Dworkin and Hart

detonate TWO ESSAY (1) Dworkins third conception of the law called Law as Integrity is establish in part on the assumption that there is a single author of the law. The community personifies expressing a coherent conception of justice and fairness. According to law as integrity, propositions of law atomic number 18 true if they figure of speech in or view from the principles of justice, fairness, ad procedural due process that provide the best shaping interpretation of the communitys legal practice. Furthermore, Dworkin would approve and support the judges for creating an suasion and setting a new precedent on this case.Dworkins Chain Novel concept fits into this case perfectly by adding new precedent which the lawmakers of the time could not foresee. The lawmakers had not created such(prenominal) a provision dealings with this event but surely did not intend to protect this defendant just because the language of the law was absent. (2) hart might criticize the majority o pinion because he will believe that the justices baffle done a dishonor to the law. Regardless if the defendant attained the land through unmoral means, he did not violate any laws at that time.Social rules should not be taken into consideration with the law since there is no precedent dealing with such issue. A law is separate from morality, and does not in itself guarantee that the primary social rules of a given legal system are just or morally right (Adams 43). The majority opinion relied on judges to go beyond their jurisdiction and make moral judgments when there was no such precedent or law set on that matter. The judges, as Hart may claim, did not follow primary and secondary rules in reaching their majority opinion.Hart may support the dissent of Judge gray by applauding Grays reasoning on the case. In particular, Hart would support Gray when Gray states, The question we are dealing with is whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, aft(prenom inal) the testators death, through an appeal to the courts, when the legislature has by its enactments prescribed exactly when and how wills may be made, altered, and revoked, and apparently, as it seems to me, when they have been fully complied with, has no left room for the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction by the courts over such matters. Adams 152). Hart would support this train of thought by Gray because Gray clearly makes it known to the majority that there are already laws stating how to properly handle wills, and that the courts really have no jurisdiction later on a testator has deceased and the will has come into affect. Gray is only following the law and property morality separate.