My view. Correct me at anytime if inaccurate.

USA Natural rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. All capitalized actually. Perhaps merely indicating their importance?

These are self evident in the sense that if an individual ever attempted to or succeeded in trying to take take or suppress any of these from you, you'd immediately distinguish this as a grave offense as would any person no matter how young or unintelligent. Speaking from a point of view that overlaps divinity or 'sacredness', observable biological pragmatism, and historical fact (including or being applicable to all three while never relying on or being exclusive to any one). We are here and alive, so this must be a natural right. We can and have done as we please, so this must be as well. Same with happiness, it brings us joy and pleasure.

As far as the sacred bit yes that is pretty explicit as far as (a) God. But not neccesarily. It can mean religious. The question would be can you call a system of belief or way of life a religion that does not acknowledge (a) God? Why couldn't you? Some would say they call this atheism. Or others may even say as human beings we are the gods. Either way there are plenty ways to logically assert human life and rights as sacred or 'venerated' sans Scripture.

That is my view at least.

Edit: Pardon, I read that Franklin replaced 'self-evident' with 'sacred and irrefutable' not the other way around before replying. Eh let's look at things pragmatically. Due to the nature of life and its hardships there will always be atheists. Even intelligent ones. Would you prefer them here and on your side or somewhere else that let's them think whatever they want. Because that's exactly what would happen. And I'm a believer in divine wrath, to say the least. With that in mind it comes down to would you punish someone for merely existing in a society that has laws the person has no real control of or cannot easily change? Probably not right. Either way, whatever happens if you have faith it should be of little concern to you. Especially if you work to advance what you think or in this case know is right.

Perhaps the greatest problem the USA has is Franklin's replacing ''self-evident' for 'sacred and irrefutable' in the Declaration of independence's definition of natural rights. As a result, almost no one knows that Jefferson actually based them on a long empirical argument by John Locke in 'Essay of Human Understanding.' Even lawyers aren’t allowed to read it in college because it is requires accepting the existence of God as a premise. — ernestm

Why wouldn't lawyers be permitted to read something about God? Is that a rule somewhere?

I don't follow anything you've said here. Even if you can cite to me and prove Franklin specifically edited Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration as you've noted, I fail to see the significance of the edit. The final version continued to show a direct reference to God, claiming that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..." The Creator is God.

now, because Franklin called the natural rights 'self evident,' everyone from the stupidest buffoon to the President of the United States thinks their opinion of law is more important than even the greatest scholars of Constitutional Law. — ernestm

Locke thought them self evident as well, deriveable by reason. Regardless, no one attempts to enforce newly dreamt up laws they've derived from reason alone. There always must be some statutory or Constitutional basis or it must be of such ancient acceptamce it's found in the common law. Whether the rights set out in the Constitution are examples of natural rights or of positive law has little practical import as far as I can tell.

corroboration of which, it is very easy to show how even natural rights are not self evident. France has different natural rights: equality, liberty, and fraternity. Everyone in France thinks their different natural rights are self evident. That proves natural rights are NOT self evident. Almost no one realizes that either, perhaps maybe 0.02% of the USA at most. — ernestm

This is an argument for cultural relativism. Is murder moral in those countries where it is legal? This is just to point out that you can hold to certain absolutes regardless of whether others disagree with your absolutes. Do you justify the prohibition against slavery on the basis men have declared it such or do you base it on a sacred principle related to freedom and autonomy?

That’s all one should need to know to recognize that one's own opinion of constitutional and common law is really rather more insignificant as a 6-year-old child's opinion of what driving laws should be. — ernestm

This is your first reference to the Constitution or to common law. How does this apply to your natural law argument?

Well John Adams and Franklin kind of teamed up on Jefferson on this particular change. Adams fans say Adams did it.

Why wouldn't lawyers be permitted to read something about God? Is that a rule somewhere? — Hanover

The problem is, it is forbidden in the state school system to teach anything requiring religious belief, private schools follow the state curricula, and universities therefore avoid teaching anything to people who might end up being teachers, so it ends up being something reserved for advanced specialties, or in this case, one advanced specialty, constitutional law,and even then, only at the Masters level.

The final version continued to show a direct reference to God, claiming that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, — Hanover

That's true, which is why Jefferson agreed to the change. However, the ADDITION of the concept 'self evident' has proven disastrous. It was required politically to obtain support from several members of the first congress who followed Thomas Paine, and Paine himself, who believed a Scottish refutation to Hume, these days referred to as naïve realism, from which Paine wrote a seriously influential document justifying more taxes philosophically, called 'on common sense.'

