Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Hart–Fuller debate is an exchange between the American law professor Lon L. Fuller and his English counterpart H. L. A. Hart, published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958 on morality and law, which demonstrated the divide between the positivist and natural law philosophy. Hart took the positivist view in arguing that morality and law were ...
In his 1958 debate with Hart and more fully in The Morality of Law (1964), Fuller sought to steer a middle course between traditional natural law theory and legal positivism. Like most legal academics of his day, Fuller rejected traditional religious forms of natural law theory , which view human law as rooted in a rationally knowable and ...
14th Amendment permits law which penalizes railroads for allowing weeds to grow Kepner v. United States: 195 U.S. 100 (1904) sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases: Dorr v. United States: 195 U.S. 138 (1904) sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases: Gonzales v. Williams: 192 U.S. 1 (1904) Puerto Ricans and illegal aliens
Legal moralism is the theory of jurisprudence and the philosophy of law which holds that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on society's collective judgment of whether it is moral. It is often given as an alternative to legal liberalism, which holds that laws may only be used to the extent that they promote liberty. [1]
As a result of his famous debate (Hart–Devlin debate) with Patrick Devlin, Baron Devlin, on the role of the criminal law in enforcing moral norms, Hart wrote Law, Liberty and Morality (1963), which consisted of three lectures he gave at Stanford University. He also wrote The Morality of the Criminal Law (1965).
The Concept of Law is a 1961 book by the legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart and his most famous work. [1] The Concept of Law presents Hart's theory of legal positivism—the view that laws are rules made by humans and that there is no inherent or necessary connection between law and morality—within the framework of analytic philosophy.
Hart was probably the most influential writer in the modern school of analytical jurisprudence, [1] [2] [3] though its history goes back at least to Jeremy Bentham. Analytical jurisprudence is not to be mistaken for legal formalism (the idea that legal reasoning is or can be modelled as a mechanical, algorithmic process).
But to be a valid rule, the legal system of which the rule is a component must, as a whole, be effective. According to Hart, any rule that complies with the rule of recognition is a valid legal rule. For example, if the rule of recognition were "what Professor X says is law", then any rule that Professor X spoke would be a valid legal rule.