Other legal and political systems are very different from the American system, which derives from the traditions of English common law and the authors of the U.S. Constitution. Our legal and political traditions differ both in the type of laws we pass and abide by, and in how disputes are resolved in court. Suppose a court has to decide whether an employer can fire an employee for no reason. Suppose there were no laws applicable to the facts: there was no contract between the employer and the employee, but the employee had worked for the employer for many years, and now a younger person has replaced him. The court, without prior guidelines, would have to decide whether the employee has given a “cause of action” against the employer. If the court decides that the case is not legally appealable, it will dismiss the action. Future courts would then treat similar cases in the same way. In doing so, the court could conclude that employers could fire employees for any reason or no reason.
This rule could be applied in the future if similar cases occurred. The law has different meanings as well as different functions. Philosophers have been dealing with questions of justice and law for centuries, and different approaches or schools of legal thought have emerged. In this chapter, we will examine these different meanings and approaches and examine how social and political dynamics interact with the ideas that drive different schools of legal thought. We will also examine the typical sources of “positive law” in the United States and how some of these sources take precedence over others, and describe some fundamental differences between the U.S. legal system and other jurisdictions. ConstitutionsThe founding documents of the legal system of each nation-state. are the basis of the other laws of a state or nation that form the legislative, executive and judicial framework of the country. Among the nations of the world, the United States has the oldest constitution still in use. It is difficult to change, which is why there were only seventeen changes after the first ten in 1789; Two-thirds of the House and Senate must pass amendments, and three-quarters of states must approve them. Legal positivists, on the other hand, would say that we cannot know with real confidence what “natural” law or “universal” law is.
When we study law, we can learn more effectively by simply looking at what the written law says or by examining how it has been applied. In response, natural law thinkers would argue that if we care about justice, every law and every legal system must be held accountable to higher standards, no matter how difficult that may be. The school of historical law believes that societies should base their current legal decisions on the examples of the past. Precedents would be more important than moral arguments. A frequent contrast, seen for the first time in Professor H.L.A. Hart`s classic, The Concept of Law, lies between an “external” or social science view of law and an “internal” view that emphasizes the normativity of law.1 The so-called external view of law, in which law is essentially understood as predictions about what the courts will do, goes back at least to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and probably to John Austin or Montesquieu.2 The internal view is that: which has been adopted. participants in the legal system, whether judges, litigants or lawyers, and understands all normative and doctrinal considerations that influence legal decisions. There are different schools (or philosophies) about what the law is.
The philosophy of law is also called jurisprudenceThe philosophy of law. There are many philosophies of law, and therefore many different jurisprudential points of view, and the two high schools are legal positivism, a jurisprudence that focuses on the law as it is – the command of the sovereign. and natural lawA jurisprudence that emphasizes a law that transcends positive laws (human laws) and points to a set of universally applicable principles. While there are others (see Section 1.2.3 “Other Schools of Legal Thought”), these two schools are the most influential in how people perceive the law. This chapter explains the concept of common law laws and points out that the laws that govern common law countries today are primarily decrees of a democratic parliament mediated by interpretive common law rules. The basic unit of legislation is the decree, which consists of a separate legislative proposal. It needs an enlightened construction that is explained. Legislation is what the legislator says; Although the legal meaning of the law, that is, the one that corresponds to the intention of the legislator, is what the court says, it is. The chapter explains in detail the meaning of legal significance.
The usual effect of an order is that when the facts fall within a specified range called the factual framework, there are specified consequences called legal thrust. The elements of the legal orientation cannot be expressed by the author. These implicit ancillary provisions must be considered imported. The law is a word that means different things at different times. Black`s Law Dictionary states that the law is “a set of rules of action or conduct prescribed by the supervisory authority and having binding legal force. What must be followed by citizens who are subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. Black`s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, s.v. “Law”. Before continuing, let us clarify that whatever the title of our essay, it is not a work of jurisprudence.
Like Hart, we are not interested in the concept of law itself.6 We leave aside the question of what law is, as well as the relative role of natural law or positivist approaches to this issue.7 Rather, we are interested in how the law uses the concepts.