Hart Vs. Dwarkin Views On Primary Law Rules

Anonymous
timer Asked: Jan 29th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $20

Question Description

Below I will attach the rubric/notes to help write this. Pretty much, there are three questions asked and I need a tutor who can answer all three questions in depth and well written. In the questions they ask about Hart and Dworkin and you can google them to find out more information about them. Each question should be answered between 500-600 words and quotes are not necessary but will help. Please follow the rubric/instructions completely, thank you.

Hart Vs. Dwarkin Views On Primary Law Rules
notes.jpeg
Essay 1 Here are the questions for the first take-home exam: 1. What is problematic about the idea that laws are fundamentally commands backed by threats? 2. A town issues an ordinance prohibiting vehicles in the park. An ambulance enters the park to save a child. What might Dworkin say about the question whether the ambulance driver is acting illegally? 3. What is a rule of recognition according to Hart? How, according to Hart, do rules of recognition come about without the need for a further rule? Required to write a 500-650 word essay on each of the questions. Here are some guidelines: -Bear in mind that your central task in this exam is to display an understanding of the relevant issues, not to develop your own original views. -The file should be a PDF (to avoid issues of unreadable files). The name of the file should ‘Exam 1’. -Some things about the format: • At the top of the page, please include your “name”, “student ID” and “professor’s name”. *You can just write them as “name” etc. • Use page numbers. • Use 1.5 space. • Include the word count for each essay. You must include a list of references if you have consulted any source other than class material. Otherwise, such a list is not required. Some Notes: • Is something being morally wrong, make it lawfully wrong? • Cheating is morally wrong but is not lawfully wrong. • Dworkin is saying that in some situations, things are legally wrong but morally right. • Some things are legally right but morally wrong • Positivism can only work as a system of rules • A clear presentation of the view • A clear presentation of the objections WITH EXAMPLES; ALWAYS USE EXAMPLES • A law is a command by the sovereign, but the sovereign must follow the law as well or else it is just a command • Legal Positivism Start question 2 by talking about how Dworkin understands Hart.

Tutor Answer

kathysmth
School: UCLA

Once you enter your details you can now convert it to pdf. Thanks.

Running head: TAKE-HOME EXAM 1

1

Take-Home Exam 1
Student’s Name
Student’s ID Number
University Affiliation
Professor’s Name
Date

TAKE-HOME EXAM 1

2
Question 1: Essay 1

It is problematic about the idea that laws are major commands backed up by threats
because, with moral perspective and secondary rules such as that of recognition, the requirements
can be interpreted otherwise and be accepted. It is possible to understand the law and make
informed decisions rather than applying the stipulated consequences of breaking the law. In real
life situation, it becomes more problematic because the laws provided even through the legislation
and judiciary are not explicit to cover every condition causing a conflict. Every law has to be
interpreted before the provided punishment or consequence is applied, and they are not applied
directly when they have to be because they have to cater for every situation they are being used.
When people take an internal perspective to the law, they do not view it as an obligation with
threats with a sanction- they see it as a custom or norm (Green, 2018).
For example, in the legal system, judges do not consider themselves new lawmakers, but
they always interpret or arbitrate the law to every case. We can discuss a contract law case between
two parties to provide an analogy to this trend in the legal system. In the contract, one of the
parties involved intentionally hides some documents from the contract partner. The judge assigned
to the case will consider the lack of good faith as evidence that would cost the first party the fact,
even if the law does not explicitly list the "hiding of the documents" as one among the illegal
activities of the contract. The judge here is not creating new law, but according to Hart, the judge
is doing so. In the decision writing, the judge would say that the rule of concealing some documents
has been there but it was not explicitly written, but it was implied in the subtext underst...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors