Answer the following questions, each response about 500 words. Q1. “Around the

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

Answer the following questions, each response about 500 words.
Q1. “Around the time that the Bill of Rights was signed, it was widely deemed acceptable to hang murderers, horse thieves, and so on. Historical considerations like this make it clear that the death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment and so should not be considered unconstitutional.” Evaluate this line of thought. Explain the relevance, if any, of (i) originalism, (ii) evolving standards of decency and (iii) the distinction between verbal and substantive disagreements.
Q2. (1) Explain the command theory of what it is to be a law (that we discussed in lecture). (2) Present three of Hart’s objections to that theory. (3) Then, pick one objection and discuss whether it succeeds (you should answer this by discussing potential replies from command theorists and possibly further potential replies by Hart).
Instructions on how to answer question 1 (read!!):
For Q1 and especially (iii), be sure to explain verbal vs. substantive disagreements in relation to originalism and how they might bear on the line of thought in the prompt. Maybe taking disagreements about cruelty across historical periods to be substantive can in some way allow someone to maintain originalism but also take evolving standards of decency into account, whereas taking the disagreements to be merely verbal might not. And since there’s no “what do you think about this” portion, make sure to spend most of your time on explaining the relevencies of these different kinds of disagreements on originalism. Since there’s no reading on this, the lecture recordings and section materials are really your best hope for this one.
-One way to organize a response to Q1 is to first set up the background of the debate by introducing the originalist approach and an evolving standards of decency approach (don’t feel like you have to go too in-depth with those since this is mainly a setup for the latter part). Then, you can discuss how originalism can accommodate some sort of evolving standards of decency if the disagreement is substantive along with some additional assumptions, and maybe how it can’t accommodate evolving standards of decency if the disagreement is merely verbal.

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services