Authority Of Constitution Analysis

Words: 1113
Pages: 5

Between Authority and Interpretation, section II: The Authority of Constitutions by Joseph Raz. In this section of Raz’s book he discusses where the authority of constitutions and its authors are derived from. His four main arguments are focused on the nature of authority of authors of an original constitution, rule of recognition, authority of consent, and authorities of the past.
Law by Raz is valid because of the legitimate authority for which creates the law. “law whose validity derives from the fact that it was made by a legitimate legal authority acting with the intention to make law.” (pg 380). Raz goes on to argue that the authority of a constitution derives from the authority of its makers. “Unless the authority of the constitution
…show more content…
The main difference between original constitutions and non-original is that preexisting legal authority does not influence the creators’ authority of an originating constitution. Raz argues that legal authority is not solely derived from laws made by another; this is just main source of authority that is relied on; instead of moral reasoning. “If the constitutions and the other rules that establish legal authorities are morally justified, so are the authorities that they establish,” (pg. 381-382). With Raz’s argument concerning the nature of legal authority being based on both moral reasoning, and preexisting legal authorities, I agree with. For example, the framers of the U.S. constitution legal authority is mainly morally based, and not derived from preexisting legal authority. Without authority derived from morality our constitution would not be legitimate, if the authority of the framers was only derived from preexisting legal authority. If this was the case the legal authority would have to been given to the framers from England, and that would not have occurred because England did not wish to give the colonies independence. The U.S. Constitutions authors gained authority from moral reasoning because they wished to right all the immoral wrongs England had …show more content…
I agree that the constitution’s authority is derived from the rule of recognition; otherwise current politicians and other legal officials would not be able to make changes according to current attitudes and conduct. It is from the rule of recognition that gives authority to the constitution, therefore current legal officials. But I disagree with the latter of Raz’s following statement “the constitution’s authority derives from the current practice of the officials, and not the authority of its makers,” I disagree with his statement on authority of the constitution not being derived from its authors. Is it not the authors who gave rise to the authority of constitution? For example if it were not for the framers, the U.S. constitution would not have the authority it has today. Because without the authority given to the constitution by it’s authors, the constitution would have no legal standing or validity that is derived from the rule of