Chapter 1 covers various Schools of Legal Thought. 1) Pick two of the schools of thought and describe how each school of thought would discuss and decide on the following issue: Can state of California create a law that makes it illegal for anyone to board an airplane if they are wearing outfits that cover nearly their entire bodies except their eyes, citing as reason that they believe it is necessary to protect national security against terrorists. 2] Which one do you agree with the most and why? Refer to Course Syllabus for further instructions regarding Discussion Board submissions. 1. The legal realism and sociological school take a more realistic approach on law. Making it illegal for people to cover their whole bodies is not realistic. This would be unrealistic because Muslim women who wear niqabs would not be able to fly. This would be discrimination and would be unjust. The legal realism school believes law is shaped by social needs and forces so banning these religious clothing's from airlines would go against social needs. The natural law school assumes that there is a higher law that exists for all human beings and the written law should reflect that. If this law would be put into place it would be interfering with the natural law that people have "natural rights". If someone couldn't get on a plane because of the clothing that their religion states that they need to wear it would interfere with the right for religious freedom. 2. I agree with the legal realism and sociological school. I think it is unrealistic and absurd to not be able to cover their whole body on a plane. It is unrealistic to say that women who cover their body for their religion cannot get on a plane. People who are not religious also might want to cover their whole body because planes can be cold and filled with germs. During this pandemic if someone were to wear more modest clothing and a mask they might be covering their whole body. I also think that adding a law like this would be discrimination against Muslims