how does the judiciary safegard the constitutional rights?
374719
By determining if the laws that congress pass are constitutional.
482436
Constitutional Lawyer.
473500
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
278466
To interpret the law and its constitutionality
5031
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state there is a right to privacy.  However, the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution offers the right implicitly.
343338
In the U.S. the supreme court is tasked with interpreting the constitution.  The supreme court has the power to find laws written the legislature unconstitutional.
781570
The supreme court's most important power as a branch of government is particularly for checks and balance.  Each branch is there to kinda keep the other two from getting too out of control.  It got it's power from the constitution that's where the branches of government were defined and where they're roles were defined.
60115
the sixth amendment-- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.\n\nTrey would have the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
1153330
The legal system is not solely devoted to protecting individual rights.  It also regulates privileges, agencies, corporations, etc.\n\nWhich right of law-abiding citizens personal peace and security is being violated by the American legal system that you are referring to?  This question is too vague.
822083
I'm trying to do this by memory, so here goes. ........\n\n"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must conceive that the judiciary, from the nature of its power, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no influence over either the strength or wealth of a society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive department even for the efficacy of its judgments."\n\nI hope I got that right.\n\nIn terms of REstating Hamilton, instead of just quoting him, I'll explain that Hamilton meant that the judiciary has the weakest power of the three branches of government. The judiciary is weakest because it cannot make the other two branches do anything. The judges merely hand down "judgments," which do not have the force of law unless the executive branch chooses to obey the judiciary, and the executive branch doesn't have to do so. Even when Congress has made a law that the judiciary subsequently says is unconstitutional, the executive can choose to continue enforcing that law, effectively thumbing its nose at the judiciary.
339456
It is the responsibility of the Court to interpret the Constitution as they feel it most appropriately applies to any case.  There are varied thoughts on whether they should act as they feel the framers meant the Constitution to work or whether modern day interpretations are best.
452945
The bill of rights defines the powers granted to the goverment when conducting criminal investigations (4,5,6,7).  It also defines the rights that citizens have that cannot be impeached upon by laws created at any level of government.
713207
For a technical historical answer, contact Jon Roland of the Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org\n\nTraditionally, the Bill of Rights defines specific rights of citizens that were not spelled out in the Constitution, in an attempt to reinforce these as reserved to the people where government could not infringe: (1) free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or of the press, right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (2) right to bear arms with respect to militia (3) freedom from quartering of soldiers (4) right to security and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (5) freedom from self-incrimination (6 and 7) right to speedy public trial, legal defense and other due process procedures, and right to trial by jury and freedom from double jeopardy (8) freedom from cruel or unusual punishment or excessive fines or bails (9 and 10) protection of rights regardless of enumeration and reservation of rights to States or the people not otherwise delegated or prohibited under the Constitution.\n\nHowever, if the existence of these laws in writing were enough to reinforce equal checks and balances, there would not have been a need to add the Fourteenth Amendment about "equal protection under the law." I find this concept of "equal protection" necessary to apply the Bill of Rights fairly to respect the consent of all the governed parties, instead of favoring some interests over others in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service (see Public Law 96-303, 1980).\n\nIn practice, I find that only the educated practice and agreed enforcement of Constitutional rights guarantees these to anyone. The First Amendment especially reflects natural laws that govern all humanity -- every human being desires free exercise to act, free speech and press to communicate, and the right peaceably to assemble and to petition as part of due process. Collectively, our individual rights become the three functions of government -- from establishing and interpreting laws and contracts by written and spoken word, to exercising individual freedom and authority, and assembling in protest or petition to represent and defend our interests whether in courts or Congress, or school, churches or other institutions.\n\nAs individuals learn to balance our natural rights with those of others, and between the level of the individual to the collective level of government, that is when we will realize the checks and balances intended between the three branches of government, as well as the levels of government of local, state, and federal. \n\nhttp://www.houstonprogressive.org/isocracy.html
913674
The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States--ranks alongside the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as one of the nation's most treasured documents. Since its adoption in 1791, the Bill of Rights has served as the cornerstone of basic American freedoms. Its laws specify the fundamental rights and most cherished liberties of the American people and protect them from the whims of popular majority opinions and abusive government officials.\nWhat the Bill of Rights Says\n\nThe first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights set forth specific guarantees and liberties. The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the American people have rights that are not even specified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. (The Federalists argued for this particular amendment, stating that it would be impossible to list all of the rights and liberties that should be protected.)\n\nThe Tenth Amendment emphasizes the national character of the United States constitutional system. It declares that the states or people retain those "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution."\n\nMost people, however, believe that their most important rights are those guaranteed by the First Amendment. Commonly called "First Amendment freedoms," these are the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and press, as well as the right of the people to assemble and to petition a government.\n\nOther vital provisions contained in the first eight amendments also deal with the rights of individuals. They are designed to protect people against inconsistent or abusive government, particularly in criminal proceedings.\n\nFor example, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures (either of themselves or of their property and possessions) by law enforcement officials.\n\nThe Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, which means that someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment also states that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves (self-incrimination), and it guarantees "due process," which means people accused of a crime must be properly notified of the charges and given a fair hearing.\n\nThe Sixth Amendment establishes the right of an accused person to a public trial by jury. The accused also has the right to have a lawyer, to confront hostile witnesses, and to obtain witnesses in his or her defense.\n\nFinally, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" (either mental or physical) on those convicted of a crime.\n\nThe remaining amendments (the Second, Third, and Seventh) do not cover individual rights in criminal proceedings but address other specific concerns. The Second Amendment is the most noteworthy and controversial of these remaining amendments. After noting the need for a "well regulated militia" (a body of citizen soldiers called to serve during times of emergency or war), this amendment declares that the people's right "…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."\n\nThe Third Amendment prevents the government from making citizens shelter soldiers in their homes. This amendment was drafted in response to abuses by British forces during the Revolutionary War.\n\nThe Seventh Amendment was included to meet the demands of many Anti-Federalists who wanted to insure trial by jury in civil suits.\n\nToday, for all intents and purposes, the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights apply with equal force to both the national and the state governments.\n\nState Bills of Rights\n\nAll of the fifty state constitutions contain a bill of rights. The Illinois Bill of Rights borrows from the Declaration of Independence in stating, "All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Some
713403
There are no directly enumerated rights of privacy in the constitution or amendments. However the rights against unreasonable search and seizure I and to asemble peaceable are the beginnings
283595
Yes, the constitution does allow the rights of freedom speech, assembly, and religious practice in the 1st amendment.  But because these rights sometimes conflict with eachother (like in your scenario), its pretty safe to say that you have right and liberties as long as they dont interfere with anyone else, or cause other people malicious harm.