According to Austin, a legal system exists if

For Austin, legal system was set of all the laws enacted directly or indirectly by one sovereign. His criterion for membership of a law in a system is that a law belongs to a system if and only if the sovereign who enacted all other laws of that system enacted it.

A law containing an imperative part only is not an independent law at all, unless there is a corresponding punitive law. A theory of legal system is based on the principle of independence if according to it there is no logical necessity for a legal system to have an internal structure. The demand of personal obedience in Austin’s theory means that the span of the life of the legal system determines the period of existence of the laws of the system and hence also of the legal system itself. There is not a moment at which a legal system exists but has no laws valid at that moment. Kelsen’s theory improved upon Austin’s theory. In his theory, laws derived their validity not from the sovereign but from grundnorm. Reflecting the social and political conditions of his time, Hart’s concept of law is based on general social acceptance of law or legal system”

Hart’s Perception towards Law

Although Hart did not go to the extent of Duguit in contending that laws derive their validity from social acceptance and he made the rule of recognition

A central part of Herbert Hart’s theory on legal positivism, in any legal system, the rule of recognition is a master meta-rule underlying any legal system that defines the common identifying test for legal validity (or “what counts as law”) within that system. …to say that a given rule is valid is to recognize it as passing all the tests provided by the rule of recognition and so as a rule of the system. In Hart’s view, the rule of recognition arises out of a convention among officials whereby they accept the rule’s criteria as standards that empower and govern their actions as officials.[1] The rule is cognizable from the social practices of officials acknowledging the rule as a legitimate standard of behavior, exerting social pressure on one another to conform to it, and generally satisfying the rule’s requirements. To this end, as explained by Hart, the rule has three functions:

To establish a test for valid law in the applicable legal system,

To confer validity to everything else in the applicable legal system, and

To unify the laws in the applicable legal system.

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 the Queen says is law”, then any rule the Queen spoke would be a valid legal rule.

Although Hart was aware of the role of coercion and conflict in the universe of law but he tried to downplay the role of command and coercion and violence by conceiving law as a system of rules upon rules of social practices informed by their own criterion of validity and normative obligations. “Hart spoke of the shared acceptance of rules. As stated earlier, for Hart legal system is a combination of PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RULES.

Primary rules are rules of obligation while secondary rules are parasitic upon primary rules and are rules about primary rules.

While primary rules impose duties, secondary rules confer power, public or private. The thesis made Hart to conclude that international law is a law because nations feel an obligation to comply with it but it still lacks the character of a legal system because of lack of secondary rules. Rules of change and rules of adjudication are again related to rules of recognition because it is with reference to it that a particular rule is identified. Indian Concept Acc. to Hart’s Ideology

The Indian legal system is a fairly developed system and consists of both primary and secondary rules. The Constitution of India is the ultimate rule of recognition. Although under Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, it is provided that the State shall endeavour to promote international peace and security and respect its international obligation yet no rule of international law which is in conflict with the Indian Constitution can be binding on the Indian people and courts.

Primary rules of obligation in the Indian legal system include customs which are recognised by courts and various statutes

Pre-constitutional laws are given recognition by Article 372 of the Indian Constitution “but subject to the provisions of … Constitution”.

Hart criticises Austin’s definition of law as a command of the sovereign backed by sanctions. Hart emphasised on INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ASPECTS OF A RULE.

Internal aspect of the rule distinguishes a rule from social habit. RULE OF RECOGNITION according to Hart forms the foundation of the legal system.

Such a rule is accepted by both private persons and officials and is provided with authoritative criteria for identifying primary rules obligation. In a modern legal system where there are a variety of sources of law, the rule of recognition is correspondingly more complex. In the day-to-day life of a legal system, rule of recognition is very seldom expressly formulated as a rule. The use of unstated rules of recognition by courts and others in identifying particular rules of the system is characteristic of the internal point of view. Under the Indian legal system, although the Indian Constitution is the ultimate rule of recognition, it presents certain baffling complexities—

— It allows the existence of parallel legal systems in the shape of personal laws many of which still derive their validity from religious institutions. Article 372 of the Indian Constitution allows continuance of pre-constitutional laws. It includes personal laws also. — There is a hierarchy of rules of recognition and the Constitution is at the top. This conflict in the Constitution brings us to the question of basic structure. Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution. It is the core of the ultimate rule of recognition. Normally, basic structure is said to be the grundnorm of the Indian legal system. According to Hart, these rules are minimal conditions for the persistence of social groups i.e. if certain rules did not exist the social group would not “survive”. Thus, we can say that there are minimal rules for the existence of a legal system. If these rules do not exist the legal system would not survive and by enunciating the basic structure the judiciary is only pointing towards these rules.

