After reading The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, John Austin stated “Now, to say that human laws which conflict the Divine law are not binding, this is to say, are not laws, is to talk stark nonsense”(Readings, 176-177). What does he mean by that? When going by the definition of the word stark, it means complete; put complete and nonsense together, and you have what he means. Austin does not agree that laws can just be ignored because of one's beliefs in God. He mentions the even the most pernicious laws have been enforced as laws by judicial tribunes; even though they are opposed to the will of God(Readings, 177). He continues to point out that someone who does, indeed, follow the beliefs of Blackstone, he/she would still be accountable for said crime and would face whatever consequence the crime carries; even up to death. Blackstone believes that no human law should override the will of God. Meaning that if a Human law, sovereign, or command, that goes against the will of God should not have validity. Blackstone states”Man…must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being…And, consequently, as man depends upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will.” (http://www.doxologists.org/william-blackstone/). I believe Blackstone's response would be that of what I just referenced. He believed no human law that did not support will of God, should not be supported and that he would not oblige by it; regardless of the outcome.

John Austin states”Every law or rule is a command. Or, rather, laws or rules, properly so called, are a species of commands”(Readings, 174). He also states “A law is a command which obliges a person or persons. But, as contradistinguished or opposed to an occasional or particular command, a law is a command in which obliges a person or persons, and obliges generally to acts or forbearances of a class. In language more popular but distinct and precise, a law is a command which obliges a person or persons to a course of conduct”(Readings, 175). John Austin believes that you have a sovereign that people obey, but nobody in particular. He even states “that whoever can oblige another to comply with his wishes, is the superior of that other, so as the ability reaches The party who is obnoxious to the impeding evil, being, to that same extent, the inferior”(Readings, 175). Would this work for us here? I say no because we currently use a system, which we the people, select representatives to carry out our wishes and then we are held accountable by direct powers to be. In Austin's view, we would have a hard time knowing who was in charge. I found this that I believed presents Austin's views very well. It states “Within