Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
There is some value in the criterion if it means innate truth, such as the laws of logic and mathematics. If it merely means agreement, as in a unanimous vote, its value is questionable. For example, general assent once held that the sun revolved about the flat earth. [5]
To unify the laws in the applicable legal system [3] The validity of a legal system is independent from its efficacy. A completely ineffective rule may be a valid one - as long as it emanates from the rule of recognition. But to be a valid rule, the legal system of which the rule is a component must, as a whole, be effective.
(2) The power of the state serves all citizens and can be only applied in cases, under limitations and through uses specified by a law. (3) Every citizen can do anything that is not forbidden by the law, and no one can be forced to do anything that is not required by a law. The same principles are reiterated in the Czech Bill of Rights, Article 2.
Within legal positivism, theorists agree that law's content is a product of social facts, but theorists disagree whether law's validity can be explained by incorporating moral values. [38] Legal positivists who argue against the incorporation of moral values to explain law's validity are labeled exclusive (or hard) legal positivists.
Jurisprudence of values is referred to in various works all over the world. [2] [3] This modus of thinking of focuses on constitutional principles. [note 2] The jurisprudence of values centers on the concepts of incidence and interpretation of the legal norm, as well as rules and principles, and concepts like equality, freedom, and justice. [4]
For common law contracts, disputes over contract formation are subjected to what is known as the objective test of assent in order to determine whether a contract exists. This standard is also known as the officious bystander , reasonable bystander , reasonable third party , or reasonable person in the position of the party . [ 51 ]
The first is entitled "Assent and Apprehension", which deals with believing what one does not understand. The second, entitled "Assent and Inference", addresses the issue of believing what cannot be absolutely proven. Both parts deal with assent or belief. The first part discussed the relationship between assent and apprehension—what level of ...
Many laws create a paradox by placing the burden of proof of good moral character on the applicant while such a proof, but not the law, necessitates that the evaluators assess the beliefs and values of the applicant. [12] Good moral character is the opposite of moral turpitude, another legal concept in the United States used in similar instances.