Dworkin is aiming at explaining how simply because a rule of recognition is implemented, laws and fellowship will not be a natural byproduct. A rule of recognition is determined worthy and executable only by its acceptance. Because there is no universal rule of recognition and because all rules of recognition are ultimate, they possess no intrinsic power or legal significance- these properties stem from it only after acceptance. Just because a rule of recognition exists in a formal sense by a government, it doesn't mean that it can't be overridden by other factors; e.g. a powerful mafia. The rules "revealed" from a rule of recognition are to be adopted by officials and citizens to the fullest extent possible. .
Dworkin means in a theoretical sense that rules of recognition provide legal obligation but in a practical sense they may not. Theoretically a rule of recognition may supply rules condemning both murder and J-walking. From a practical standpoint people may view J-walking simply as a principle instead of as a rule such as "do not murder." In theory one rule of recognition exists and supplies the correct manner of behavior for every conceivable situation encountered within the community. In reality, people may adopt more than one rule of recognition. In everyday matters people generally conform to the rule of recognition provided by their governing body. In extreme circumstances or special cases (e.g. J walking) people often take religious or personal convictions as the force behind their actions, thus relying on a separate rule of recognition as opposed to simply disregarding the one adopted by them from their governing body. Theoretically morals play no part by people abiding and conforming to a rule of recognition, but in reality people also rely and subsist in a separate moral rule of recognition. .
From the passage by Dworken there is a conception of a government where officials essentially embody the doctrine of a particular rule of recognition whereas the citizens are at times ambivalent.