Private rights inherent law did not prohibit, allowing; public power is granted, without a law which prohibits.

  You are innocent, public work legitimate.

Everyone is free in the private sector of their own, the world if only one person, you can do as one pleases, without any restraint. But in order to ensure that everyone in the public domain the greatest freedom, there must be some rules. So from a legal point of view: the law can be regarded as a kind of agreement between the people and the terms of the contract. Everybody joint consultation, formulate, together with. If a, B both sides make a rule, called party C to abide by, this is not fair. What is called Americans to comply with Canadian law? So the agreement only on a participant, not other people. An international convention not signatories, are not affected by this Convention to limit, and the same is true. The constitution is the fundamental law of the country, most of the country's constitution to be effective after the referendum. Other laws were established by the legislature elected in under the authorization of the constitution, equivalent to a referendum. So the Constitution and the law on national effective. The law is not set by the state, but citizen, citizen and to standardize the acts of state agencies. The law is the embodiment of the will of the citizens, and not the will of a state.

     Power comes from the private, public power is entrusted by the authority of the state organs. State agencies can do what, what to do. The national approval written in the law. So for the national institutions (public) behavior, in need of legal authorization. Without explicit authorization is illegal. National institutions may not be as, without a law which prohibits.

    Privacy is innate, rather than given by the state. You can set the legal limit for civil rights, but the rights are not prohibited by law is feasible. For example, the law does not require you to eat right, you can also eat; law prohibits you kill, you do need to be punished; now Chinese the law does not prohibit smoking, you smoke is not illegal. Just as the Opium were not considered drugs, the opium trade is not forbidden by law, the Opium War just economic disputes.

     Some people say that in the Macao gambling, prostitution is legal in American. In fact, this statement is wrong. It should be said: Gambling in Macao is not prohibited by law, or prostitution is not illegal in American. Some people said Taiwan will be ready to gambling legalization, in fact, the Taiwan media is an expression to the decriminalization of gambling, means the original law prohibits gambling, and now you want to delete this forbidding gambling laws, the gambling is no longer a crime.

      People often say: the freedom of speech is a constitutional. In fact, freedom of speech is a private right, naturally, just can make laws to limit. Because the constitution is the supreme law, since the Constitution stipulates that citizens have freedom of speech, other laws cannot limit the freedom of speech. Unless the amendment to the constitution, by the constitutional prohibition of free speech; or the Constitution does not protect freedom of speech, by other laws to restrict speech. The Constitution provides for freedom of speech, is to ensure the freedom of speech is not limited by other laws, not endowed with freedom of speech. So the correct statement should be: the freedom of speech is protected by the constitution authority, rather than constitutional powers. In some countries, the law has not stipulated the citizens have the freedom of speech, and even limit the freedom of speech; some of the new state has not yet formulated the law, do the citizens of these countries have no freedom of speech right? Therefore the law gives citizens are not required the freedom of speech power, but should require the constitution to make specific provisions, to protect the freedom of speech power is not restricted by other laws and administrative regulations. The Constitution and the law is mainly used to grant national public power, private rights protection of personal rights or restrictions are not limited, and not given to civil rights. There are many other private rights, the law does not clearly defined limits or protected, but as long as you are not restricted, these rights is feasible.

    You can have a look that several statements USA constitution, fully embodies the citizen rights not granted by the state, but the state to protect the citizens rights.
   The 1 Congress shall make no law about the following matters: establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the freedom of speech, or of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of rights.
(not written: you have faith, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly)
2 a well regulated militia is the security of a free state, the essential, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(not written: the state permits a citizen to have a gun power)
    Compare: the constitution of the people's Republic of thirty-fifth: citizens of the people's Republic of speech, publication, assembly, association, parade, demonstration of freedom.

     If the criticism is not free, praise meaningless, I don't agree with you, but I defend your right to speak. Criticism of public power and freedom, more should be protected by law, America famous "Sullivan case" is fully embodied in the constitution is to protect the freedom of speech power. Of course, the freedom of speech has a limit, for example relates to false, framed, slander, insult your individual citizens, freedom of speech has been a violation of the equality of private rights and freedom, but also different this time. This thesis is wide, can refer to: "the libel and the crime of false accusation":Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5512af2d0100e4q8.html