Who Decides What Is Legal and Illegalcyradoux
Ewik and Silbey define “legality” more broadly than meanings, sources of authority, and cultural practices that are somehow legal, although they are not necessarily authorized or recognized by official law. The concept of legality offers the opportunity to reflect on “how, where and with what effect, law is produced in and through everyday social interactions. How do our roles and status, relationships, obligations, privileges and responsibilities, identities and behaviours shape the law?  State legislatures enact the laws of each state. State courts can review these laws. If a court decides that a law is not in conformity with the state constitution, it can declare it invalid. Later in the 20th century, H. L. A. Hart attacked Austin for his simplifications and Kelsen for his fiction in The Concept of Law.  Hart argued that the Act is a system of rules divided into primary (rules of conduct) and secondary (rules that allow public servants to administer primary rules). The secondary rules are then divided into jurisprudence rules (to settle disputes), amendment rules (which allow laws to be changed) and recognition rules (which identify laws as valid).
Two of Hart`s students continued the debate: in his book Law`s Empire, Ronald Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. Dworkin argues that the law is an “interpretive concept” that obliges judges to find the most appropriate and equitable solution to a dispute, taking into account their constitutional traditions. Joseph Raz, on the other hand, defended the positivist view and criticized Hart`s approach to the “soft social thesis” in The Authority of Law.  Raz argues that the law is an authority, identifiable by purely social sources and without reference to moral reasoning. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, all you can do is do your best under the circumstances to make the kind of decision that will allow you to be the person you can live with. That`s why I`m never impressed when a public figure – caught doing something fishy – reminds us that they didn`t do anything illegal. That may be true, but mere legality is the wrong way to be human. There are different methods of legal reasoning (application of the law) and methods of interpretation (interpretation) of the law. The first are the legal syllogism that prevails in civil law legal systems, the analogy that exists in common law legal systems, particularly in the United States, and the argumentative theories that exist in both systems. The latter are different rules (guidelines) of legal interpretation such as linguistic interpretation guidelines, purposive interpretation or systemic interpretation, as well as more specific rules, for example the golden rule or the rule of nonsense. There are also many other arguments and canons of interpretation that interpret the law as a whole.
In order to maintain professionalism, legal practice is usually overseen by a government or an independent regulatory body such as a law society, a bar council, or a bar association. Modern lawyers acquire a strong professional identity through certain legal procedures (for example, passing an aptitude test), must legally have a special qualification (a legal training that allows the student to obtain a Bachelor of Laws, Bachelor of Civil Law or Doctor of Law). Advanced university degrees may also be sought. Examples include a Master of Laws, Master of Legal Studies, Lawyer Course, or Doctor of Laws.) and are constituted in function by legal forms of appointment (admission to the Bar). There are few titles of respect designated by famous lawyers, such as Esquire to indicate lawyers of greater dignity, and Doctor of Law to indicate a person who has earned a doctorate in law. Hegel believed that civil society and the state were poles apart in the schema of his dialectical theory of history. The modern civil society of the dipole state has been reproduced in the theories of Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx.   In postmodern theory, civil society is necessarily a source of law by being the basis from which people form opinions and lobby for what they believe to be right. While laws are positive statements (for example, the fine for reversing on a motorway is €500); The law tells us what we “should” do. Thus, it can be assumed that every legal system has a basic norm that commands us to obey.
Kelsen`s main opponent, Carl Schmitt, rejected both positivism and the idea of the rule of law because he did not accept the primacy of abstract normative principles over concrete political positions and decisions.  Schmitt therefore advocated jurisprudence on the exception (state of emergency), which denied that legal norms could encompass all political experience.  Knowing how to navigate and fight through the court system and criminal justice process is the most important skill your team of lawyers can possess. Whether as legal counsel, negotiator or litigator, we have years of experience in managing and resolving files in the best interest of our clients. It is important to choose the right lawyer for your case. Consultations are free, but it`s not a bad choice when it comes to counselling. Call us at 206-708-7852 to make an appointment to discuss your situation. Freedom of speech, freedom of association and many other individual rights allow people to meet, discuss, criticize, and hold their governments to account, forming the foundation of a deliberative democracy.