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
The term ‘supremacy’ signifies the highest authority or rank and could even be defined as being in an all-powerful position. This ‘constitution’ give a meaning of a codified and uncodified body of rules governing the publics and also the government. Besides, the word ‘parliament’ gives the meaning of the national representative body owning the law-making powers within the state. The Constitutional supremacy gives the meaning that the Constitution is supreme over the parliament and can only exercise its roles within the boundaries of the Constitution. Constitutional supremacy is possible only when the rigid and written constitution is provided.
Legal positivism greatly emphasises the differences and separation of law and morality. Legal professionals who follow this theory believe that law is man made by the legislature to stop a certain action. They hold that the law should be held superior and should be obeyed without consideration of morality. Austin, as a positivist, sought to provide us with a clearer idea of what the law actually is instead of what morality notions it to be. Austin uses utilitarianism to form the basis of his theory which in turn lay down the foundation of modern positive law.
The Leviathan, written by Thomas Hobbes scrupulously argues that peace and unity among civilians and society can only be possible through the establishment of a commonwealth via a social contract According to Hobbes, any lasting political authority should be granted with absolute authority to ensure the well-being of the system. Throughout this essay I will identify and explain the main points of Hobbes’s argument against a divided authority, which he likens to a “Defectuous Procreation”. Firstly, Hobbes advocates that for a government (of any form) to be effective, they should possess absolute authority over all. The powers of legislation and enforcement for example must be neither divided nor limited. An effective government needs to establish and consistently maintain absolute authority for the safety the commonwealth, in so doing, the safety of the sovereign.
Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law. I believe legal paternalism is the only principle that may justify laws, and it will be explained why by showing how Mill’s own views allow for legal paternalism, how Dworkin perseveres freedom through interference, and how there are functions in place to minimize paternalistic interference. However, we must begin by defining what these two philosophies are. First, the harm principle will be explained. Mill himself writes it as being, “… the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
True justice and peace are accomplished only after salvation, not in this world. In his view, the government is extremely important considering it restrains a world of sinners who would misbehave if there were no laws. Governments have the right to create any law that does not conflict with the word of God and citizens have a duty to obey the laws. Nonetheless if obedience to God and authority conflict one must always choose obedience to God regardless of the punishment. St. Thomas Aquinas, another notable Christian philosopher who sought to combine Augustine and Aristotle’s thoughts and find a way in which reason and faith could work together.
The Due Process Clause is strongly connected with apprehension of fair procedures. Moreover, it follows the Magna Carta of Great Britain which resolutions were applied to ensure the noblemen that the king would make his decisions in accordance with procedures of law. Then the 17th century American colonies put an emphasis on preserving legal order. That being said, the government has always been under pressure to regard given law,
Later he also compares the Roman Republic system to add value to his explanations. 2. Montesquieu specified that the independence of the judiciary has to be real and not merely apparent. Judiciary is seen as most powerful, independent, and unchecked, and was considered dangerous.  The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers independent and unchecked.
The maxim nemo Judex in causa sua state that no one shall be the judge of his own cause provides the rules against bias. The author will now examine the importance of judicial independence and the approaches of the English Legal System toward the concept of judicial biasness. 1.0 The Roles of Judges Judges are upholder of justice. Not only did they hear and decide cases, they also play a critical role in ensuring the executive act intra vires through judicial review. The role of judges have changed significantly especially with the passing of Human Right Act 1998 (herein with HRA 1998).
It referenced the bill of right 1689 enacted by the supremacy of parliament over the monarch. It listed a number of fundamentals rights and liberties. An entrenched bill of right cannot be repealed or modified by the country’s legislature through a normal procedure. It requires a referendum or supermajority varying from different countries. In the constitution, it stipulates clearly the process to be involved in the exercise.