Political control in a modem nation is pluralistic and shifting, a matter of more or less, of compromise and cooperation and alliance, so that it is often impossible to say that any person or group has that dramatic control necessary to qualify as an Austinian sovereign. One wants to say, in the United States for example, that the "people" are sovereign. But this means almost nothing, and in itself provides no test for determining what the "people" have commanded, or distinguishing their legal from their social or moral commands.

DEFINE: Establishes how Austinian sovereignty fails to describe modern pluralistic political control, contrasting with the idealized 'the people are sovereign' formulation. QUESTION: If no single sovereign exists, what does this imply for how we attribute legal commands or popular will in democratic systems? Builds on: "Austin's simple sovereign-command test proved too crude for legal practice"

Ronald Dworkin, Ronald Dworkin - The Model …, loc. 39