He points out that Finnis fails to explain why there needs to be a general obligation to obey the law. The author refutes that general obligation to obey the law cannot be explained by fairness because there are many innocuous illegal acts which cannot be unfair. Contract and consent to obey the law are often mentioned by advocates of the general obligation to obey. These supporters argue that by living in a society and taking the benefits of a legal system, people implicitly consent to follow the law. However, it must be acknowledged that too few have given consent and such consent is not enough to concede to a whole legal system.
Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the
His complete disregard for public law portrays backward thinking. Also, the statement, “nothing but confusion of thought can result from assuming that the rights of man in a moral sense are equally rights in the sense of the Constitution and the law” shows that, in his theory he excludes the relevancy of morals from the constitution as well. This could pose a major problem because the fundamental rights and various other important rights are granted to the people by the constitution. So, if morals, equity and conscience were kept distinct from law when formulating these rights of the people, the end result would be disastrous.
Austin’s particular theory of law is often called the “command theory of law” because the concept of command lies at its core: law is the command of the sovereign, backed by a threat of sanction in the event of non-compliance. He distinguished positive law from positive morality which is devoid any legal sanction. In his own words, “the existence of law is one thing, its merit and demerit is another... A law which actually exists, is a law, though we happen to dislike it or though it may vary from the text by which we regulate our approbation or disapprobation
Actions are made by causes. We cannot predict everything in the future and with that said, human actions are made by laws. According to Baron d’Holbach, we have a will, but the will is not free because of self-preservation and well-being. Forces that are independent make an impact on us because it could create desires we didn’t think existed.
Whilst this can apply to cases which are not covered by any current laws, this also poses an issue regarding the Separation of Powers raising concerns about the applicability of the theory in the UK government. Additionally, leaving decisions to be made without any guidelines for cases that are not
The tone helps to display Albert Speer’s feelings towards the party all throughout the biography. Later after the war, Speer stated, “He had accepted Hitler’s commands and must share the responsibility for their consequences” (304). Here Speer wants to show that although he was only following orders, he shows remorse and deserves punishment. The tone helps to make him seem remorseful and accepting of a punishment.
Thoreau trusted that in light of the fact that legislatures are normally more unsafe than supportive, they hence can't be defended. Vote based system is not an answer for this, as greater parts basically by point of preference of being dominant parts don't additionally pick up the upside of astuteness and equity. The judgment of a singular's heart is not so much second rate compared to the choices of a political body or larger part, thus "it is not attractive to develop an admiration for the law, such a great amount with respect to one side. The main commitment which I have a privilege to expect is to do whenever what I think right.... Law never made men a whit all the more only; and, by method for their admiration for it, even the all around arranged are day by day made the operators of foul play."
Freedom of expression is essential in the media because it is a strong indication that there is democracy but it should not pass the extent of rudeness. According to Haridakis (1999), there is a difference between freely expression your opinion and unethical commentator behavior such as delivering information with knowledge, escorted by opinion without explanation and soothsaying without heed of consequences (p. 230). Journalists’ role in the media is to educate the public with facts and leave them to make a decision based on these facts without ruining the reputation of the subjects included. There should be a better understand of the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need to protect reputations (Boyle, 2000). When a journalist is facing any ethical dilemma, he or she should go with truth-telling.
The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are composed of broad values like equality and liberty, but judges who attempt to give concrete meaning to such general concepts without specific precedent and law from the text or history overstep their proper role. If Robert H. Bork were to review judicial process today, he will assume all judges decide constitutional cases in accordance with “neutral principles.” In his article “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems” (1971), Bork insists these principles must be strictly neutral in origin of the text and from such cases that derive from precedent. He continues his argument by stating if the Court strikes down legislation on any other basis, it abuses its power and invades
Rehnquist states that just because a person claims that he is only writing an opinion, does not mean that people are hurt any less than had they not noted it was an opinion. The opinion goes on to say that there is no need to define a protection of opinions in order to guarantee freedom of expression. Brennan begins his dissent by noting that he agrees with a number of the points made by Rehnquist, including the guidelines set regarding the protection of opinions. However, he disagrees with how Rehnquist judged the actual cased based on these rules.
constitution. During his time on the Supreme Court bench he has rejected the moves towards build-up, he believes that focus should be on the actual meaning of the Constitution and not just want the court says it means due to past cases. Most if not all of the Justices opinions are based off originality, and public meaning this approach seeking to explain the original constitutional text. (Conwell Law). “I have said in my opinions that when interpreting the Constitution, judges should seek the original understanding of the provision’s text, if that text’s meaning is not readily apparent”.
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.