{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022281639928698752, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.818652849740933, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Lawyer and the Layman: Two Perspectives on the Rule of Law

Philosophers and lawyers have long argued about the relation of law to politics: “does the king make law” or “does law make the king”? This persistent debate stems from two different perspectives on the nature of law. Professors of law have long noted that laypersons tend to speak of “a law” and the “laws” while lawyers tend to speak more holistically of “the law.” After discussing how rival perspectives in legal theory can be compared and evaluated, several dimensions of this contrast between the lay and the lawyerly conceptions of law: the individuation of laws, the sources of law, the ethical and imperative aspects of law, and the nature of the rule of law are analyzed. The distinction between a lawyerly and a lay perspective on law is reflected in the traditional linguistic and conceptual distinction between ius and lex. Many of the classic philosophers of law, from Plato to Hobbes, are rank laymen when it comes to their descriptions of law since the lawyerly understanding of law has only very recently achieved philosophical articulation.