However, from the inefficiency of a particular rule general disregard for the system should be distinguished. Hart’s idea of OPEN TEXTURE OF LAW is his another important contribution to legal theory. Taking guidance from the general structure and aim of the Constitution the Supreme Court has given a totally new interpretation to Articles 14 and 21.

Grounds of Morality

Finally, what is the role of law and the legal system in an individual’s life? What should be the sphere of law? Should law enforce MORALITY on its subjects? The Indian legal system does not totally approve of Hart’s theory in this regard. Even under Article 14 the Supreme Court under the new concept of arbitrariness, enforces the prevailing morality by striking down a law as unreasonable. Based on the general acceptance of the people, Hart’s legal system comprises of primary rules of obligation and “secondary rules of recognition”, “rules of adjudication” and “rules of change”. Existing within the framework of certain minimal rules this legal system has enough flexibility to adapt itself to the changing needs. Except for the five truisms, Hart’s legal system like Aristotle’s Politics is amoral. Principles of morality are no touchstone to test the validity of the rules of legal system. They can, however, become legal rules after passing through the process prescribed by the legal system.

The Indian legal system is a fairly developed legal system comprising of both primary rules of obligation and secondary rules of recognition, adjudication and change. While the primary rules consist of various statutory laws and recognised customs, secondary rules are contained in the Constitution of India. The general legal framework is the source of validity or the “rule of recognition” for other rules and governmental action. As for the “rules of adjudication”, the Indian legal system contains a very integrated judicial structure with the Supreme Court of India at the top. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts of the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution also. A clear example of this is the replacement of “procedure established by law” under Article 21 by the “due process of law”.

However, it is on the question of morality that the Indian legal system seems to clearly disagree with Hart’s thinking. Thus, not only morality is explicitly used in Articles 25 and 26, and implicitly in Article 19(1)(g), even while judging the validity of particular laws against the Constitution of India the Court takes into account moral principles.

What is this thing she did? Why, she cited the Constitution of these United States. And for yet another brief moment in a growing long line of brief moments it became clear once again that Timothy Geithner was indeed not the smartest man in the room.

You could hear the uneasiness in Geithner’s voice as he was forced to attempt to answer an actual question of substance. You could also imagine at how at the same time as he was trolling for an answer in that vast, empty sea of a brain of his that he was making mental notes about who he would have to contact to make sure no such substantive questions would ever be raised again.

Here is how it went down and how Geithner struggled:

BACHMANN: “What provision in the Constitution could you point to … to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08?”
GEITHNER: “Oh, well, the — the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities.”
BACHMANN: “Sir, in the Constitution. What — what in the Constitution could you point to to — to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?”
GEITHNER: “Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is — is — has been using authority granted by this body — by this body, the Congress.”
BACHMANN: “And by — in the Constitution, what could you point to?”
GEITHNER: “Under the laws of the land, of course.”

Note that not once did Mr. Geithner ever actually answer the simple question posed to him. When asked to cite the Constitutional authority for any of the actions taken by the Treasury since early last year he simply responded that Congress had given the Treasury certain powers and that they are “under the laws of the land.” But his response is a non-response. The smartest man in the room was flabbergasted and unable to answer a question that he knew that if he answered truthfully would doom all the current, past and future plans of he and his fellow travelers. Perhaps he should have borrowed President Obama’s teleprompter and had his remarks prepared for him by a speech writer.

But let’s explore his non-answer answer further. Is citing Congress doing something good enough of an excuse? Is Congress’s power to make law absolute under the Constitution? Of course we all know that it is not. If it were then what powers would be reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment exactly?

Geithner’s response, had it been truthful, would have been that there was no such authority for the vast, vast, vast majority of what the Treasury has done in the last year. But to answer truthfully it would mean that he would have to admit that he and his fellow liberals, both Democratic Party socialists and Republican Party socialist-lites, had violated the Supreme Law of the Land. So truthful answers to these sorts of serious questions are never things you will get from the blowhards inside the beltway.

We all know that just because Congress makes a law that the law is not de facto Constitutional. If it were, no law would ever be stricken as being unconstitutional. But since many laws have been it puts the lie to any notion that just because Congress decrees from on high that the order should be accepted and obeyed. We can even go very absurd to prove this point if you like. If Congress were to, for example, pass a bill that stated all people who have blond hair and blue eyes were inferior and not subject to the same rights as people with other combinations of hair and eye colors would it be a Constitutional law? Even if everyone accepted the law would it still be Constitutional? No.

