Drawing attention to your own post, everyone politely ignored - you now take exception to an honest opinion? This - is channelling my philosophy:

Law conforms to morality inasmuch as both are aides to preserve the tribe, and they promote behaviour that the tribe uses to successfully survive. The law changes according to how the tribe's needs change. — god must be atheist

I discuss our tribal ancestry - and survival. That's my bag. Of course, I don't own these ideas - but I do know when someone is shitting on my porch.

My first clue was that, not two minuets after I posted my serious, considered remarks - your attention begging post immediately knocked mine off the front page, and then - there's my ideas, set in the context of attacks on America, China, the ruling class - and bigging up Islam.

I'm not full of hatred. But I am upset, and I'm calling you out. If you've got something to say about me, say it to me.

[

Those law come under review by some entity, perhaps a court or perhaps by the people themselves, and they declare those laws unjust and either strike them down or just refuse to comply with them.

When an entity declares that law unjust, he admits obviously it is a "law" just by virtue of its existence on the books, but that entity might be saying something further reaching, which is that the legislatively passed law is defeated and preempted by a higher law. — Hanover

I'm curious about this. I think it fair to say I've read quite a few (appellate) decisions by "entities" of the sort you mention. But, I've never read one in which it's been held that an existing law is preempted by a higher law, unless you mean by this an existing, governing law, as when statutes or ordinances are found to be unconstitutional. I doubt you mean that, though. So, I assume you refer to a situation where a court has held that a particular law doesn't pass muster with God, or violates natural law, or something along those lines. A citation would be great.

I do see what I'm describing is exactly what exists in the US. — Hanover

Well, I do think it's inappropriate to speak of rights which aren't legal rights, as I think very little is being said in that case beyond "X should be a legal right", something I find unhelpful. More to the point, though, see what I say in this post above.

Of course a law may be bad, unwise or unjust. However, I don't think they are because of a "higher law."

I would hope I would never make such an awkward statement. Where did I do so? If you mean I think that there are laws, that's quite true. I deal with statutes, ordinances, regulations, most every day. Perhaps you think there are no such things, in which case you might explain why you don't.

Well, I do think it's inappropriate to speak of rights which aren't legal rights, as I think very little is being said in that case beyond "X should be a legal right", something I find unhelpful. — Ciceronianus the White

That position seems to be to a "higher law" what the law would be to one who does not believe the "law is law." Thus, if a champion of "law is law" ever really cares to know how one who does not believe "law is law" can justify his position, then he, the champion, need only look at how he perceives "higher law." Very little is being said by a champion of "law is law" who discounts that which has not subordinated itself to mere law. Higher law, by definition, does not need to be reduced to writing. To do so would be to stipulate to jurisdiction of mere law. Whereas higher law is higher law, whether mere law stipulates to higher law's jurisdiction or not. Simply saying "law is law" is unhelpful.

I can't say I understand. If I say the law consists of statutes, regulations, adopted by and imposed by a sovereign and enforced through a recognized mechanism, that's obviously what I consider to be the law--and nothing else. If someone says there's something invisible that's actually the true law or something along those lines, or there's something invisible which should be visible and part of what I call the law, but isn't, we obviously disagree on what the law is, but I don't think I must explain why the invisible isn't the law.

Where do we disagree here? — Hanover

...a higher law. — Hanover

The Euthyphro Problem, but with "higher law" in the place of god. Appealing to a higher law never achieves legitimacy.

Morality is a separate consideration from legality.

So, in conclusion, just because the law exists for those who think it does, does not mean it exists for those who don’t think it exists. I — James Riley

What can I say? If you believe that something exists only when someone thinks it exists, you're welcome to think so.

I'm just struggling to figure out the point you are trying to make, if you are even trying to make one. It seems that when I boil your posts down to the nut, all you are saying is the law exists. Okay, so what? It seems we are in agreement. You just said that you think I'm saying "something exists only when someone thinks it exists." Isn't that what you are saying? There are those who think Natural Law exists, so by the foregoing reasoning, it exists. I confessed early that I wasn't getting the issue. If there is one, pray tell. Maybe dumb it down for me.

