Goodrich F2000-Jurisprudence-Exam Prep Review

Goodrich F2000-Jurisprudence-Exam Prep Review -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Elan Weinreb December 5, 2000 Jurisprudence The exam has five questions to pick from. You end up picking two out of five questions. MAKE SURE THAT YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION IN A COHERENT WAY. Note: Each question is about a line and a half. There is a 15 page limit on the exam, typed, double-spaced, 12 point font, one page margins. There is no class on Thursday. E-mail any questions that you have. Questions to ask: 1. Why must procedural due process, justice, and fairness fit into the conception of law as integrity? A: These principles are necessary for integrity to be in existence. Without them, law cannot exist. They are consonant with the idea of the rule of law. Without them, there is no integrity. 2. How exactly does Dworkin deal with objections to law as integrity raised by external and internal skepticism? 3. What are the implicit principles that relate to law as integrity? So, this is our review session: The relationship between Hart, Fuller/Scalia, and Dworkin: Hart is about the basic nature of the legal system – what must be true of law to be law, what makes law law, what are obligations, etc. Hart’s theory of interpretation is schematic, but not really a good one. Then, we have Scalia and Fuller, talking about how to interpret texts that are identified by the rule of recognition. Dworkin shows how the two issues are connected – what is law and interpretation. Dworkin argues that people don’t agree about how to interpret texts and that such agreement is rampant and ubiquitous. It is all through legal practice. Everyone is disagreeing about how to interpret text, about where to look, about meaning and purpose, about where to look. This is theoretical disagreement about what the grounds of law are; theoretical disagreement
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
about interpretation is the same thing. If there are theroretical disagreements, this would be against Hart’s system of conventions – of secondary rules arising out of agreement of what rules are to be authortitative. Thus, Dworkin is strongly against Hart. There isn’t agreement as to what the grounds of law are. Therefore, the rule of recognition does not exist. To clarify, the rule of recognition sets out what the grounds of law are. However, if you look at disagreements as to how to interpret texts, you have disagreements in the grounds of law. This is why Dworkin is against Hart. Hart’s defense against this: The rule of recognition can pick out certain events which are authoritative. It is only the interpretation of those events in which there is disagreement. Thus, the base system of law is secure. The sources of law are fixed conventionally but the way to interpret such
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/14/2008 for the course LAW 7211 taught by Professor Goodrich during the Fall '00 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 5

Goodrich F2000-Jurisprudence-Exam Prep Review -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online