What’s happening, how the laws are being made and used, and enforcing the laws. Contrasts with leaders' use of law.
e.g: Invoking emergency acts to gain access to more power (violation of the Rule of Law)
Justification for why laws or authority should be accepted and obeyed, based on morality or proper legal procedures.
Idea that there is a necessary overlap between law and morality (law cannot exist without morality)
Law and morality are separate (immoral laws CAN exist)
Law is derived from morality and are created for the common good, and 'immoral' laws aren't valid.
It is the idea that law is a social construct; Austin and Hart fall under it
Classical positivism, thinks that law stems from commands which oblige people to follow the law (fear of punishment)
Obligation comes first when it comes to law, not being threatened with commands
1. Failure to achieve rules
2. Failure to publicize (promulgate)
3. Abuse retroactive legislation
4. Failure to make rules understandable
5. Enactment of contradictory rules
6. Enactment of rules that require conduct beyond the powers of the affected party
7. Introducing frequent changes in rules that subject cannot orient his action by them
8. Failure of congruence between the rules as announced and their actual administration
1. Rules have to be general
2. Rules must be known
3. Restricted retroactive rules
4. Clarity in meaning
5. Logical consistency
6. Demand what's possible
7. Stable/consistent
8. Applied as announced
Content of the law itself doesn't have to be moral, but the people(s) ruling have to be moral
Law is not just a set of rules
How we make decisions in a legal system
Levi: all legal reasoning is reasoning by example
Hart: also less skeptical
connection between race, racism, and the law
Precedent: guidance is indeterminate, common sense and understanding of social values and principles will help, but not entirely
Legislation: less indeterminate, always open-textured, or ambiguous to some degree
Political power is embodied by state in capitalist state. State is a tool of dominance and oppression; revolution only way out
state seen as emanating power, aim is to respect pluralism. State might be seen as a neutral tool.
Feminism, women in a society dominated by male ideals etc
Paidec: World-creating, meaning and understanding, needs education, commitment, no need for coercion. e.g: Amish Communities
Imperial: World-maintaining, no need to be taught or understood if effective, enforced by institution. e.g: US/Canada
Theoretical accounts of racial power that explain legal and political decisions which are adverse to people of colour as mere reflections of underlying white interest
Normalized practices and policies that disadvantage members of certain racial groups. Processes, practices, principles, cultures, etc. Possible in the absence of racist individuals. Can be overt or covert.
Multiple interacting legal systems within one geographical area. State law = not only source of authority.
Ruler doesn't answer to any supreme authority
Issued as a command, but don’t have punishments attached to them (do not carry promise of a sanction for non-compliance)
Appealing to morality = private opinion in disguise
Aquinas calls it natural law, we call it morality, because he believes the law is based on the nature of human beings (we’re rational, intelligent, social animals), avoiding vices. Aquinas thinks it’s objective and universal for all people
Laws made by humans, must be derived from Natural Law, because Human Laws must be derived by ethics
