FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32  
33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   >>   >|  
y moral or civil rights; or impose upon them any moral obligation. For example. One of these definitions--one that probably embraces the essence of all the rest--is this: That "law is a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the supreme power of a state, commanding what its subjects are to do, and prohibiting what they are to forbear." _Noah Webster._ In this definition, hardly any thing, that is essential to the idea of law, is made certain. Let us see. It says that, "Law is a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by the _supreme power_ of a state." What is "the supreme power," that is here spoken of, as the fountain of law? Is it the supreme physical power? Or the largest concentration of physical power, whether it exist in one man, or in a combination of men? Such is undoubtedly its meaning. And if such be its meaning, then the law is uncertain; for it is oftentimes uncertain where, or in what man, or body of men, in a state, the greatest amount of physical power is concentrated. Whenever a state should be divided into factions, no one having the supremacy of all the rest, law would not merely be inefficient, but the very principle of law itself would be actually extinguished. And men would have no "rule of civil conduct." This result alone is sufficient to condemn this definition. Again. If physical power be the fountain of law, then law and force are synonymous terms. Or, perhaps, rather, law would be the result of a combination of will and force; of will, united with a physical power sufficient to compel obedience to it, but not necessarily having any moral character whatever. Are we prepared to admit the principle, that there is no real distinction between law and force? If not, we must reject this definition. It is true that law may, in many cases, depend upon force as the means of its practical efficiency. But are law and force therefore identical in their essence? According to this definition, too, a command to do injustice, is as much law, as a command to do justice. All that is necessary, according to this definition, to make the command a law, is that it issue from a will that is supported by physical force sufficient to coerce obedience. Again. If mere will and power are sufficient, of themselves, to establish law--legitimate law--such law as judicial tribunals are morally bound, or even have a moral right to enforce--then it follows that wherever will and power are united, and continue un
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32  
33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
physical
 
definition
 
supreme
 
sufficient
 

command

 

conduct

 

united

 

essence

 

fountain

 

obedience


meaning

 

prescribed

 

principle

 

uncertain

 

combination

 

result

 

character

 
synonymous
 
compel
 

reject


necessarily

 

distinction

 
prepared
 

According

 

establish

 

legitimate

 
judicial
 

supported

 

coerce

 
tribunals

morally

 
continue
 

enforce

 

practical

 
efficiency
 

depend

 

identical

 

justice

 

injustice

 

Webster


forbear

 
essential
 
prohibiting
 

subjects

 

obligation

 

impose

 

rights

 

commanding

 

embraces

 
definitions