我國憲法直接保障人民之自由權利，而第二十三條之文字明白表示，人民之自由權利，以不限制為原則，限制為例外，如要限制應該只有在合乎為防止妨礙他人自由，避免緊急危難，維持社會秩序或增進公共利益等四項公益事項的必要情形下，採取必要程度的限制，以使人權之危害降至最低的程度。美國是成文憲法歷史最久的國家，其憲法條文亦採直接保障主義，限制人權的法律必受到嚴格的審查，於其案例中，對人權的保障之違憲審查標準已臻明確而成熟，其中最重要者：明白而立即危險，法條過廣無效，法條含混無效以及侵害最小之手段等險驗標準，究其發展之邏輯，於我學者與少數大法官對我國憲法第廿三條之見解頗為相近，因此，特將彼此討論比較，希冀我國釋憲機關亦能明確宣示審查標準，以落實人權之保障，並為政治紛爭作最後公正的仲裁者。

　　　　　The Chinese Constitution gurantees the people numerous fundamental human rights, which are listed in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. The 23th Clause of it mandates that no law shall be made to abridge these rights except for the necessity of such important govermental rights such as protecting freedom of other people, preventing clear and present danger, keeping socictal order or promoting public welfare. Standards of judicial review are not clearly articulated in opinion issued by the Justice Meeting. Whereas, Standards developed by the U.S. Supreme Courts has been clearly articulated in cases finding laws unconstitutional. The theories and methodology behind them may offer some insight into probable ways of the Chinese judicial review's development.