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 5 months ago
Tawanda Makunike
Regenesys