The Rule of Law Essay

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

Philosophers such as Ronald Dworkin and H.L.A. Hart have referred to discretion as “the hole in the doughnut” (doughnut theory of discretion) and “where the law runs out” (natural law theory). In perspective,

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.

The text book definition of rule of law is simply stated as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. This in laymen’s terms simply means that power is no-longer the ultimate decider,

Definitions of the rule of law can be blurred unclear at times, the easiest way to define what the rule of law is, is to start by looking at 4 main principles. Firstly it recognises that everyone is accountable under the law, regardless of status or position within society such as politicians and the government it’s

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

We can’t write off the rule of law as irrelevant rhetoric: it has been recognised as an important constitutional principle in an Act of Parliament: Constitutional Reform Act 2005- 1. The rule of Law; This act does not adversely affect- (a) the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, and is routinely cited as a constitutional principle by the courts.

Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.

to the law. The rule of law often is stated to be one of the

I agree mostly with what Ronald Dworkin is quoted as stating in this article. His opinion of the “moral conception of law’s normativity”(479) is what

The rule of law, in other words, is where the country functions within a structure of law to prevent anarchy . As what Sir John Donaldson said in the case of Heaton’s Transport v Transport and General Workers’ Union , the courts and the rule of law is there to protect the individuals from unfair and tyrannical treatments by others. However, he also stated that to have that ‘protection’, we ourselves must accept that the law be relevant to everyone and restricts the freedoms that we ought to have. There are two types of interpretation of the rule of law, which are the procedural mechanism and the political theory.

her idea that the rule of law exists “through the cognitive process of the human mind, the language of the rule of law has not only represented reality, but has also played a leading role in the creation and transformation of reality; accordingly, it has contributed to the modelling of the shared consciousness of society, including that of international society” (Beaulac, 2009, p.1). The notion of the rule of law and its history stems from many traditions and continents and is intertwined with the evolution of the history of law itself. Recent attempts to formalize its meaning have drawn on this rich history of diverse understandings. In a modern sense, the rule of law has developed into a government which is based upon non-arbitrary rules as opposed to one based on the power and whim of an absolute ruler. The concept of rule of law is deeply linked to the principle of justice, involving an ideal of accountability and fairness in the protection and vindication of rights and the prevention and punishment of wrongs.

The given right of any person to legal council is part of what sets the United states of America apart from the rest of the world, However not all have access to this given right because the current legal system is broken. Not actually broken, the law is good, and has been developed for over 200 years of experience and trial and error, however the system of delivering the law, and making the law accessible and affordable is broken. Today in order to operate Law firms must try to juggle huge caseloads and charge large fees because the system that is being used is one that has not changed since the profession of law came about. How do lawyers expect to help change the world and make it a better place when it ignores what the world is

Kelsen distinguishes the legal norm and normal norm. Legal norm derives its validity from the external sources and the particular “ought” of the legal, as distinguish from the moral norm, is the sanction. Kelsen found the distinction between legal and other “oughts” in that the former backed by the force of the state, the preoccupation of law being with the prospect of disobedience rather than obedience. Thus, it is prescription of sanction that imparts significance of a norm, or putting it in another way, Law is the primary norm, which stipulates the sanction. Kelsen focused on the problem of determining legal validity, that is, on the issue of how legal rules and public acts are to be invested with normativity, their formal authority as binding law, enforceable through sanctioned state power. Simplifying, Kelsen viewed a system based on legislative sovereignty as logically incomplete, and indeed unstable, and sought to ground the legality of state action more formally in a supra- legislative body of rules, a Grundnorm. He argued that any given act could only be considered valid, or normative, if it is enabled by, and does not conflict with, a specific and formally superior legal rule. Furthermore, all legal rules, in order to confer validity on lower order rules, must be capable of being enforced by a judge or ‘jurisdiction’.