Your text discusses three schools of jurisprudential thought: Natural Law, Positivism (I prefer the more precise term "Legal Positivism", but I'm picky and pedantic that way), and Legal Realism. There's also a fourth view, not mentioned by the book as far as I can tell, called Originalism (related to the concept of Strict Constructionism), which is more-or-less the counterpoint to Legal Realism. It's the belief that the Constitution--and by extension laws--ought to be interpreted according to the original intent of the authors. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion on the topic, you can browse it, I don't expect you to memorize it or read every word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

1) Which one of these views best represents your view of the law?

2) Do you believe human-made law is superceded by higher truths or do you believe that humans make up the ultimate truths?

3) Do you believe the law should be followed by-the-books, applied according to original intent (Originalism) or should the law be bent, like the Legal Realists argue, to serve notions of justice and fair play as society evolves?

PLEASE MENTION QUESTIONS NO. LIKE ANSWER 1, ANSWER 2, ANSWER 3.