The Law and Our Law

When traveling, I’ve noticed that some states frequently use the term “the law” while others use the term “our law”.

The philosophical divide between “the law” and “our law” usually comes down to whether you see rules as external commands or internal commitments.

1. “The Law” (Positivism & Universalism)

This term views the legal system as an objective, external entity.

• Source of Authority: It is “out there”—a set of rules handed down by a sovereign or a legislature.
• The Mindset: It treats the law as a tool or a barrier. It is something you must follow because it is the rule, regardless of whether you personally agree with it or feel it belongs to you.
• The Vibe: Technical and detached. It emphasizes the letter of the law and its power to regulate behavior from the outside in.

2. “Our Law” (Social Contract & Originalism)

This term views the legal system as a collective possession or an extension of the people’s will.

• Source of Authority: It comes from “us.” This is the philosophy of the Social Contract—we agreed to these rules to live together, so they belong to our community.
• The Mindset: It frames the law as a shared inheritance. When a judge says “our law,” they aren’t just citing a rulebook; they are referencing a living tradition and a specific identity.
• The Vibe: Moral and participatory. It emphasizes the spirit of the law and the idea that the community has a duty to uphold it because it is part of their social fabric.

The Philosophical “Conflict”

In modern legal debates (like those in the U.S. Supreme Court), using “Our Law” is often a signal for Originalism. It’s the idea that the law isn’t just whatever the current government says it is (“The Law”), but rather a specific, fixed set of principles that “We the People” established and have lived under for centuries.