Notes+Wed+Sept+23

PHL271F – Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1. Whitely v Chapel 2. Lon Fuller a. “Fidelity to Law” b. Internal Morality of Law 3. Grudge Informant Case 4. Purposive Interpretation

Judge Lush - the word of the law in this case needs to be read narrowly, in this case “entitled to vote”

What does it mean if we let Whitely vote for someone dead? - if he’s acquitted, then it means anyone can do the same thing

Hart says there are two kinds of decisions, smart and less smart.

Melish is asking what is the Law trying to do? What is the spirit of the law? In this case it aims to prevent voter fraud. The broader reading would allow for this.

Legal positivist have to maintain that even a bad decision is still the law.

Lon Fuller – is an anti-positivist Legal positivist believes law an morals are two different things. They can overlap, but in the end it is possible to have bad law.

Law must be general and fair. Suppose a secret law was passed and then people are prosecuted for not following it, then it’s not law at all b/c it’s not fair.

Retro-active law – can’t be law b/c I can’t govern my case today based on what may be decided in the future.

Unclear – not law

Contradictory – if law requires me to do things that are contradictory then it’s not law

To do something I can’t comply with - not law

Changes too frequently – I can’t plan my life around it, then it’s not law.

1. law must be general 2. must be public 3. must not be retro-active 4. must be reasonably clear/intelligible 5. law must not require people to do contradictory things 6. must not require impossible things from people 7. must be reasonably consistent over time 8. there must a b/w what it says and what it requires

Fuller says if something doesn’t fit all 8 of these conditions it can not be called law.

Law is something that is used in a community of citizens.