Now say that we do not have to worry about Congress being so absurd all you like. That is not the point. And besides we all know that many absurd laws have indeed come out of Congress. Add to that the fact that liberals throughout time and all over the world have espoused the same sort of social and economic philosophies and have indeed sought to treat people very differently based on how they looked . The point is that if Congress did make a law stating such it would not be Constitutional just because Congress made such a law.

But Mr. Geithner and the liberals in charge of our government probably have little to fear from the American public recognizing this fact. Because they know that most Americans do not have a clue what our Constitution says and that they will not understand the importance of this exchange between Geithner and Congresswoman Bachmann. Instead they will carry on in blissful ignorance as the nation burns and President Obama fiddles.

Corporation laws are creation of the legislature of each jurisdiction intended to regulate the constitution, organization of a corporation as well as the conduct of its affairs and business.

Corporation laws are broad enough to comprehend and composed of different areas that are all complicated and unique.

Like any other areas of law where different constitutive laws embodied it, also corporation law had a broad spectrum and has its set of areas where specialization is viable.

In different light, in California, several corporate entities do business in the whole region. These corporations have diverged purposes and business endeavors ranging from manufacturing of general consumer products-including foods, pharmaceuticals products, banking transactions, finance, insurance, stock industries, and real estate and construction industries.

With these diversified corporate undertakings, no doubt that it engages in different transactions in the regular course of its business.

Varied corporate transactions ranging from finance, stocks, securities, credit transactions, trusts, real estate, taxation, commercial transactions and other forms of commercial contracts are just some of the matters that a corporation needs to deal with.

With these diversified transactions, corporate law areas become broad and much harder to master, especially when varying rules and provisions applied.

It was in that sense, that specialization on a given area of corporation law was waged. Of course, these were devised not only for convenience or practical purpose but also for giving a higher sense of legal services in specialized corporate problems.

Foremost from the specialized areas in corporation law, is the area of taxation in a corporate context. Tax implications in corporation, needs specialized treatment of a California corporate law attorney who had vast knowledge on this aspect. The corporate and tax planning of a corporation is complicated necessitating a careful consideration of an expert corporate-tax attorney.

Second from the list of corporate specialized areas is dealing with securities. Stock trading and other mode of security transactions are customary in corporate transactions. Though separate law regulates securities, it is considered as a specialized area of corporate law for it had direct connection with corporate affairs.

Other possible areas include corporate litigations. These legal issues are considered special area considering that different mechanics are applied in diverged corporate litigations. Different rules, different tribunals and different approaches are required in corporate litigations.

Added to that, corporate disputes resolutions have different degrees and avenue for filing that needs specialized treatment of an attorney who is an expert in litigation of this kind.

Another specialized area of corporate law is the intellectual property, which includes unfair competition, fraud, copyrights and violation of trade secrets. Still, a different set of law regulates this area. But considering its direct relation with the corporate scenario, it is a specialized corporation law area.

Actually, there are several specialized areas in the whole spectrum of corporation laws. The abovementioned are the general one.

With the evolution of business in California, and with the great demand of legal services, huge number of attorneys in California had ventured into the corporate law practice.

Many California corporate law attorneys had specialized in various areas of the corporation law intended to give sophisticated services to sophisticated world of doing business.

Our corporate attorneys are well equipped with the most effective strategies in handling any type of cases involving the California Business Laws. For your legal concerns, log on to our website and fill out our free case evaluation form.

Watch the video related to constitutional law

Festschrift in honor of Philip Frickey, Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law, Berkeley Law Plenary Session 1 – Constitutional Law Moderator: Goodwin Liu, Professor of Law; Associate Dean, JD Program & Curriculum Planning; Co-Director, Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, Berkeley Law Panelists: William Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver, Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School, Robert C. Post, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School, Ernest A …

Help answer the question about constitutional law

About Author

Before becoming an online writer, Claysphere worked as a legal researcher, data analyst, and lyricist in a local band in his hometown. He has a degree in law, and worked for several law offices as a paralegal, office staff and as a researcher. He has continued to write topics relating to his learning in law.

