The course is designed to introduce students to the form of legal reasoning that
judges employ in deciding cases and to provide students with an understanding of some
of the major issues and controversies faced by courts in interpreting and evaluating
legal arguments.  The central questions discussed include the following:
(i)   Why do judges and legal practitioners disagree about the proper approach to
      reasoning about the law?  
(ii)  What standard should judges apply when interpreting contested questions of law?
(iii) If judges are not bound by the literal terms of statutory law, do they then
      possess unfettered discretion to amend the law?

The course examines the major schools of contemporary legal theory:
positivism, integrity in law, law and economics, critical legal studies and feminist
legal theory.  First, the course examines positivism and H.L.A. Hart's critique of
the command model of jurisprudence as developed in the work of John Austin.  After 
evaluating Hart's new positivist synthesis, the course examines Dworkin's critique of
positivism and his proposed alternate theory of law (integrity on law).  Finally, the
course evaluates two contemporary alternatives to integrity in law:  (i) law and
economics; and (ii) critical legal studies.

All academic work must meet the standards contained in "A Culture of Honesty."  
Students are responsible for informing themselves about these standards before 
performing academic work.  The penalties for academic dishonesty are severe and 
ignorance is not an acceptable defense.  Also note that the course syllabus is a 
general plan for the course and that deviations announced to the class by the 
instructor may be necessary.