Sort of. Given that most conflict between Natural Law (tort), the common law, th

Sort of. Given that most conflict between Natural Law (tort), the common law, the constitution, concurrent legislation, (arbitrary) regulation, competing findings of the courts, and arbitrary commands, is due to a relatively small number of properties and requirements missing from the common law and constitution that are relatively easily fixed. As such we can identify (a) divergence from decidability and (b) conflicts, exposing the complexity that results such that those divergences and conflicts are open for discussion and decision. The truth is that we’ve tested about 130 of the top questions of legal decidability (topics) and all are decidable. Now, what you might say is that some positive law is necessary even if it is in fact illegitimate. But I’d respond with ‘find a way of achieving it that isn’t illegitimate’. Education, bussing, force association, interference in marriage and divorce, the withdrawal of shrilling and minimization of defamation, and worse the right of ‘free false, unethical, immoral, and seditious, speech’, and the absence of necessity of legislation to pass a court’s test of legitimacy, have all been catastrophic positive law policies that could have been achieved by alternative means with less harm done.