Locke thought them self evident as well, derivable by reason. — Hanover

That’s not quite correct, Locke did feel it self evident that reason should dictate law, rather than divine inspiration. However what he did was present a series of logical deductions based on empirical observations of what was called at the time, the 'State of Nature.' although the phrase has evolved somewhat due to other philosophers writing different things about it.

There always must be some statutory or Constitutional basis or it must be of such ancient acceptance it's found in the common law. — Hanover

The Jeffersonian concept is promulgation of authority, from the divine, through natural rights, to constitutional law, and from that common law, with the last form in particular influenced by legal precedence. For constitutional law, there are a number of factors influencing its modification, but historically the most important is the Founding Fathers Intent, which is why Obama was particularly versed in Locke, and only lawyers specializing in Constitutional Law ever really learn about Locke's entire theory in this country, if at all.

The idea of promulgation of authority came from Thomas Aquinas.

This is an argument for cultural relativism. Is murder moral in those countries where it is legal? This is just to point out that you can hold to certain absolutes regardless of whether others disagree with your absolutes. Do you justify the prohibition against slavery on the basis men have declared it such or do you base it on a sacred principle related to freedom and autonomy? — Hanover

Those are very valid questions deserving their own thread. The reason I started this one was simply to examine issues with the general public thinking they know everything about law, so much in fact, they disregard legal opinion or even the ideas leading to legal opinion, due to the early assertion in this nation that natural rights, and therefore law, is entirely self evident from intuition.

What I would say is that intuition is refined by the practice of learning and reason to become more robust. It appears that is not generally agreed upon at all in the USA.

The problem is, it is forbidden in the state school system to teach anything requiring religious belief, and private schools follow the state curricula — ernestm

Did you go to college in the US? This is just categorically incorrect. I took religion classes at a state school and some private colleges even specifically require prayer..

However, the ADDITION of the concept 'self evident' has proven disastrous. — ernestm

Natural law demands that the law be self-evident. That addition was therefore superfluous. How else can one know the natural law except by introspection? The only other option is if God decreed it, but that wouldn't be natural law; that would be divine command theory.

The Jeffersonian concept is promulgation of authority, from the divine, through natural rights, to constitutional law, and from that common law, with the last form in particular influenced by legal precedence. — ernestm

This doesn't follow. The common law preceded Constitutional law and was inherited from England. If the common law is deriveable from natural law, then you're arguing the English followed natural law principles. If that's the case, then why did the colonies write the Declaration and rebel if the English system was already in compliance with it.

What I would say is that intuition is refined by the practice of learning and reason to become more robust. It appears that is not generally agreed upon at all in the USA. — ernestm

It's obvious that universal agreement is lacking on what rights ought be fundamental, but that's just a general attack on natural rights theory, really not central to your OP.

Did you go to college in the US? This is just categorically incorrect. I took religion classes at a state school and some private colleges even specifically require prayer.. — Hanover

You are not allowed to be taught that belief in God is required in state shcools. You are allowed to be taught it from a narrative or cultural sense, but you are not allowed to learn anything that requires belief in one particular theology besides atheism.

his doesn't follow. The common law preceded Constitutional law and was inherited from England. If the common law is deriveable from natural law, then you're arguing the English followed natural law principles. If that's the case, then why did the colonies write the Declaration and rebel if the English system was already in compliance with it. — Hanover

There is no constitutional law in England. The law in England follows Aquinas that authority is promulgated to judges, who are required to consider precedence first.

It's obvious that universal agreement is lacking on what rights ought be fundamental, but that's just a general attack on natural rights theory, really not central to your OP. — Hanover

My point is that State schools teach children to believe that natural rights are self evident, and therefore, almost everybody, I'd estimate 99.9%, also think they understand what constitutional law should be from their own intuition, without thinking that intuition is refined by acquiring more knowledge and learning more principals of reason.

I talked with people about this before on this forum's predecssor about 8 years ago suggesting that maybe philsophy should be mandatory to solve the problem. That was met with outright horror. Professors say its difficult enough to teach philosophy as an option.

The very concept that people should actually be required to think, in order to get a degree, was just too big a nightmare for anyone who teaches, even at college, for it actually to happen at least in our lifetimes, and probably a dozen generations after that, as far as I can fathom.

