Expositors - those who explained what the law in practice was (Positivism) Censors - those who criticized the

law in practice and compared it to their notions of what it ought to be. (Natural law)

Legal positivism

Legal positivism is a school of thought whose advocates believe that the law is depends on what is written and recognized by a government or political institution and not its merits. English jurist John Austin (1790-1859) states that the existence of law is one thing, its merit and demerit are another, whether it be or be not, is one enquiry; whether it be or be not comfortable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. According to Austins theory law is what is practiced/decided/tolerated, a social construction of sorts. But views on legal positivism are varied with competing views and misunderstandings often present. A law or norm has a status of law if is recognized by a human authority, (distinguished from the spiritual.) Content is irrelevant, from a positive perspective all that is concerned is whether the law was enacted from the sovereign. Austin had a basic doctrine that asserted that the law is a command issued by a commander (sovereign), and is enforced by sanctions. The law must have the correct pedigree in which the sovereign must follow the established procedures for law making. Positivists access the validity of law by asking 2 questions, 1) was the law created by the correct authority, 2) did they follow the correct procedures. A law is valid only if the answer is yes to both questions.

Questions on positivism Fails to determine how the sovereign decides which law to pass, if morality be not the source than what is. Does not distinguish between good and bad law, all that it does is distinguish between a valid and invalid law, Cannot determine if the law that allows parliament to make law is valid. We cannot logically determine the validity of the rule that parliament decrees are law by asking whether a parliament decrees its decrees are law. Hart replied to this and stated that the rule that governs law making is socially accepted. So that would mean that Social rejection i.e. revolutions, civil disobedience, in this situation the law making procedures would be made invalid and thus the laws themselves are invalidated, to which Hanss kelsen stated that the rules that authorize the sovereign to make law exist in a groomed norm, which is something that is either accepted or not thus making the law valid or invalid.

To think about In contrast to natural law theorists, legal positivists assert that laws are merely a compendium of rules designed by a sovereign (usually the state) for the regulation of society. It is not, they suggest, a universal moral code to which we must submit. In fact, laws retain their validity irrespective of their perceived (im)morality, so long as it is properly made (pedigree) by the recognized law-making authority. People do not obey the law because they feel morally inclined to do so, rather because they respect the legitimacy of the law-making body and fear that the state's coercive forces (police, prosecutors, etc.) will punish them if they do not. If this is so, how do we distinguish between good law and bad law? Must we obey all laws simply because the state tells us to? What if the law calls for behavior that we consider immoral? How do we reconcile our legal duty with our moral preferences?