Isn’t Legal Positivism a rather untenable theoretical viewpoint? I say that for two reasons.

1) Subjectivity is a necessary condition to the “fair” application of the law, what ever that means, and subjectivity, by it’s very nature, often eschews pure logic. According to positivism, a law passed by the proper means must be followed – whether subjectively just or not – until another law, properly passed, overrides it.

2) Positivism stands firmly against judicial review, finding, as previously stated, that laws properly passed must be followed; the courts having no right to adjudicate on the propriety of a law. But is judicial review not a natural step in the evolution of common law?

Just a thought…


3 thoughts on “Positivism”

  1. I don’t remember all the names of the view points. However I believe positivism is advocate by Hart and I believe it is bull shit. Just a thought

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s