Talk:Positive law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Title 40 of the USC
An anonymous editor removed the reference to title 40 as having been enacted as positive law. I restored the reference to title 40. This is part of a direct quote. Whether title 40 is positive law or not, this is directly quoted material, so we shouldn't be altering it -- at least not in this way. If our fellow editor has some actual authority for the proposition that the quote is incorrect, that could be added to the article as an explanation. Yours, Famspear 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confused
From my (continental European) perspective the article seems rather confusing. In my view there is not really a contrast between positive law and other types of law such as natural law and the law that follows from utilitarian principles using economic reasoning. IMHO there is no contrast because there is no choice.
Citizen, courts and attorneys are bound by positive law. That's the system of "division of powers". If positive law differs from natural law, people could change the law by political means (ranging from democratic means to perhaps revolution). But different people may have different views on "natural" law, despite its claim to be "natural". If law is believed to be inefficient, eventually also only politics can change the positive law. If efficiency is considered relevant, if there is agreement on what is considered "efficient", and if the effects of law on efficiency are sufficiently understood, and if the proposed change indeed is believed to improve efficiency.
To some extent, courts can change positive law as well, in particular in Anglo-Saxon countries with a "common law" system in the area of private (civil) law, but also in continental systems as far as the statutes leave sufficient room for interpretation (wich is dependent on many factors, such as the age of the statute, possible contradictions, changed circumstances (e.g. new technologies), etc.) Rbakels (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
