Dworkin and Hart

PART devil ESSAY (1) Dworkins third blueprint of the legal philosophyfulness called Law as Integrity is based in part on the assumption that on that point is a single author of the law. The community personifies expressing a coherent idealion of justice and fairness. According to law as integrity, propositions of law are true(a) if they figure in or follow from the principles of justice, fairness, ad procedural due(p) process that provide the best constructive interpretation of the communitys legal practice. Furthermore, Dworkin would approve and support the judges for creating an opinion and setting a new fountain on this case.Dworkins Chain Novel concept fits into this case perfectly by adding new precedent which the lawmakers of the time could non foresee. The lawmakers had not created such a provision dealing with this situation plainly surely did not intend to protect this defendant just because the diction of the law was absent. (2) Hart might criticize the mass o pinion because he will believe that the justices grant done a dishonor to the law. disregardless if the defendant attained the land through unmoral means, he did not deconsecrate 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 virtuously right (Adams 43). The majority opinion relied on judges to go beyond their legal power 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 reason on the case. In particular, Hart would support Gray when Gray states, The marvel we are dealing with is whether a testamentary disposition can be altered, or a will revoked, aft er the testators death, through an appeal to the courts, when the general assembly 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 design 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 after a testator has deceased and the will has pass off into affect. Gray is only following the law and keeping morality separate.