious, but those descisions are non-binding for other courts).

As for normal law - our constitutional court is doing a pretty good job of killing laws that violate the constitution (including the law regulating how federal elections are performed which benefited the currently governing party slightly - nowhere near as bad as in the US though).
Compared to what I hear about the US I would say we are still doing quite well over here.
However we also have a different legal system in general to the one in the US - legal precedent is not binding in our system for example.

> Rights must exist outside of government, and the government is formed to protect those rights and for very little purpose other than that.

I fully agree with the first part and would like to point out that mentioning those natural rights before the state in the constitution does send a pretty strong signal what's of larger importance.
Mentioning the state first and then only later having the natural rights (like the constitution of the Weimar republic does) makes them, at least to me, seem like an afterthought..