Constitution,Individual Rights And The Interpretation Of Law

The Contemporary western Jurisprudence has showed us two entirely different positions of viewing law:one considers,at most of the time,at least, legal practice value-neutral and strictly determined by the previous political choice while the other claims that the law itself can not be the judge of anything and the human judge must dealing with cases by his insight of social effects of the best judgment.There seems to be an insurmountable gap between the predictability and flexibility of law.If we emphasize the predictability of law,we might sacrifice its flexibility due to the rigid application of the law;on the other hand,if we insist on the flexibility,we might do some damage to the predictability so it may result in an unconscionability outcome. but the legal practice which we take part in state clearly that there can never be an external or objective description of law.And we have already lived in the world of specific legal practice while we raise questions such like "what is the law".Apparently,our rule-obeying act is consistent,but one must knows that beneath this homogeneity there is sorts of reasons to explain why we obey the rules and the legitimacy of legal proposition approved by our opinions.As Ronald Dworkin claimed, the justification of legitimacy to the rule-obeying act should aslo be,and this is determined by one's interpretive approach,considered as a part of the law. Legal practice is neither some sort of simple social facts nor calculation or expectation of a better social effect.It is the overall narrative about our history and tradition.The law itself is a controversial concept and the reason why its controversial point doesn't reveal in simple case is that all kinds of legal interpretation has reached a agreement.So,this may as well help us to understand why the controversial point of law can be perfectly understood in the Dworking's "hard cases".The widely existence of law's controversial point doesn't show that the law itself is full of ambiguity or indistinct and the reason why it is exist is that we can not construct a coherent narrative based on legal practice.So,as Dworkin claims,the cause of jurisprudence is neither to pursue a neutral description of legal practice nor to scheme a best result of law's functioning,it is,the same as above, a coherent narrative based on legal practice.And if one take legal practice by an holistic angle,the law itself will turn into a "seamless net".That is to say,the law itself is endless,but the "law on the paper"will end up in a certain way which positivist describe.However,unlike a last-page-missing book,the law is not a incomplete object,because the real endless things are principles and policies which law contains.So even in the hard cases, on condition that legal norms which is clealy applicable is lacking,the judge sitll can pursue "the only right answer" by image and reason.A specific judicial decision either reject litigant's right or admit it-----there is no such situation as "both will do",this is to say that two kinds of judicial decision can not be as good as the same.To defend the proposition of "the only right answer".Dworkin must face the interrogation from both external skepticism and internal skepticism at the same time.The the success of this defending depends entirely on the strength of argument which based on principles and policies.The external skepticism is a criticism to the objectivity of legal practice itself,and this criticism has became a misunderstanding to law for its lacking of participant's internal perspective. The internal skepticism is a real skepticism which claims that it would be aslo good to have two or even more interpretations. But Dworkin argues that it is impossible for us to consider legal practice as a coherent narrative based on our individual rights while both interpretations has demonstrated our complex legal practice and legal tradition well.The legal practice is like a chapter novels with many authors. If we are not only asking the consistence in the sense of the whole story but aslo in the sense of detail,by now,we can be sure that this "the only right writing style" is not only possible but aslo inevitable.