No matter where you live, whether it is in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, La Jolla, Del Mar, Pacific Beach, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, Mission Beach and Escondido or the cities of Huntington Beach, Anaheim Hills, Yorba Linda, Buena Park, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, Buena Park, Temecula, Indian Wells, La Quinta, or Palm Springs, unless you haven’t turned on the television or read a newspaper during the 2008 Presidential election, or looked at the internet, you have seen claims by the Republican campaign that the publishing media is biased.

Attacking the media has long been a tactic of national candidates. In this election, once again, we have seen this tactic employed, yet with little of the success it enjoyed in previous Presidential campaigns.  As an election and  constituitonal lawyer, one can only applaud this lack of success in the use of this tactic in this election.

For the most part in this Presidential campaign, one candidate has been leveling these attacks on the press with regularity and with increasing anger, John McCain. While newspapers expect this to some extent, the public that is not wedded to one side of the fence or the other appears to be tiring of the attacks.

Recently, John McCain denounced the New York times in the strongest words, following a Times report that McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had been pain nearly $2 million by mortgage entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. McCain’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt said the New York Times is no longer a journalistic organization but is 150 percent in the tank for Barack Obama. Schmidt earlier attacked MSNBC as being an organ of the Democratic National Committee, and said the news media are on a mission to destroy Sarah Palin.

Unfortunately for John McCain, it has since been reported in the press that McCain’s campaign manager’s lobbying firm owned by his campaign manager has received $15,000/month for nearly three years and that and that the campaign manager was paid $30,000/month for nearly five years by an advocacy organization that he headed and which was financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fight regulation. It has further been reported that McCain’s senior advisor, his campaign’s vice chairman, and his Congressional liaison, also made large sums of money from Fannie and Freddie lobbying or were in firms that did.

In an apparent attempt to deflect attention away from his mistaken attack on the New York Times story, McCain then announced he was suspending his campaign to immediately fly to Washington after awaking that morning to find a report in the Washington Post that he was behind in the polls by nine points. Soon after attempting to criticize that finding, and knowing what the disaster Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric would be aired that night, McCain chose to dump his appearance on the David Letterman show, upstage the Couric interview with his own interview on the CBS News, and announce the suspension of his campaign that was in reality, never a suspension.

In hindsight of course, McCain’s actions were a huge error in judgment. His dilly-dallying around New York after ditching Letterman were picked up on and hammered at him unmercifully for two nights on the David Letterman show and later on the Daily Show, other news shows, on the internet and in the press. By the time he arrived the next day in Washington, it had already been announced that there was bipartisan support for the bailout bill, that just as quickly dissipated upon his arrival. It was reported that his campaign had not been suspended and Letterman, among others joked at his expense why he must have felt he could not leave his campaign in the hands of Sarah Palin, when she was seen incapable of answering simple questions put to her by Katie Couric. And after announcing he would not take part in the debate until there was either a bailout bill or great progress toward one, he had to fly back from Washington for the debate with no bailout bill in hand and Congress much less united than when he had arrived.

In the past, attacking the press has proved fruitful for Presidential candidates. This time the attack is falling on deaf ears and has either been the exception to the rule that it will help a candidate, or there is a change taking place in what a candidate risks if he is wrong.  As an election, campaign, publishing, marketing, media and constitutional law attorney, one can only conclude that negative attacks by the candidates are not working as they used to, whether it is against the media or against the other candidate.  The public has become weary of such tactics and it is showing in the polls.

Visit the Sebastian Gibson Law website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com . If you have a publishing, literary, first amendment, media, marketing or constitutional law issue, come to an experienced law firm who can represent you as your California Publishing Lawyer, your San Diego Constitutional Attorney and your attorney throughout Southern California. We have the resources and knowledge to represent you from San Diego to Orange County, from Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to Long Beach, Santa Monica, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also represent clients inland from Anaheim to Temecula, from Rancho Cucamonga to Palm Springs and Indian Wells.

Watch the video related to constitutional law

Mock Constitutional Law Class — Prof. David B. Cruz

Help answer the question about constitutional law

Im also taking Arabic language classes next year and considering ROTC.

What do you think about my proffesional future? Or maybe some ideas for a career?
I have an idea of what I would like to do and my original major was business but was switched it. I just want outside opinions.

About Author

The Sebastian Gibson Law Firm serves all of San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the Coastal Cities from La Jolla, Carlsbad and Del Mar to Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana and up to Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also serve the Inland Empire cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Riverside and San Bernardino and all the cities in the Coachella Valley and high desert, from La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella to Yucca Valley and Victorville.