If someone says there's something invisible that's actually the true law or something along those lines, or there's something invisible which should be visible and part of what I call the law, but isn't, we obviously disagree on what the law is, but I don't think I must explain why the invisible isn't the law. — Ciceronianus the White

That was my point about writing. In your view, the law must be reduced to writing to be the law? I don't pretend to be a Constitutional Law expert, but it was my understanding the founding fathers merely reduced to writing (as a way of guiding government, often limiting it) that which they believed already existed. In that regard, the law is merely for those who can't take a hint.

I guess if you think something exists only when it's reduced to writing, you are welcome to think so. If my son draws an X in the dirt and says "There's my authority to hit you with the stick." I'm going to say he has no such authority. But he's going to point to the X and say "How can you deny it? It's right there?" I'm going to say the X is there, but it doesn't give him authority. He then hits me with the stick and says "See?" I'm going to say his hitting me with the stick did not spring from the X. It was him acting independent of the X. So we are back to what you said: "If you believe that something exists only when someone thinks it exists, you're welcome to think so." He thinks it's the X but it's not. It's something invisible in his head. Something I deny. I deny the X, while admitting he hit me with a stick. He can try to use the X as justification all day long, and as a warning to me (notice and opportunity to be heard), but that changes nothing. It's all in his head.

Looks like you need to work on your relationship with your son.

HA!

It was a serious point. Excessive reliance on authority has led him astray. Simple respect for others should prevent him hitting you.

That is one of the issues that @Ciceronianus the White would have us address: ought we do what the law - the "X" - says?

Excessive reliance on authority has led him astray. Simple respect for others should prevent him hitting you. — Banno

So he draws Xs' and the State writes laws. Is the State excessively reliant on authority? Would simple respect for others prevent the State from punishing people?

That is one of the issues that Ciceronianus the White would have us address: ought we do what the law - the "X" - says? — Banno

The most I've gleaned is something like "the law is the law", not "should we obey it." Perhaps I missed that. It's a totally different question. Socrates would say yes, as would many a Greek of his day. I would not obey the law because it's the law. F that. I would only do what the law says out of fear of the State punishing me if I did not. Or, upon reflection, if I found myself in agreement with the justification for the law, then I would act accordingly (i.e. "simply respect for others" as you put it). But not because "the law is the law."

Is the State excessively reliant on authority? — James Riley

:rofl:

The best definition of "state" that I know of is "those who have a monopoly on coercion". Yes, the state is reliant on authority. Excessive? Depends on which state.

There'd be an interesting conversation to be heard when Socrates met Gandhi. They would agree that one has an obligation to suffer the laws of one's state. Whereas Socrates obeyed the State even to death, Gandhi claimed a moral responsibility to refuse to follow unjust laws, but to accept the consequences as set out by the state.

I do not think that they would find themselves in disagreement.

The best definition of "state" that I know of is "those who have a monopoly on coercion". Yes, the state is reliant on authority. Excessive? Depends on which state. — Banno

Where a state is reliant on authority, must it reduce it to writing (an X in the dirt) or is coercion and use of force enough? I understand a state might want to justify itself, or give "fair" notice to individuals, but that seems to me to be the state talking to itself. Though, apparently I was off on the wrong track when picking that nit. If it's all about the "should we obey" question, I think I'd roll with Gandhi over Socrates, and then Thomas Jefferson over Gahdhi.

Where a state is reliant on authority, must it reduce it to writing (an X in the dirt) or is coercion and use of force enough? — James Riley

Oh, the Rule ofLaw is doubtless a good thing; at least you know what to expect. Mostly.

Jefferson, the Founding Fathers... to whom patriarchal obsequience is owed. Hrmph.

Again, I think Gandhi and Socrates would agree; The Apology shows that Socrates thought the state owed him free meals for life, but accepted that the state thought it owed him death. Gandhi thought one was obligated to disobey immoral laws, but also to accept the consequences as laid down by the state...

