The arguments for Sieyès thesis of law legitimately concerning only what all citizens have in common, and the law not targeting particular individuals rely on one foundational definition. This is ability to discern who is part of the nation and who is not. After showing that his arguments supporting his thesis rely upon the ability to say who the nation is, I will then critique his definition by arguing it does not encapsulate the nation fully, and is therefore ineffective as a definition. To achieve this I will argue that his conception of the nation is unsuccessful on two accounts: it leaves people out from representation, and that it cannot stand independently due to its circular logic. Through assessing the definition, I will argue my thesis that due to Sieyès’ failure definition of the nation, his arguments for his thesis are weakened.
I shall outline his arguments to show how they rely on the definition. Sieyès states that privilege separates oneself from the nation because it causes a difference and inequality (Sieyès 100). One example of privilege is shown in the forms of different legal, and political rights. The inequality is problematic because it causes a diversion of the national will in favour of private interest. This difference makes the individual unfit to vote for the nation and removed from it (Sieyès 154). Consequently, equality is a prerequisite for being part of the nation. However, we must have a conception of whom the nation composes of in order to be equal to something in particular and not privileged in comparison. Thus a definition of the nation is critical for this argument for equal treatment.
Sieyès account of why laws can only concern what is in common also relies on the definition. Sieyès sees the...
... middle of paper ...
...stops prejudice against individuals. Consequently, a successful and clear definition of the nation is necessary. Through looking at two aspects which the definition has to satisfy, not being a circular argument, and representing the entire nation, several flaws become present in Sieyès definition of the nation. Resolution to the flaw posed by the possible circular logic appears to require a different definition altogether, whilst for the problem of unrepresented members, Sieyès must justify their exclusion, find another way of representing them or justify their voting rights. If these solutions were offered, the definition of the nation would be superior to its current state and make justification of Sieyès’ arguments for his thesis more feasible.
Bibliography:
Sieyès, Emmanuel. Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003. 93-162. Print.
The ability for people to look at a situation from a different perspective is vital in today’s globalized society. Diversity is the most important core attribute we share that gives us a new perspective to assess situations differently through our diverse backgrounds and upbringings. Unlike Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument in his essay titled “Deconstructing America,” diversity is not a burden, but rather a necessity in America’s culture. Conversely, Fredrickson 's essay titled, “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” illustrated a more precise version of American history that disproves Buchanan’s ethnocentric ideologies. Buchanan speaks of diversity as a narrow, one-way street. The imprecise interpretations of history
Tocqueville opens the book with a discussion on the equality of conditions that he experienced in America, and the general trend toward equality that he sees all over the world. The desires of the people and their freedom to pursue them produce a trend in which socioeconomically, the rich lose wealth and the poor gain it, and politically, a poor man has the same ability to influence the government as a rich man. This trend toward equality of conditions leads to the system of government that Tocqueville saw in America, in which the majority holds political and social power based on the notion that, “there is more enlightenment and wisdom in a numerous assembly than in a single ma...
The focus of this essay is to examine the extent to which Dworkin provides a convincing alternative to positivism. The central claim of legal positivism states that "in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits". Dworkin completely rejects the positivist approach because he believes that "no combination of source-based rules, no matter how broadly construed or how carefully crafted can ground a theory of law". Dworkin is evidently making a big move away from positivism. The first part of this essay will explore how Dworkin 's rejection of positivism has led him to formulate an alternative theory of law. The final part of the essay will analyse how Dworkin has failed in getting an
Carl et al. (2011, p. 119) suggests that there are two primary models as to how laws were created (i) the consensus (ii) conflict models. While the consensus model of law suggests that laws arise when people witness behaviours that they do not approve of, therefore agreeing to make that behaviour illegal (Carl et al., 2011, p. 119). The conflict model
Law has no existence for itself; rather its essence lies, from a certain perspective, in the very life of men.
Reece H., ‘The paramountcy principle Consensus or construct?’ [1996] 49 Current Legal Problems p. 267-304
Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print.
As a positivist, Hart believes that there should be a firm distinction between ‘law as it is’ and ‘law as it ought to be’, specifically law and morality. According to positivists, whether a law is valid or not is not dependant on the justification of said law, but rather that it is recognized as enforceable by tests that are enforced by an efficacious legal system. To better understand this theory, one must look at Hart’s definition of a legal system and the separation of primary and secondary rules. The former refers to rules that are socially acceptable in a society and regulate the behaviour of persons in a society by creating obligations and therefore creating social pressure to follow these obligations. It is, however, insufficient for a legal system to contain only primary rules and because of this secondary rules come into play. Secondary rules enforce primary obligations in the form of law.
Minority right was not well discussed in the early liberalism works. However, it becomes more important when more states had a mix of people of different identities. This paper will first investigate how Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s goal to unify people harms the minority. Then, it will compare Burke’s conservatism with their liberalism, and show how Burke’s theory, by embracing the traditions, leaves room for the minority rights. Finally, this paper will discuss how Marx transforms the minority question into the political emancipation of minority, and extends it to the ultimate human emancipation. It will also evaluate the practicability of such ultimate goal.
We believe these statements prove themselves to be true: That all men are created equal; that they are given certain rights by their creator; among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights governments are set up among men, who receive their powers though consent of the governed; when ever any government becomes destructive towards God given rights, the people have the right to abolish it and institute a new government, laying the foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in the same way so that it will effect the people's safety and happiness. Careful judgment, indeed, will decree that governments long established should not be changed for such causes; and accordingly the experience has shown mankind prone to suffering, and we cannot
To many, the Unites States serves as the ideal model of democracy for the modern world. Yet, how truly worthy is America of this status? Although it has been said that, “Equality is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie,” one must be extremely critical when analyzing such a statement. By taking a historical perspective to the question of how “equal” American equality actually is, it is simple to recognize how problematic the “Land of the Free” mentality can be. The early America’s most prominent thinkers have been sensationalized and given credit for developing a free and equal system. However, one can recognize that their manner of thinking was far from this idea of “all men are created equal” by critical examination of their literature.
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
The membership of individuals in modern democratic societies is marked by the status of citizenship. Those who belong in a given nation-state have documents certifying their membership. More importantly, citizens possess a wide range of civil, political and social rights.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.