Thus, law as a process is essentially something that is subject to criticism, and therefore from a higher point of view, and, if you will, from a higher law or a higher order of things. If Oliver. Wendell Holmes, Jr. begins his famous essay on “The Way of the Law” with the phrase “When we study law, we are not studying a mystery, but a well-known profession,” he does not announce any discovery that he or anyone else has made about what law is.1 He announces his determination to treat “the law” as a mere human social process. and expressed his desire and recommendation that others do the same.2 He wants to treat “the law as a business with well-understood limits.” 3 This may be a perfectly legitimate decision for a practising lawyer, but it has no basis on what “the law” really is or has no bearing on discussions of “superior law”. Holmes, I think, is dishonest. His suggestion that the alternative to his decision is to engage in the study of a “mystery” merely reflects his commitment to the pragmatic theory of knowledge that was buzzing around him at the time.4 The idea that everything but the professional process and its predictable outcomes is a mystery and therefore unfathomable is his path. Give the dog – in this case the “higher law” – a bad reputation before slaughtering it. As for modern application, the Savior`s response to the Pharisees is instructive. They questioned Jesus` teaching on divorce because it was different from what was permitted in the law of Moses. “And he said unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your heart, made you suffer to keep your wives away; But from the beginning, it wasn`t like that.

(Matthew. 19:8.) It was not a compliment to the Israelites in Moses` day that they were given a lower standard than God wanted “from the beginning.” The lower standard was allowed “because of the hardness of [their] hearts.” To say that there is no external perspective, no “superior law” from which the processes and outcomes of judicial proceedings can be evaluated and possibly annulled – or that actually serves as the basis for these trials and their outcomes – is not to have a correct view of these processes and outcomes themselves. This means not seeing them as they really are and how they actually function in human life. For some purposes, you may want to ignore all the broader issues and focus only on how to work through the process as it is to get what you or your client wants. But to say that this is all there is about law is very close to Holmes` decision on what the legal profession essentially is and the purpose of the legal system.6 And I think it`s a decision that contradicts the law`s view that it`s the right thing to do. and a decision that few could accept as appropriate to the idealism that entitles the right to an honorable business. To say that there is no superior law means, in my view, that there can be no doubt about what is morally right in terms of the conduct and outcome of judicial proceedings, and it certainly means undermining confidence in the law, which is essential for its application and for the health and stability of a society and human existence on the basis of law. Prior to the American Civil War, African Americans were denied equal rights and freedoms under formal codes that dictated master-slave relations. While these codes are de jure adapted to legal practice, their application by the U.S. government de facto violates the fundamental human rights of a significant portion of the population. William H.

Seward proclaimed that slavery is prohibited by “a law superior to the Constitution.” Why is this important? This is important because if the law is to prevail in human life, it must be something that generally inspires respect, and where application is the rare situation, although possible.7 Kant`s term “respect,” usually translated as “respect,” conveys an important concept. “Respect,” says Kant, “is actually the idea of a value that thwarts my self-esteem,” according to which “self-love” is understood simply as the satisfaction of desires, rather than doing what I or someone else wants to do.8 The law is not meant to be simply an expression of human desire where the strongest or the best placed, The wisest or happiest have their will. My contention is that human law and the processes associated with it can only be seen as subject to a “higher law” perspective that allows them to function as law, not as mere descriptions of how certain officials behave or can be expected of them. In short, if not a higher law, then no law at all in the form of human ordinances. We would only have administrative arrangements with the power of the government to support them. Therefore, it is important to know whether there is a “higher law” or not. But what if you really didn`t commit the act of adultery but you suffered a real temptation? In a world saturated with immoral acoustic and visual stimuli, such thoughts and temptations can be commonplace. In some countries, political leaders claim that the rule of law is a purely procedural concept. Therefore, they argue that any government can deprive its subjects of their fundamental freedoms or harm their vital interests, as long as it does so through a properly implemented legal mechanism.

For example, some of the former leaders of Nazi Germany at the Nuremberg trials, in an attempt to justify their crimes against the Jewish and Roma population of Europe during World War II, argued that they had not broken any of the laws that were in place when Hitler was in power. Only by invoking the rule of superior law could Allied prosecutors overcome such defenses. [9] Therefore, it is extremely important that there be a superior law or superior laws and that these be recognized as such by those who practise the law and by society as a whole. Of course, there will be cases where calls for such laws or laws would not be appropriate and could even be harmful. Practical wisdom must recognize and consider these opportunities. The second main reason that convinces me of the importance of having a law that is superior to what actually happens in the legal transaction is the relationship between law and legislation.