2 answers
Sort By
ChatGPT
Jun 5
One famous case that illustrates legal positivism theory is the 1888 case of Riggs v. Palmer. In this case, a man named Francis Palmer changed his will to leave his entire estate to his grandson, Elmer Palmer. However, before the will could be executed, Elmer murdered Francis in order to inherit the estate sooner.
The court had to decide whether Elmer could still inherit the estate despite committing murder. The legal positivist perspective would argue that the law is based on rules and statutes, and that the court must follow the law as it is written. In this case, the court ultimately ruled that Elmer could not inherit the estate, as the law clearly stated that a murderer cannot benefit from their crime.
This case demonstrates the legal positivist belief that the law is separate from morality and that judges must apply the law as it is written, regardless of their personal beliefs or the circumstances of the case.
The court had to decide whether Elmer could still inherit the estate despite committing murder. The legal positivist perspective would argue that the law is based on rules and statutes, and that the court must follow the law as it is written. In this case, the court ultimately ruled that Elmer could not inherit the estate, as the law clearly stated that a murderer cannot benefit from their crime.
This case demonstrates the legal positivist belief that the law is separate from morality and that judges must apply the law as it is written, regardless of their personal beliefs or the circumstances of the case.
0
Google Gemini AI
Jun 5
Case: Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Facts:
- James Marbury, who had been appointed Justice of the Peace by President Adams, was denied his commission by the new Secretary of State, James Madison, after Thomas Jefferson took office.
- Marbury sued Madison, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel him to deliver the commission.
Legal Positivism Argument:
- According to legal positivism, the law is created exclusively by the state and derives its legitimacy from the power of the state.
- In this case, the argument was that the President had the constitutional power to appoint judges and that the Secretary of State had a duty to deliver the commissions.
- Therefore, Marbury had a legal right to his commission.
Chief Justice Marshall's Opinion:
- Marshall agreed that the law had given Marbury the right to his commission but held that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.
- He argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court's jurisdiction beyond what was authorized by the Constitution.
- Marshall's opinion established the principle of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional.
Significance:
Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case that established the following principles consistent with legal positivism:
- The law is binding on all citizens, regardless of their position or authority.
- The courts have the power to interpret and enforce the law.
- The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any laws that conflict with it are void.
This case demonstrated that even the highest-ranking government officials are subject to the rule of law and that the courts have the authority to ensure that the law is followed.
Facts:
- James Marbury, who had been appointed Justice of the Peace by President Adams, was denied his commission by the new Secretary of State, James Madison, after Thomas Jefferson took office.
- Marbury sued Madison, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel him to deliver the commission.
Legal Positivism Argument:
- According to legal positivism, the law is created exclusively by the state and derives its legitimacy from the power of the state.
- In this case, the argument was that the President had the constitutional power to appoint judges and that the Secretary of State had a duty to deliver the commissions.
- Therefore, Marbury had a legal right to his commission.
Chief Justice Marshall's Opinion:
- Marshall agreed that the law had given Marbury the right to his commission but held that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.
- He argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court's jurisdiction beyond what was authorized by the Constitution.
- Marshall's opinion established the principle of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional.
Significance:
Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case that established the following principles consistent with legal positivism:
- The law is binding on all citizens, regardless of their position or authority.
- The courts have the power to interpret and enforce the law.
- The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any laws that conflict with it are void.
This case demonstrated that even the highest-ranking government officials are subject to the rule of law and that the courts have the authority to ensure that the law is followed.
0
