The Law....meaning the Courts, settle legal issues. It is their role. Once something enters the courts...they get to decide whether an issue has legal merit.I guess my question is how the law uphold people's rights, as you argue, without knowing whether it has a legal basis to uphold them in the first place?
Cases cannot get a hearing unless the judiciary agrees the case has merit. The courts routinely dismiss filings the courts think they have no duty to rule on. The courts also refuses to hear cases that do not address legal issues in legitimate ways.
The law is something we all agree to abide by, unless it is so unjust it offends sensibilities... and when there is no avenue to address that it can lead to civil revolt.
The courts constitutional duties are laid out. The courts (as well as government entities...as some have argued here), have the duty to interpret the constitution.
Disputes are settled by the courts.
Lovely, but it doesn't address your contention. You're contention was that you have rights that aren't spelled out in the constitution. Thus, you would have to acknowledge that you could bring to court a case that something you believe to be a right of yours that has no legal precedent could be argued and that despite not having any legal precedent or declaration that it is even a right at all the courts would have to uphold it, according to you.
That is the paradox of your position. You agreed the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. That being the case they can not uphold any right that there isn't some legal precedent for. Yet according to you, one could essentially make up a right and the court is just suppossed to uphold it, which in reality would be legislating from the bench, which is NOT the role of the judiciary.