Meanwhile, I dont know what can be done about it.

Even lawyers aren’t allowed to read it in college because it is requires accepting the existence of God as a premise. — ernestm

There is nothing prohibiting a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, from reading the Declaration of Independence in college, or anywhere else.

As for reference to God here in our Glorious Republic, you'll find that he's mentioned fairly often by the federal, state and local governments here, for good or ill, and that reference has been sanctioned by the courts. "In God we trust" is the official motto of our Great Union, and has been since 1956. The Pledge of Allegiance contains the words "one nation under God." Prayers are allowed at the commencement of meetings of the Congress and state and local legislatures.

Be that as it may, I'm not aware of any self-evident rights or any rights at all, properly speaking--if rights of any kind are enforceable--except legal rights.

it is very easy to show how even natural rights are not self evident. — ernestm

That proves natural rights are NOT self evident. — ernestm

Any chance at all of finding out what your understanding of "self-evident" is?

You are not allowed to be taught that belief in God is required in state shcools. You are allowed to be taught it from a narrative or cultural sense, but you are not allowed to learn anything that requires belief in one particular theology besides atheism. — ernestm

The restrictions in public college are fairly limited and it's not at all uncommon for students to openly express their religious beliefs when taking a course specifically on Christian theology. You also indicated that private schools labored under the same restrictions, but they don't, with many being very openly religious and being directly affiliated with a religion.

There is no constitutional law in England. The law in England follows Aquinas that authority is promulgated to judges, who are required to consider precedence first. — ernestm

There's no Constitutional law in England because there's no Constitution in England. England has statutory law and it references specific ancient legal documents in the decisions by its courts. It's not as if their parliament is incapable of passing statutes and that they have to wait around for the judges to decree laws. What do you envision, that some judge just declares what the tax rate will be or any other such law?

Your understanding of the common law appears confused.

My point is that State schools teach children to believe that natural rights are self evident, and therefore, almost everybody, I'd estimate 99.9%, also think they understand what constitutional law should be from their own intuition, without thinking that intuition is refined by acquiring more knowledge and learning more principals of reason. — ernestm

Natural rights are to be self-evident by definition. Whether they are or not is a point of contention philosophically, but it's not error to teach someone what the definition of a natural right is. Regardless, no one suggests that Constitutional law (which is distinct from natural law and common law) is knowable from intuition. How could someone know what a document says without reading it?

As to whether the Declaration's reference to certain unalienable rights suggests that the rights enumerated in the Constitution must all be natural rights is a questionable leap. I'm not sure anyone argues that the rights afforded to the States under the 10th Amendment, for example, would be considered a natural right. How could you have such a natural right without having the idiosyncratic federalistic system the US has?

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, so I think it had less to do with law and more to do with refuting the power of the British parliament in the rhetorical style of the time. I do agree that it was a mistake to ground rights in theology.

I do agree that it was a mistake to ground rights in theology. — NOS4A2

Certain rights are being declared absolute and therefore no government has the right to impede them . The reference to the creator is not a reference to a specific theological system, but it is using God to anchor the absolute nature of the law. For example, if I say the right to free speech is something that no government can legitimately limit, I'm saying something about my rights regardless of what an oppressive government might say. As to the question, why is that right beyond the power of the government to limit? According the Declaration, because the Creator says so. If you wish to reject the divine command theory nature of this, that doesn't affect the concept of natural law, but it requires that you arrive at some logical basis for decreeing certain rights cannot be infringed upon.

I mean, I agree. I believe in natural rights. But the problem is governments can and do limit these rights. So perhaps grounding rights on some solid ground might be a more practical approach to seeing them adopted and protected rather than infringed.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, — NOS4A2

Strange thing. Attorneys who dont know very much often say the DoI is not a legal document, and insist it is true, which just goes to show how awful the USA education system is. In preface, it should be stated, it was violation of rights that was the justification of declaring the USA independent, specifically, right to life by not supplying enough drinking water in Boston, leading to the Boston Tea Party (even the current 'Tea Party' is grossly unaware for this). Thus the DoI is a legal document, firstly, because it defines the authority the USA has to rule itself.

