I don't see that in the US Constitution. The preamble talks about things like securing certain blessings, but doesn't really say what they actually are; it uses vague terms like "Justice", which mean different things to different people. The US founding document that comes closest to setting out a defining goal, at least in terms of what government is for, is the Declaration of Independence, and even that is vague: what does "pursuit of happiness" really mean?

(A society without written laws is anarchistic, or despotic. A society without any laws at all is impossible.)

If by "laws" you simply mean that people's behavior in a society is constrained by what other people in the society will accept, yes, it's impossible to have a society without "laws". But that in no way implies that it is impossible to have a society without laws in the sense that term is usually used--i.e., laws that come out of some kind of formal process, either legislative enactments (statute) or judicial decisions (common law) that are accepted as binding on everyone in the society, not just the parties to a particular case.

"The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein

These two give two radically different, perspectives of what such a society, with implicit rules and norms basically enforced by on-the-spot consensus, might look like.

(Note, I'm not saying that societies depicted in these books are likely, or even possible. It's fiction, after all, and arguably utopian fiction at that. But it does help in putting a more concrete image to the abstract concept of anarchism.)

So is a society with written laws, if those laws are not enforced exactly as they are written. Which is the case for every society in human history that has had written laws.