Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group N/Positivism"

Revision as of 11:20, 14 March 2014

== Legal Positivism Law Theory ==

Theorist: John Austin

The Theory:

Legal Positivism was a response to natural law theory which separated morality from the law. Still in the time of Christendom, John Austin still accepts that God set down laws. God's law was "revealed law." He expanded the concept of legal formation to include man made laws. He divided man made laws into two categories:

Positive Morality (Norms): These included things like manners, customs, club rules, international law, and [English] constitutional law.
Positive Law: Can easily be defined as commands. They are issued by superiors to subordinates, and backed by sanctions that serve to enforce the law.

Three Requirements for a Valid Law:

Command: Direction to do or not to do something.
Issued by superiors to subordinates: Determinant and common superior to whom the bulk of a given society are in a habit of obedience or submission.
Sanctions: The threat of “evil” which ensures compliance.

Complications with Austin’s Positivist Analysis:

What is the role of the judge?
Determining the identity of the sovereign.

Building on the Theory:

H.L.A. Hart

Hart brings Austin’s theory into a modern society.
Not dependent upon moral content. Brings in laws that are not characterized as commands.
Law is a mixture of primary rules (akin John Austin rules) and defines secondary rules which are less like commands but more regulatory (Austin did not specifically address these secondary rules).
Acknowledged the rule of recognition. Positive morality should be followed because officials believe the integrity of the laws and are obligated to be bound by them.

Raz and Bentham

Focus is on utility. Laws should be for the good of the people. Laws are justified by the services they provide to the people.

John Austin's Analysis of the Case:

Is the legislation a command? The State has a right to intervene when a child where the person in whose charge the child is neglects or refuses to provide or obtain proper medical, surgical or other recognized remedial care or treatment necessary for the child's health or wellbeing, or refuses to permit such care or treatment to be supplied to the child when it is recommended by a legally qualified medical practitioner, or otherwise fails to protect the child adequately.
Is the legislation created by a superior and issued to subordinates? Yes, the provincial legislature is a sovereign for the Province of Ontario. The legislation is issued to the citizens of Ontario which recognize the Ontario legislature as their sovereign.
Is the legislation back by sanctions? As the legislation has been repealed, we are unsure of the original sanctions, but we assume that failure to comply with the provincial order would lead to court order penalties.

John Austin Analysis of the Impugned Legislation: Complications?

What is the role of the judge? Judges are delegated the power to apply the law. In this case, there are not any complications as per Austin’s analysis because they applied the legislation as it was created.

Can the sovereign be identified? Recognizes three sovereigns that the bulk of the population is in the habit of obeying and submitting to. These are:

Constitution, Parliament, Provincial Legislatures.
In this case the Ontario government falls under a Provincial legislature.

HLA Hart Analysis of the Impugned Legislation:

Can be classified this legislation as a primary rule because it dictates what we can and cannot do with respect to children.
The state officials who created the legislation followed it as they enforced it. They continue to enforce it when they are required to in the appropriate circumstance.

Raz and Bentham Analysis of the Impugned Legislation:

This legislation is justified because it serves a high social utility of saving children.

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 * This legislation is justified because it serves a high social utility of saving children.
-<big><big>Theorist: H.L.A. Hart </big></big>
-'''The Theory:'''
-* Law and morality are separate systems.
-* A valid law depends upon not only on the buy in of the public it governs but also the buy in of the actors of the legal system such as judges, lawyers, police officers, etc.
-** If these actors do not enforce these laws and more importantly do not psychologically believe that they should be enforced, these laws begin to lose what makes them laws, and instead become rules.
-'''What Judges Do:'''
-Laws are general in nature and have a “settled core meaning” that will cover the majority of facts that arise in different cases.  It is the case where the law does not fully cover the facts of the case is where judges play an active role.  This is what it known as the ''penumbra''.
-For the cases found in the ''penumbra'', judges do not apply their own moral standard and instead use “terms of the rule governed practice.”
-* These terms are a consistent set of principles and values of the legal system.
-* In Canadian law, judges understand the ''Charter'' as embodying the terms of our rule governed practice.
-'''Hart’s Analysis to the Judicial Decisions of the case:'''
-Do the facts of this case fall within the meaning of liberty as defined in s.7 and s. 2(a) of the ''Charter''?
-'''Lamer & La Forest:'''
-This case presents itself as a penumbra, with the parent’s bringing the action that the ''Child Welfare Act'' infringes upon their ''Charter'' rights. While La Forest states that the Act does infringe upon section 7 rights to liberty, the overall Act is saved by section 1. Lamer concludes that the Act does not infringe upon ''Charter'' rights. Using the analogy of an eclipse; the facts of the case can be seen as the sun and the Act is moon. The parents claim that the Act does not completely cover the facts and justify the State from taking temporary custody of their child because of the infringements to their ''Charter'' rights, therefore blocking the Act from covering the facts and creating the ''penumbra''. The court holds that the Act does not infringe upon the parent’s ''Charter'' rights, therefore releasing the Act to cover the facts and allowing the Act to stand.
-<big><big>Theorist: Lon Fuller</big></big>
-<big>A Response to Hart</big>
-'''The Theory:'''
-Law and morality are not separate entities.  They are connected but they disconnected from the divine.
-'''What Judges Do:'''
-  In determining the good that the law is accomplishing, judges have to interrupt both the external morality as well as the internal morality.
-* External morality is determined by society’s belief as a whole of what is moral and immoral, what is right and what is wrong.
-* Internal morality is the morality that comes from the law.  Laws that are capable of being explained, judicial decisions that are capable of being explained to the public that is coherent, and reasoned, are valid moral laws and decisions.
-** Judges have a fidelity to the law and a duty to change it if it does not conform to inner morality.
-'''Fuller’s Analysis to the Judicial Decisions of the case:'''
-'''Lamer:'''
-Lamer decides that the ''Child Welfare Act'' does not contradict ''Charter'' rights under section 7. Looking at the external morality, society believes that the welfare of the child comes before the parent’s belief in what they religiously believe is best for that child. Inner morality of the Act is justified by the fact that Lamar can explain and give reasons why the ''Child Welfare Act'' does not contravene a parent’s section 7 ''Charter'' right to liberty. The law is overall moral because it fits into society’s values regarding the welfare of children and it can be explained and reasoned to the public as to why this is the case.
-'''La Forest:'''
-La Forest decides that the ''Child Welfare Act'' does contradict the parent’s Section 7 ''Charter'' rights to Liberty but is saved by the section 1 right of reasonable limits on the infringement. Looking at the external morality, La Forest see’s Liberty rights as broad and that parent’s should be able to make decisions for their child for what they believe is in the best interest of said child. He saves the Act via section 1 based on reasonable limits, while society believes that parents should make decisions for their children, the public can also see the value of requiring a basic standard in which all parents must abide and if parents fall below that standard, the state may step in and provide for the interests of the child. La Forest can explain this reasonable limit, therefore making the Act moral in the eyes of Fuller.

Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group N/Positivism"

Revision as of 11:20, 14 March 2014

Navigation menu

Search