Hart Vs. Dwarkin Views On Primary Law Rules Below I will attach the rubric/notes to help write this. Pretty much, there are three questions asked and I nee

Hart Vs. Dwarkin Views On Primary Law Rules 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. 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.
=
Hart vs. Dworkin
Hart:
primary rules vs secondary rules
– primary rules tell you what to do what not to do in this case Austin’s proposal doesnt work)
secondary rules – tells you how to enforce primary rules, how to applyy change and alter primary rules
rules of recognition – there is no form, but functions how to recognize a rule or law, where to look for what is a law (ex: go to a tree
and read what a tree says) tells you where to look if oyu want to find a law
IS the rule or recognition valid? – EX: 1..Dont Kill people 2. Congress on change laws 3. Look at the constitution- what makes 3 valid –
it is valid in a different sense of primary/secondary rules – it is validated by society in a sense – the group of people in charge agree
to the rule of recognition and that validated the rule of recognition- but people give the people in power, their power so officials
validate the rule of recognition, even if the people dont like the rule of recognition
what makes a primary rule valid – the rules of recognition that claims that primary rules are valid and secondary rules are validated
by primary rules; rules or recognition are part of secondary rules; its the basis of the system of secondary rules –>>primary rules
(rule of recognition makes secondary rules valid, and primary rules)
Dworkin : Law vs Reality
primary rules dont have to be in line with morality
morality plays no role in making a certain thing a law
Dworkin things positivism is a system of rules, in positivism you have something that is a law,
if oyur am ambulence driver and oyu are close to the park, just drive to the park and go save the child and that is LEGAL, and even
morally mad
You have rules that are regulations, but behind the rules you have principles
positivism just ereduces law to a rytem of rules and doesnt include principles
he has this principle that nobody should profit from their own wrong doing
in positivism principles have no place
He says what is against the law is what against the rule AND principles
ו ו ו ו ו

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

"Order a similar paper and get 100% plagiarism free, professional written paper now!"

Order Now