But to answer the question: many attorneys scoff at the idea of DoI being a legal document even with it being the derivation of authority for them to practice their profession at all. More importantly to their profession, the truth is that the Supreme Court prmarily considers the Intent of the Founding Fathers in decisions based on interpretation of Constitutional Law for new situations. That means the Declaration of Independence, being the primary intent of the Founding Fathers, which all the founding fathers signed, and was the first thing they all agreed upon, is the primary basis of all Constitutional law, both for current cases and for all other Constitutional decisions via precedence.

It should not take much thought to understand that, but I do have to say, I've heard alot of total crap on the subject for a decade now, even from attorneys, who refuse to believe I could say anything at all that might be more correct than their own intuitive prejudice on the subject.

Furthermore, from this perspective, some argue that John Adams, Thomas Paine, etc did want the natural rights to be stated as self evidently true. Therefore, in particular fans of Hamilton (a guy who quit college to be a general and then bribed his way into the bar after) think Hamiton's idea of law is so good that it doesnt matter what a guy as stupid as Jefferson thought. ive heard that several dozen times.

The problem with the 'self evident' intuition, as I said in my first post, is that different people have different intuitions, and there is no rational way to resolve them. By referring to Locke, specifically his chapter 'On Power' in the Essay on Human Understanding, issues on interpreting the meaning of Natural Rights are no longer a matter of intuitively-derived opinion.

One then has the subsequent debate as to whether the opinion of those founding fathers who believed in Paine's notion of naive realism, rather than read Locke, are superior to Jefferson's rational empiricism. Personally I feel that is rather a cut-and-dry case on the part of Jefferson, but people who have not studied epistemology or metaphysics, who don't really apprecate the qualitative difference between native realism and rational empiricism, do have different opinions on that.

Strange thing. Attorneys who dont know very much often say this, and insist it is true, which just goes to show how awful the USA education system is. — ernestm

I don't think I've said that about the Declaration of Independence, though. Do attorneys who don't know very much also tell you they were/are not prohibited from reading the Declaration "in college"?

Do attorneys who don't know very much also tell you they were/are not prohibited from reading the Declaration "in college"? — Ciceronianus the White

If they even got as far as considering philosophy, all of them but one, President Obama, told me that Jefferson's idea of natural rights was based on 'Two Treatises of Government,' and on further pressing would say they never read the Essay on Human Understanding and had no idea what it said. If you read both, you'd know the docoment they cite, 'Two Treatises on Government,' a much simpler work by Locke, focuses on how property could be a ,natural right' per se, but doesnt actually conclude that it is, and rather takes life and liberty for granted as already established natural rights, or rather, says they are without empricial derivation in appostition to Hobbes' view, and the empricial derivation is in Essay on Human Understanding.

Obama's response was rather different. I presented an argument that right to life is violated when someone shoot another to death, and moreover, ironically, deprives the shot person of the right to bear arms too, the latter point of which seems to be the only right alot of people care about. He went on TV saying 'people who are shot to death had rights too,' much to the scorn of 2nd amendment supporters.

12.12pm, edited for grammar and spelling. I have to check spelling in Word so I save the post first, in case I stupidly press a wrong button and lose it. For some reason spell checking no longer works on Chrome in this forum. If someone knows how to fix that I would be glad to hear it.

it is very easy to show how even natural rights are not self evident. — ernestm That proves natural rights are NOT self evident. — ernestm Any chance at all of finding out what your understanding of "self-evident" is? — tim wood

'Self evident' is a tag used by an author to indicate that they are unable to justify or rationalise their conclusion.

it is very easy to show how even natural rights are not self evident. — ernestm That proves natural rights are NOT self evident. — ernestm Any chance at all of finding out what your understanding of "self-evident" is?
— tim wood

'Self evident' is a tag used by an author to indicate that they are unable to justify or rationalise their conclusion. — A Seagull

As I say, Thomas Paine was the originator of this view, and he wrote something on it called 'on common sense.' You can find the original text of it on the web. In summary I would say that he advocates all truth is known by intuition. My own view is that intuition is refined by acquiring knowledge and practising rational reason. Some disagree with my own view, but that is my opinion. Thank you for asking.

Strange thing. Attorneys who dont know very much often say the DoI is not a legal document, and insist it is true, which just goes to show how awful the USA education system is. — ernestm

It's not a legal document. If someone were to sue claiming that their rights under the Declaration had been violated, they'd be suing without any legal basis.

