It would not make sense if Isaac’s command coupled with a threat constituted a “law”. Hart believes that “laws” will be recognised if they have gone through an established procedure. 

Hart narrowed the scope of possible sanctions. Laws cannot threaten death or serious injury. Therefore Isaac’s command and threat did not constitute a “law”. 

According to Hart “laws” must be entrenched in our Constitution. Isaac’s command and threat is not expressly or impliedly entrenched in our Constitution. Therefore it is not a “law”. 

Hart thought that “laws” could only be made by judges and politicians. If Isaac was a politician or a judge his command and threat would have constituted a “law”.