Imagine a scenario in which a new piece of legislation passed by a national parliament effectively bans a specific group of people from owning property in certain urban areas. A judge is tasked with hearing a case brought by an affected family. The judge finds that although the law was passed in accordance with all correct legislative procedures, it is fundamentally discriminatory and violates basic moral standards of equality.
Under a system with a Sovereign Constitution, the judge notes that the legislature holds the power to change existing laws on its own. However, the current South African legal framework suggests a different approach, where the Constitution itself holds supreme authority and requires all statutes to comply with its core values.
Compare and contrast how a 'Legal Positivist' and a 'Natural Law' practitioner would advise the judge in the provided scenario. Ensure you reference the relevant case examples from the source material in your argument.
asked about 2 months ago
Tawanda Makunike
Regenesys
How to ask a good question
A step-by-step guide to writing a community question that actually gets answered — summarising the problem, citing the law, showing your analysis, and pointing to the exact ambiguity.
Community guidelines
The short version: be specific, be respectful, cite your sources, and don't treat the community as a free legal advice line. The long version is below.
The IRAC framework explained
A walkthrough of Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion — the structure most South African law schools expect from problem questions and case notes.
How to cite South African cases
A short reference for citing reported and unreported South African judgments using the neutral citation system most SA law schools prefer.