Its argument—that positivism and historicism both leave no standard of law beyond human authority or historical context—also resembles Leo Strauss’s critique of those two schools: FREDERICK D. WILHELMSEN: Legal positivism and historicism wear thin garbs. The former is bleak and dull, the latter is often rich and lavish, varnishing with glitter of tradition. Both, however, teach at bottom the same thing. Legal positivism would have it that law is what princes say it is, whether that prince be the authority of a legislature or judiciary or executive.
Legal positivism and historicism wear thin garbs. The former is bleak and dull, the latter is often rich and lavish, varnishing with glitter of tradition. Both, however, teach at bottom the same thing. Legal positivism would have it that law is what princes say it is, whether that prince be the authority of a legislature or judiciary or executive.
Comments