Talk:Rule according to higher law/Archive 1

Archive 1

Urgent topic

This article attempts to cover one of today's most urgent topics in legal philosophy. Baruchim (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Higher ethic

I would be interested to see how this concept is compared and/or contrasted with the concept of a "higher ethic." - Boyd Reimer (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A First Rule of Political Economics

Any government that wishes to continue governing must create a strong taxpayer base, or face the prospect of not having any monies to collect as taxes. That makes you wonder how the government of Haiti keeps functioning, doesn't it? --TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Natural Law

I cannot find any discernible reason why this should be separate from natural law. -- LightSpectra (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article is certainly taking subject far out of scope of natural law. The question is why this article included in "US Portal" when it also links very closely with continental legal system and the Rechtsstaat doctrine.----Phillaw (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)User: Phillaw

Wrong claim about Rechtsstaat

"The rule according to higher law is a practical approach to the implementation of the higher law theory which creates a bridge of mutual understanding (with regard to universal legal values) between the English language doctrine of the rule of law, traditional for the countries of common law, and the originally German doctrine of Rechtsstaat, translated into other languages of continental Europe as État de droit (Fr.), Estado de derecho (Sp.), Stato di diritto (It.), and Правовое государство (Ru.).[6] The latter doctrine is the product of continental European legal thought which had adopted it from German legal philosophy. Its name can be translated into English as “legal state” or "state of law" or "state of rights" or "constitutional state" – consistently meaning the state in which the exercise of governmental power is kept in check by the higher law."

The definition of Rechtsstaat given here is wrong. As the article about it shows, Rechtsstaat emphatically does 'not "consistently mean ... (that) the exercise of governmental power is kept in check by the higher law"; it means that "the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law" - and that means the actual official legislation in the respective state, the constitution, etc.; not the lofty theoretical "Higher law". The point is simply that everything does not depend on the personal arbitrary whims of a ruler or rulers. This really is pretty close to the Anglo-Saxon concept of "rule of law", but neither has anything to do with "higher law" as discussed in this article. Saying that any state authority must observe the law of that state and operate only through that law (which is basically what the doctrines of Rechtstaat and rule of law are about) is one thing; saying that any law in any state ought to conform to some kind of Universal/Natural/Divine Justice is a totally separate thing. So "higher law" does nothing to bridge the alleged gap between Rechtsstaat and rule of law. It's as if you wanted to get from New York to New Jersey and you passed through Indonesia.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Higher Law concept is critical for both Rule of law and Rechtsstaat. Not any law will rule but law on the level of higher morality

Higher Law concept is critical for both Rule of law and Rechtsstaat. Not any law will rule but law on the level of higher morality. The same for Rechtsstaat because the state can not be restricted by law which this state produced. I believe that tag must be removed--178.176.190.52 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The very gist of Higher Law concept needs to be correctly understood

Please study the examples section more closely. The examples clearly show that observing the laws established by the current 'regime' alone cannot make the state this 'regime' currently (i.e. temporarily) rules worthy of being considered a Rechtsstaat. The tag Dubious deserves to be removed. Pereput (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. See Nuremberg Principles as example--Pierpietro (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)