Customer Reviews

The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (Great Minds Series)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I had no idea that the scanned version of this book would be of such low quality. As far as I'm concerned, the book was all-but-unreadable. The inner parts of paragraphs were usually readable. But the openings were often unreadable, seemingly starting in mid-sentence. And most of the different sectional markers normally used to guide reading were either missing or run in with the regular text. All-in-all, I cannot recall seeing such a poor OCR job for many years. I can only wonder what software the publisher used or what carelessness was exhibited in the scanning of this book.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The English legal philosopher and jurist, John Austin, was instrumental in developing the theory of legal positivism, which held that there had to be a separation between religious laws of morality and positive or human made law. In his book "The Provence of Jurisprudence Determined," he delineates how laws are made and obeyed. "Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set, directly or circuritously, by a sovereign person or body, to a member or members of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign or supreme" (253-254). Therefore, in a representative democracy, the people are the sovereign and either they or their elected representatives produce the laws.

Austin argued against judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Austin believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Austin is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Austin's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy.

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history, and political science.

This copy contains numerous typos, terrible formatting, no footnotes, chapter titles--it is all but unreadable. I ordered this for a class I'm taking and had to buy a wholly new copy. Avoid this at all costs, DO NOT BE FOOLED.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The English legal philosopher and jurist, John Austin, was instrumental in developing the theory of legal positivism, which held that there had to be a separation between religious laws of morality and positive or human made law. In his book "The Provence of Jurisprudence Determined," he delineates how laws are made and obeyed. "Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set, directly or circuritously, by a sovereign person or body, to a member or members of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign or supreme" (253-254). Therefore, in a representative democracy, the people are the sovereign and either they or their elected representatives produce the laws.

Austin argued against judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Austin believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Austin is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Austin's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy.

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history, and political science.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The English legal philosopher and jurist, John Austin, was instrumental in developing the theory of legal positivism, which held that there had to be a separation between religious laws of morality and positive or human made law. In his book "The Provence of Jurisprudence Determined," he delineates how laws are made and obeyed. "Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set, directly or circuritously, by a sovereign person or body, to a member or members of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign or supreme" (253-254). Therefore, in a representative democracy, the people are the sovereign and either they or their elected representatives produce the laws.

Austin argued against judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Austin believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Austin is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Austin's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy.

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history, and political science.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The English legal philosopher and jurist, John Austin, was instrumental in developing the theory of legal positivism, which held that there had to be a separation between religious laws of morality and positive or human made law. In his book "The Provence of Jurisprudence Determined," he delineates how laws are made and obeyed. "Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set, directly or circuritously, by a sovereign person or body, to a member or members of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign or supreme" (253-254). Therefore, in a representative democracy, the people are the sovereign and either they or their elected representatives produce the laws.

Austin argued against judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Austin believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Austin is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Austin's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy.

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history, and political science.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The English legal philosopher and jurist, John Austin, was instrumental in developing the theory of legal positivism, which held that there had to be a separation between religious laws of morality and positive or human made law. In his book "The Provence of Jurisprudence Determined," he delineates how laws are made and obeyed. "Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set, directly or circuritously, by a sovereign person or body, to a member or members of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign or supreme" (253-254). Therefore, in a representative democracy, the people are the sovereign and either they or their elected representatives produce the laws.

Austin argued against judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Austin believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Austin is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Austin's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy.

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history, and political science.