Jefferson, the Founding Fathers... to whom patriarchal obsequience is owed. Hrmph. — Banno

HA! I know those boys were fallible. I just like the idea of telling the King where he can stick his immoral laws.

the King — James Riley

Hey, respect for the Greek dude who married the German woman who nominally rules the Land of Hope and Glory...

Even if he wasn't a king.

I didn't know all that about him. Cool. I'll let him have Canada.

I guess law is literally the reinforcement of morality... — javi2541997

Whose morality?

Law and morality may agree that murder is a bad thing. Most people agree.

Law and morality do not agree that the the state may take private property for public purposes, even with fair compensation. Most people are OK with that (unless it is their ancestral home) but some people consider the claims of the state as theft, due process or not.

The law (in many states) provides for "employment at will" meaning that employment is a voluntary arrangement. You can decide to continue to work at XYZ Company or you can leave. That's fine. Perfectly moral arrangement. What happens when XYZ Company decides to voluntarily separate itself from everyone who voted to unionize the company? Is that moral? I think not, but Jeff Bezos might disagree. [Corporations usually resist unionization. Amazon is the current target of a union drive.]

A given moral principle may not be universal. What the ruling class (people like Jeff Bezos) and working class people (like 90% of the population) think is moral may be very far apart. So, it can be difficult to square the law (which we either have to accept or revolt) and morality.

Prudhomme said that "Property is theft." The law and morality do not agree about that.

I assume you refer to a situation where a court has held that a particular law doesn't pass muster with God, or violates natural law, or something along those lines. A citation would be great. — Ciceronianus the White

Before responding, I ask the relevance of your question.
Assuming there are such instances, would you reconsider anything you've said in this thread? If not, why the question?

Regardless, the answer to your question is that unless you limit your inquiry to contemporary Anglo legal systems, there are countless examples. I'm sure I could find some such citations if I go back far enough in ancient English caselaw and absolutely certain I could provide you the citations you need from Islamic and ancient Jewish theocracies. The entire Talmud is a good source for the citations you are looking for.

I'd also point out that direct reference to our heavenly father isn't required for a court to be reliant upon natural law. In the US, a nation that is explicitly not a theocracy, dependence upon accepted universal truths remains an integral part of our legal system, perhaps owing itself to the argument submitted in the Declaration that all man made laws are subservient to the inalienable ones endowed by our creator and a legal system violating those rights is an illegitimate form of government. Do you contend that the various rights constantly being found in our Constitution were so well hidden the past centuries or do you believe these may just be judges endorsing what they believe is the Good as now revealed to them due to our evolving sense of morality?

At any rate, I don't know whether your positivist position is (1) metaphysical - simply stating there are no godly laws and the concept of morality is a manmade notion, (2) ethical - a just system doesn't rely upon vague notions of fairness in the administration of society but passes clear rules to be followed, or (3) descriptive - stating that of the legal systems worth studying, they tend to be rule reliant and not principle reliant.

If #1, I follow your logic, but I'm not sure that's all you mean to say, especially in light of the question you asked that I've cited in this post.

I wonder why they wrote the Constitution if they thought it already existed. Why didn't they just rely on Natural Law to assure, for example, the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury? Or to assure the freedom of speech would not be abridged? Or that people would not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure? People would just follow Natural Law, wouldn't they?

People would just follow Natural Law, wouldn't they? — Ciceronianus the White

People don't always follow the law, written or not. The law is for those who can't take a hint, and it often does not work on them, either. But at least the law can say "I told him so!" as it comes down upon him. And the law can also turn and say to third parties "See how just I am? Follow me." And the law can say to itself "I'm so cool!"

I wonder why they wrote the Constitution if they thought it already existed. — Ciceronianus the White

Because George III would not take a hint. I suspect George III didn't think much of it once it was reduced to writing, and maybe even less so. I have no evidence for this, but he might grudgingly accept that a man has a right to defend himself, but he'd be ill inclined to agree simply because the man wrote it down. Especially if that man were a serf.

