Talk:Positive law

message: An anonymous editor removed the reference to title 40 as having been enacted as positive law. I restored the reference to title 40. This is part of a direct quote. Whether title 40 is positive law or not, this is directly quoted material, so we shouldn't be altering it -- at least not in this way. If our fellow editor has some actual authority for the proposition that the quote is incorrect, that could be added to the article as an explanation. Yours, Famspear 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title 40 of the USC

message: I've been bold and split off an article about Positive law (United States Code) from here.  The terminologies are completely different, and refer to concepts that are completely different.  Hence, they don't belong in the same article.  I'm undecided as to whether this article should be a disambiguation page (Legal positivism already exists, which describes one concept of 'Positive law' that is discussed in this article).  Anyone want to advance an opinion? Bastin 10:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive law (United States Code)

message: The paragraph about "legal positivism" is very confusing. Is the term "positivsm" perhaps ambiguous again within Europe? In my perception "legal positivism" is not a choice or a preference, but a fact. Natural law is a completely controversial topic. Basically it refers to an opinion on justice that claims to be "right", denying the need to give a reason. Or as one of my law professors put in: with "natural law", you get the result you have put in the "system" yourself.
More in general, in this section IMHO it is inappropriate to elaborate on possible sources of normative law. It is an opinion and that's it, wherever it comes from. Rbakels (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal positivism 

message: The first sentence defines positive law as being "human-made": "Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action."
But then In "Lex Humana vs lex posita": "However, there is a subtle distinction between them. Whereas human-made law regards law from the position of its origins (i.e. who it was that posited it), positive law regards law from the position of its legitimacy. Positive law is law by the will of whoever made it, and thus there can equally be divine positive law as there is man-made positive law."
This seems contradictory to me (a philosophy novice), but I am guessing it may be a terminology issue (e.g., "ius positum" (associated with the former sentence) vs. ius positivum (associated with the latter part) being two slightly different things but both translating to positive law?) or maybe a historical issue (e.g., in these different frameworks, one thing, and then Thomas Aquinas conflates man-made and positive, and thus we end at the definition we gave in the first sentence of the article in which they are indeed conflated.) In the latter case, I suppose my proposal would be to change the first part of "Lex Humana vs lex posita" from "Thomas Aquinas conflated... However, there is a subtle distinction..." to something more like, "Thomas Aquinas, on whose work this definition is usually based conflated... Other frameworks, however, distinguish..."
ArghMachine (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see some discussion. I just wanted to flag that it doesn't make sense to claim that Thomas Aquinas conflated these two (Lex Humana, Lex Posita) if, as the current text reads, Aquinas asserts that God himself can posit law. Aquinas is one of the most subtle and consistent writers out there, so I am not sure I would say they are 'conflated' as much as 'related'. Jmvajda (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human-made" 

message: Written about it 27.34.22.28 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Law