Kelson on Indian Constitution

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

At one level, it deals with the inadequacies of the law in addressing to the question of justice and at the same time highlights the importance of the law in a society as even in presence of inadequacies, law is needed as it is better than a state of lawlessness.

Jurisprudence explores what would be the simplest manifestation of law so as to create a civil society society where both individual liberty and normative goals are practiced. Should the the aim of law be primarily centered on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals geared toward the benefit of of civil society? The laws in any society ought to not be centered on normative goals it ought to conjointly defend individual liberty.

PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

After winning independence from Great Britain in 1776, the United States was in need of an organized national government, clearly defined in written form. The first Continental Congress drafted the Articles of confederation the following year, though it would not be ratified until 1781. The Articles provided the framework for a centralized government but ultimately were not strong enough to enforce its own requirements. A new constitution was needed. Congressional leaders began the process of drafting another document that would strengthen the weak federal government while continuing to ensure individual liberties. The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787 after much debate and compromise. (Charters of Freedom A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution

The Indian Act was enacted in 1867 by the Parliament of Canada. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development administered the act. The act defines who an “Indian” is and the legal rights of the Aboriginal people in Canada. Regulation of the economic system between aboriginal people and the government of Canada is included in the Indian Act. It also includes the power the ministers have on the aboriginal people including children and disabled Aboriginals. If the laws are not obeyed, the punishment is written in the act. The Indian Act was influenced by the legislative foundation of the Royal Proclamation, 1763, which recognized Aboriginals as a distinct political unit (Residential schools). The Royal Proclamation, 1763, thought that it was their duty to protect the Aboriginal people from the Canadian society. The Royal Proclamation, 1763, had the responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in Canada with British imperial authorities. However, by the mid-1800s Britain began to transfer this responsibility to Canadian colonies. Then the Canadian authorities passed the First Indian Act. Over the years many amendments have been made to the Indian Act.The Indian act passed out a law that any children under the ages of 16 had to study at Residential schools (Residential schools), the children there were physically abused, especially girls. (Churchill, 55-56). The Indian act is significant today because on June, 11 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on behalf of the

     In his book on ?The Behavior of Law? Donald Black attempts to describe and explain the conduct of law as a social phenomenon. His theory of law does not consider the purpose, value, impact of law, neither proposes any kind of solutions, guidance or judgment; it plainly ponders on the behavior of law. The author grounds his theory purely on sociology and excludes the psychology of the individual from his assumptions on the behavior of law (Black 7). The theory of law comes to the same outcome as other theories scrutinizing the legal environment, such as deprivation theory or criminal theory; however, the former concentrates on the patterns of behavior of law, not involving the

They are Native Americans who are trying to build better lives for themselves but are stopped in there tracks by the state supreme court. Proposition 5 passed in November of 98, which would allow more gambling in the Indian reservations. The proposition was ruled to be unconstitutional. Now the Indians are rebutting the fact that they are sovereign and the ballot was passed.

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.

“The Obligation to Obey: Revision and Tradition” by Joseph Raz explains the issue regarding the relationship between an individual and law. Does a person have the obligation to obey the law? Why does the person have that kind of obligation? The article also talks about the government and whether it has the authority in creating and implementing laws to the society.

Sociologists have many perspectives when it comes to the examination of our laws. Three out of many theories of lawmaking processes are the Rationalistic model, Functionalistic view, and Conflict perspective. Rationalistic models view laws as a rational way of increasing protection for members of society from crimes which are “socially injurious” (Vago 2012). Functionalist view look at where the ideas behind the laws come from and describes laws as “re-institutionalized customs”, where lawmaking is a reiteration of customs (Vago 2012). Conflict perspective describe laws as value the opinions of the elite, instill unequal access to economic goods which upkeep the social economical groups, basically keeps the elite on top (Vago 2012). The three theories are all similar but different at the same time. In my opinion, conflict theories captures the reality of law making process.

In the law review written by Brian Tamanaha, six legal systems were mentioned. It includes

Rational - legal: resting on a belief in the ‘legality’ of patterns of normative rule, and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands.

The Rule of Law has not been compromised by the culture or socioeconomic conditions in India or Japan. India and Japan sought to achieve Rule of Law to embody the values, institutions and principles in a modern liberal democratic country in order to modernize and adapt. Rule of law has two main functions, to protect its citizens and stop unequitable use of state power by remaining transparent, and, to protect its citizens with enforcement structures. In India, Western ideals and institutions were welcomed and successfully integrated with local culture. In Japan, transplant of rule of law ideals only occurred post-war and the transplant of western legal systems were in the course of colonization and