How so?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
Pelosi has been indicting Trump as buckstop for four years. It does seem hypocritical for her to run a trial allotting blame to a passer-by for a farce she and Mitch abetted by their own criminal negligence.
Your definition of “shall” is spot on.
I disagree with this:
And this:
The President is obligated to be the Commander In Chief by shall. One refusing to do so would be in dereliction of duty. And grounds for impeachment.
I completely disagree with your title of nobility clause. No shall is just as strong as shall. When shall is used, there is no discretion. That is the purpose of it.
This is a valid point. I’ll think about it.
Don’t get me wrong - I agree with you on the meaning of the Nobility clause, as does everyone else.
My point is that to analyze it on a purely semantic level would result in a misunderstanding of the law.
Does shall mean “may” or “must”?
In my first example, it means “must”. In my last example, it means “may”.
We all understand what it is intended to mean, in both cases - but it is an example of the issue of semantics in law.
Shall is stronger than may or must in government-ese.
It is the strongest directive there is. “No shall” is the negative equivalent. Or “shall not”.
There is actually quite a significant movement in terms of “government-ese” to strike the word “shall” entirely, and replace it with “must” (and replace “shall not” with “may not”) - at least in terms of new legislation.
This is already true for the FRCP, FRCrimP, and FRE - from which the word “shall” has already been expunged.
*Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
*Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
*Federal Rules of Evidence
Huge mistake.
Look at you two, arguing semantics.
2 Likes
In terms of single words, there is no more litigated a word than “shall”, in the English language.
Ask yourself why?
I’m actually arguing against semantics.
At least to an extent.
I know why. Because of its ambiguity on a semantic level.
Why do you think it’s a mistake?
I think that clearing up linguistic ambiguities is a positive trend.
Anyway, we’ll know tomorrow if Pelosi actually sends the article to the Senate like she said.
From media reports, it appears the republicans are slowly putting on dry panties and remembering their party allegiance. If that is true, there won’t be a conviction. And without the conviction, they can’t keep him from running again.
I believe this chatter about the 14th is indicative of that. The 14th won’t work to keep him from running again.
The problem is the 75M.
2 Likes
Because shall is not ambiguous. It is not a “clearing up”.
No it isn’t. It’s because it creates an obligation and removes all discretion. It traps.
It is more ambiguous than “must” or “may”, by the simple fact that prgamatically, “shall” can mean either “must” or “may”, depending on context.
So does “must”, or “may not”.
And without the ambiguity.
No it absolutely is not. It cannot mean “may”. Anybody who has worked in government for more than one day knows this.
1 Like