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a publishing issue of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your San Diego Publishing Lawyer and California Publishing Attorney or your attorney in and around the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, San Diego, Orange County, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Long Beach, Corona, Yorba Linda, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Malibu, Westwood, Hesperia, Buena Park, Indio, Coachella, Del Mar, Oxnard, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Cambria and Santa Barbara.

Everyone has heard the old line “there are too many lawyers”.  While this may be true, the next question one must as is…why?  Why is pursuing law such a popular path to follow and what exactly are the benefits and negatives of pursuing a law degree?  In this article I’ll explore the ‘right’ reasons and also some ‘wrong’ reasons to pursue this time consuming and expensive undertaking.

The Love of Law

The first and ‘best’ reason to pursue a Law Degree is of course that you absolutely LOVE the law.  Do you sit up late at night debating controversial legal issues with your friends?  Do you find yourself getting into heated arguments over the right to fair trial of non-citizen combatants in the Iraq war or perhaps the various ethical and legal sides of the abortion issue.  Is your favorite channel C-span or Court TV and is your book shelf full of books about famous legal cases or issues? 

If this sounds like you then you might be law school material.  The best lawyers…and law students have a PASSION for the law.  They don’t look at reading 500 pages of a constitutional law book as work, they relish it.  While there are certainly other good reasons to go to law school, perhaps no other is as good a predictor of success as your love of the subject matter. 

Critical Thinking

One of the often overlooked but perhaps most important skills you learn by attending law school is the development of your critical thinking ability.  The ability to look at an issue from its various sides, do the research to fully understand the intricacies of an issue and the ability to argue and defend your position are incredibly valuable skills that will serve you for the rest of your life in and outside of the law field. 

Many attorneys find that the research and critical thinking skills help them in areas they never even considered from personal relationships to managing employees and building a business.  Of course these skills are crucial in the legal profession itself, but a legal education can be a great exercise in improving one’s ability to handle the complex negotiations of life.

Career Dynamite

Obtaining a law degree can be a tremendous asset when paired with a degree or specialized knowledge in another field.  By using your specific knowledge and experience and having a law degree you then are perfectly tailored to work as legal counsel for a plethora of fields. 

For instance a pharmacy degree paired with a law degree makes you a great asset as counsel in a firm that specializes in pharmaceutical firms.  Architecture, real estate or construction experience teamed with a law degree can make you a great real estate attorney.  The real world experience you possess in the specific field makes you an invaluable asset to law firms that might have top notch attorneys but little hands on, practical experience in that field.

Wrong Reasons

It is very important to be aware of the wrong reasons to pursue a law degree…and there are many.  Some people decide to go to law school because they simply don’t know what else to do.  Besides being an obvious waste of time, most often these people do not end up even working in the legal profession. 

Others want to become an attorney not because they really like law, but because they want the perceived ‘prestige’ that having a law degree attaches.  People that go to law school for this reason tend to have self-esteem issues and are looking to fill a void with the ‘title’ of lawyer even though they really have very little passion for the profession.  They often don’t really know what they want to do and think spending three years in school is a way of either staying out of the ‘real world’ or that they’ll ‘figure it out’ in law school.  Law school is so work intensive that is highly recommended you don’t attend unless you really know you want it for the right reasons.

Finally, there’s the money.  While any profession is ultimately responsible for giving you a pay check, potential law school candidates should be aware that the vast majority of lawyers don’t make gobs of money.  While it is true that if you attend a top, Ivy League school and get into a top firm you can make a very good living, this is really only something that a very small percentage will accomplish.  The big money starts if you make Partner in a firm, which is highly competitive and can take many years.  For those simply looking to make good money, there are other professions that are comparatively easier to accomplish this in finance and banking and without the need to attend law school.  However, if your passion is the law then there are certainly great financial rewards for those that position themselves correctly.  For more great articles and insights please visit www.LawDegree.me.

Watch the video related to constitutional law

Vanderbilt Law School professor and constitutional law expert Suzanna Sherry discusses the role and responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. She also examines the issue of politics and the Court. Sherry is the author of a new book, Judgment Calls: Principle and Politics in Constitutional Law.

Help answer the question about constitutional law

I mean, he DID study Constitutional law….. RIGHT?

Then why is he trying to turn the US into a socialist country?

Am I missing something here?

Ron Paul wasn't a Constitutional law professor and the Constitution is all he talked about.

Why doesn't Obama?

About Author

With Degrees in Film, Real Estate Finance and Development as well as Psychology, Robert Levin writes expert articles covering a broad range of issues. Some of his websites include: LawDegree.me and
MBAdegree.me.