More importantly to their profession, the truth is that the Supreme Court prmarily considers the Intent of the Founding Fathers in decisions based on interpretation of Constitutional Law for new situations. That means the Declaration of Independence, being the primary intent of the Founding Fathers, which all the founding fathers signed, and was the first thing they all agreed upon, is the primary basis of all Constitutional law, both for current cases and for all other Constitutional decisions via precedence. — ernestm

Original intent is one method of Constitutional construction not adhered to by all Justices. Regardless, to the extent you're arguing that the Declaration might be persuasive to some in interpreting legally binding documents, that's true, but that doesn't make the persuasive document legally binding. The Federal Register, for example, records the minutes of various government agencies when they arrive at certain regulations. The regulations themselves are binding and perhaps the minutes of the meetings might offer some better understanding of the intent behind the regulation, but it doesn't make the Federal Register a legally binding document. You're referencing rules of construction of binding documents and so it might make sense to look at the intent of the framers, but that's simply one form of construction and it doesn't make that document binding in any way.

Original intent is one method of Constitutional construction not adhered to by all Justices. — Hanover

Well, after telling me the doI is not a legal document, showing that you have no interest at all in understa
nding the facts I present before blurting out your opinion, lol, Id have to lump you with the attorneys except obama, who actually did read my 5,000 word essay on the topic.

Original intent is one method of Constitutional construction not adhered to by all Justices. — Hanover

Remains a minority, hence, does not refute the statements I wrote that you are too busy telling me Im wrong to try to understand.

Strange thing. Attorneys who dont know very much often say the DoI is not a legal document, and insist it is true, which just goes to show how awful the USA education system is. In preface, it should be stated, it was violation of rights that was the justification of declaring the USA independent, specifically, right to life by not supplying enough drinking water in Boston, leading to the Boston Tea Party (even the current 'Tea Party' is grossly unaware for this). Thus the DoI is a legal document, firstly, because it defines the authority the USA has to rule itself.

It is a clam of separation, sure, but not an act of constituting a government. It is a statement of ideals, not law. It’s not just attorneys who say this, but also Supreme Court judges. “ The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts” (Scalia).

The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts” (Scalia). — NOS4A2

Yes, Scalia is one of the dissenting members of the minority in the Supreme Court advocating a new concept philosophically called 'legal positivism' which in brief, if you forgive me uttering my opuinion on it, that the law is right because it says so, much like the bible saying it is right because it says so, in a legal deduction, metaphysically, from early Wittgeinianism.

Even lawyers aren’t allowed to read it in college because it is requires accepting the existence of God as a premise. — ernestm

Lawyers and students can read and believe what ever the hell the want though. (there is no restricted reading material in the U.S.A. Why are you making this completely unsubstantiated claim?). They don't actively teach that lawyers must believe in god. Is that what's bothering you?

So now, because Franklin called the natural rights 'self evident,' everyone from the stupidest buffoon to the President of the United States thinks their opinion of law is more important than even the greatest scholars of Constitutional Law. — ernestm

Who is the greatest constitutional scholar? Obama?

Do they believe that rightness of laws should or must stem from God?

Whatever you think of Obama, he was one of those scholars, and one of the very few people I ever knew, who not only knew Locke's argument but could understand it. — ernestm

I'm gonna go ahead and call this an "appeal to Obama" (a popular contemporary informal fallacy).

Most people did not even know Obama's specialty as an attorney was constitutional law. But virtually everyone touts off this ridiculous statements about what he said that was right or wrong. That demonstrates the gross stupidity of almost the rest of the entire country. — ernestm

You seem very concerned with how badly educated and stupid everyone is.

Is that because they don't believe in God?

As corroboration of which, it is very easy to show how even natural rights are not self evident. France has different natural rights: equality, liberty, and fraternity. Everyone in France thinks their different natural rights are self evident. That proves natural rights are NOT self evident. Almost no one realizes that either, perhaps maybe 0.02% of the USA at most. — ernestm

So because some people differ on what or how they define natural rights, they must be completely non-self evident?

What if we don't live in some all or nothing Yaweh fever-dream where there is either perfect order and meaning to everything or else it's all indiscernible and meaningless chaos?.

What if natural rights aren't perfect and absolute, but instead are useful heuristics? What if the underlying values they are meant to support don't come from god, but instead come from the human condition?

That’s all one should need to know to recognize that one's own opinion of constitutional and common law is really rather more insignificant as a 6-year-old child's opinion of what driving laws should be. — ernestm

So you want us all to worship your god... What else is new?