Well, when you say you see your claims regarding the application of this higher law reflected in the American legal system, you might expect those claims will be addressed--by me at least. If, like me, you haven't run across an instance of a court striking down a law or regulation because God wills it or because it's contrary to Natural Law, but instead based on other, positive, law, you may not think that the case.

I take it that my quotation from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was of no help.

Legal positivism was, and I suppose still is, in part at least the acknowledgement that the laws adopted and enforced by human societies and governments exist regardless of whether they comport with Natural Law, or the Will of God, or conceptions of what is or is not moral. We may not like them when they don't, we may even violate them, but they exist nonetheless and are laws. As Austin thought, this seems a fairly obvious insight.

So when we study the law, or analyze what it is and what it does, we don't go around saying such things as--well, such and such statute isn't a law because it doesn't reflect God's Will or Natural Law. The intelligent study of existing laws and legal systems requires that we treat the law as it exists. What we think the law should be is a different consideration. When I appear before a court, I don't argue that the pertinent statute, regulation or precedent should not be followed because it doesn't apply since it's contrary to a "higher law."

:up:

It's certainly true that some people won't take a hint.

Let's try this. I don't know where you live. Is there a government there (or governments, as we in our Glorious Republic have federal, state and local governments)? Has that government adopted rules, regulations, which are intended to apply to the conduct of its citizens? Are they written, or printed? Is there a mechanism by which they are enforced? Are there tribunals which address and decide disputes regarding their application?

If so, do you believe those rules, regulations etc. are Natural Law? Are those who enforce them enforcing Natural Law? Are those tribunals who decide their application tribunals of Natural Law? If you think they aren't, then it's likely because you think there is some difference between those rules and regulations and decisions and Natural Law. If you don't think there is a difference, then I think we can leave it at that.

I confess I did not read this article past the first page or two, but it might be worth reading. Especially as it addresses those cases where U.S. Courts deal with Natural Law. Beyond the statute, of course, is common law, cases of first impression, and conflict between law and natural law. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4060&context=ndlr

I honestly don't know if and when any court relied upon or distinguished or even addressed natural law but the cite you are looking for may be therein.

But I can reiterate that saying "the law is the law" seems tautological, "self-evident" to those who believe it, and irrelevant to those who don't see "the law is the law." To the latter, it is akin to a little kid talking about unicorns they saw in a book. Yeah, they exist. Okay.

Is there a government there (or governments, as we in our Glorious Republic have federal, state and local governments)? Has that government adopted rules, regulations, which are intended to apply to the conduct of its citizens? Are they written, or printed? Is there a mechanism by which they are enforced? Are there tribunals which address and decide disputes regarding their application? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

If so, do you believe those rules, regulations etc. are Natural Law? Are those who enforce them enforcing Natural Law? Are those tribunals who decide their application tribunals of Natural Law? If you think they aren't, then it's likely because you think there is some difference between those rules and regulations and decisions and Natural Law. If you don't think there is a difference, then I think we can leave it at that. — Ciceronianus the White

The just ones are Natural Law reduced to writing; the unjust ones are an abuse of discretion and not Natural Law. Those who enforce them, enforce them regardless of who thinks they are what. The tribunals decide regardless (sometimes checked by nullification). So here we have a nut: Natural Law is just. Man's law can be just, but is not always so. Both are arguable, but the latter will not always entertain arguments about the former. To that extent, they are unjust. If the are unjust, they are the law in the same way that my son's stick is a stick.

Well, when you say you see your claims regarding the application of this higher law reflected in the American legal system, you might expect those claims will be addressed--by me at least — Ciceronianus the White

Except this isn't what I limited it to in my post, and you ignored my comments where I did point to the influence of natural law in the American system.

Again, what relevance is this objection you've posited? If the US did in fact strike down laws explicitly on the basis of it violating natural law, what relevance would that have to anything you've said?