Lawyers and students can read and believe what ever the hell the want though. ( — VagabondSpectre

lol doint they love to too, but they dont have time to. Have you ever seen the size of the United States Code? lol. Interestingly enough, sturucturalist linguists have analyzed it to find that close to 50% of it is related to taxation.

Who is the greatest constitutional scholar? Obama?
Do they believe that rightness of laws should or must stem from God? — VagabondSpectre

I dont think constitutional lawyers (Obama was a lawyer before he became President, although he was honorary professor a number of places, it was not his real source of income) even consider themselves capable of saying whom is the greatest. So I dont think I am in a position to answer that question!

To answer the second question, I would have to share 30,000 words and some 100 references. Currently I could only do that on LinkedIn, because it is too long to fit here, but I will make the effort of transcribing it to a series of 10 LinkedIn articles, if you actually want to read it.

That is because, being the result of rational empiricism, its answer relies on a large array of deductions and inferences from empirical observations, as well as, the arguments and prior conclusions both by Locke and his predecessors writing on the concept of Natural Law and the State of Nature.

If you understand Locke's argument for Jeffersonian natural rights, then Rousseau is the rational next subject, which if you are familiar with the subject, you would already know, sorry.

'legal positivism' which in brief, if you forgive me uttering my opuinion on it, that the law is right because it says so, much like the bible saying it is right because it says so, in a legal deduction, metaphysically, from early Wittgeinianism. — ernestm

Legal positivism is the view that, as was said succintly and simply by John Austin in 1832, long before Wittgenstein was born: The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. What the law is, therefore, is determined by studying the law itself. Whether a law is right or wrong, wise or unwise, popular or unpopular, has no bearing on whether it is a law according to legal positivism. Whether it is or is not any of those things may have bearing on whether it is a good or bad law, a wise one or a foolish one, a popular or unpopular one, however.

I guess you'd want to know, Obama quoted me from my 5,000 word essay, "people who are shot to death had rights too" in this video. It's quite famous, because he also decided to agree with me that, given the vast domination of 'self evident truth' over other kinds of truth in the mind of the general public, that appeal to emotion appears the only possible course of rhetorical persuasion. It's quite famous because Obama actually cried.

segment 27:43 to 29:00.



Of course the gun lobby boo'ed it as 'crocodile tears.' Well you can watch it and tell me your opinion, if you want, thats what a forum like this is for :)

Legal positivism is the view that, as was said succintly and simply by John Austin in 1832, long before Wittgenstein was born: The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. What the law is, therefore, is determined by studying the law itself. Whether a law is right or wrong, wise or unwise, popular or unpopular, has no bearing on whether it is a law according to legal positivism. — Ciceronianus the White

Well thank you for a much better definition than I could write! May I quote you? I do have a response you may actually like, but it is a little OT, given that you don't challenge my statement that Scalia follows legal positivism, which would logically be the first criticism of my statement.

So first I would be interested to learn your opinion on the post immediately above, which is actually as far as I got on answering the posts title question myself, and started to realize there's probably a better answer.

I'm afraid I can't watch the entirety of that video right now.

You're probably better off quoting Austin than me.

I've hears Scalia was a legal positivist, but have to admit I haven't read enough of his opinions to come to my own conclusion. I tend to read opinions when they relate to my practice, and U.S. Supreme Court opinions do so fairly infrequently, my experience with constititutional issues being limited to takings, zoning and land use issues for the most part. Usually, there are more than enough state, federal district court and federal appeals court opinions to suffice for my purposes.

I've never understood the totemic regard some of my fellow citizens have for the Second Amendment, and believe the rights granted by it are subject to limitations just as rights granted by other amendments are subject to limitation.

segment 27:43 to 29:00. — ernestm

Regarding your other statements, it's true Austin was the first to coin the term, as far as I know. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy traces it back to Bentham, but really that is another topic.

Regarding Scalia, I remember reading that he follows Hart's 'Concept of Law' (1961) which is postcedent to Wittgenstein's metaphysical underpinning of legal positivism by logical positivism. I can't remember the source.

Regarding Scalia, I remember reading that he follows Hart's 'Concept of Law' (1961) which is postcedent to Wittgenstein's metaphysical underpinning of legal positivism by logical positivism. — ernestm

I read Hart's Concept of Law a long time ago, but think it was in the analytic philosophy tradition, so it may well be that Wittgenstein influenced Hart.