Explain to me, the lawful meaning of "SHALL"

[nat4900]

can a moron like you prove that citation wrong?...

Don't have to Mr. Fuckehead.......THAT citation is nothing more than just another opinion.....

We are a nation of LAWS and not just opinions.....

 

[BluesLegend]

so you insulted the guy and almost got your ass kicked....i bet you almost pissed your underpants....

Yeah.....I "insulted" the guy in trying to educate him....and he started sputtering to the extent that his dentures almost fell to the floor.......THEN he threatened me with his red face..... as we all laughed at the idiot.........LOL

Then the EMT's woke you from your hallucination

 

[Oddball]

1. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,Shall not be infringed"



2. "The little known tax code provision employed by the Democrats in demanding Mr. Trump’s returns says only that the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” the information, giving it and its parent agency, the Treasury Department, little leeway in deciding how to respond.

Link to above:

Trump Lawyer Asserts President’s Right to Keep Tax Returns Private

The Republican Party, the NRA and the Congress must decide if shall means mandatory, or not. The consequences are clear. Give Congress the president's taxes, or give the NRA and it's shall not be infringed a kick in the ass.

Interesting. I always thought "shall" to mean "mandatory". What did I know:

shall

v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill."

2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.​

It's a pity, really, for if "shall" changes its meaning contingent on the "context", whatever that's supposed to mean, our righty friends are still not required to interpret your examples the same way. Still, watching them tying themselves in knots finding some "context" to justify different interpretations shall be fun.

It's a matter of Murican case law, Eurotrash fuckwit.

Now get the hell back into your own lane.

Please excuse Oddball, he seeks to be seen as a noble, but those who know his works recognized how ignoble he truly is.

Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.

Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.

I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.

Grow the **** up.

 

[Oddball]

can a moron like you prove that citation wrong?...

Don't have to Mr. Fuckehead.......THAT citation is nothing more than just another opinion.....

We are a nation of LAWS and not just opinions.....

The citation I posted from Black's Law Dictionary cites STANDING CASE LAW, not opinion, ignorant fuckwit.

 

[Harry Dresden]

so you insulted the guy and almost got your ass kicked....i bet you almost pissed your underpants....

Yeah.....I "insulted" the guy in trying to educate him....and he started sputtering to the extent that his dentures almost fell to the floor.......THEN he threatened me with his red face..... as we all laughed at the idiot.........LOL

so you lost it and started the name calling.... you turned out to be the deplorable one....hey thats just like you are in this forum....

 

[BluesLegend]

Interesting. I always thought "shall" to mean "mandatory". What did I know:

shall

v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill."

2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.​

It's a pity, really, for if "shall" changes its meaning contingent on the "context", whatever that's supposed to mean, our righty friends are still not required to interpret your examples the same way. Still, watching them tying themselves in knots finding some "context" to justify different interpretations shall be fun.

It's a matter of Murican case law, Eurotrash fuckwit.

Now get the hell back into your own lane.

Please excuse Oddball, he seeks to be seen as a noble, but those who know his works recognized how ignoble he truly is.

Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.

Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.

I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.

Grow the **** up.

A liberal is assuming a posture of highly educated and superior, like the Nazi's.

 

[B. Kidd]

1. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,Shall not be infringed"



2. "The little known tax code provision employed by the Democrats in demanding Mr. Trump’s returns says only that the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” the information, giving it and its parent agency, the Treasury Department, little leeway in deciding how to respond.

Link to above:

Trump Lawyer Asserts President’s Right to Keep Tax Returns Private

The Republican Party, the NRA and the Congress must decide if shall means mandatory, or not. The consequences are clear. Give Congress the president's taxes, or give the NRA and it's shall not be infringed a kick in the ass.

from plainlanguage.gov
"Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation that something is mandatory. the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."....must and shall are not supposed to be used together in the same regulation....

So...is "shall not be infringed not mandatory, and can the Sect. of the Treasury able to keep the tax records of Trump secret? It can't be one or the other though I'm sure trump supporters will try.

Congress has no judicial authority. they can bark all night, and all it will be is annoying.

Yupp!

TDS Democrat House Judiciary members forgot that today.
They spewed enough hot air to fill all the balloons in the annual Albuquerque Balloon Race.

 

[Harry Dresden]

can a moron like you prove that citation wrong?...

Don't have to Mr. Fuckehead.......THAT citation is nothing more than just another opinion.....

We are a nation of LAWS and not just opinions.....

the supreme court ruled on it dumbass....you get stupider as the days go by nat....here let me make you feel at home....

 

[nat4900]

so you lost it and started the name calling.... you turned out to be the deplorable one....hey thats just like you are in this forum....

I treat all fuckheads the same....regardless of their proclivity for ass kissing......Take care of your orange lips.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting. I always thought "shall" to mean "mandatory". What did I know:

shall

v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill."

2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.​

It's a pity, really, for if "shall" changes its meaning contingent on the "context", whatever that's supposed to mean, our righty friends are still not required to interpret your examples the same way. Still, watching them tying themselves in knots finding some "context" to justify different interpretations shall be fun.

It's a matter of Murican case law, Eurotrash fuckwit.

Now get the hell back into your own lane.

Please excuse Oddball, he seeks to be seen as a noble, but those who know his works recognized how ignoble he truly is.

Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.

Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.

I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.

Grow the **** up.

I have Ballentine's Law Dictionary - 3rd Ed. 1969. To wit:

"Shall, providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in a Constitutional provision" 16 Am J2d, ordinarily, a word of mandate, the equivalent of "must" where appearing in a statute.

Are you capable of comprehending this ^^^ paragraph?

 

[BluesLegend]

Yeah.....I "insulted" the guy in trying to educate him....and he started sputtering to the extent that his dentures almost fell to the floor.......THEN he threatened me with his red face..... as we all laughed at the idiot.........LOL

Then the EMT's resuscitated you and treated your black eye.

 

[Harry Dresden]

so you lost it and started the name calling.... you turned out to be the deplorable one....hey thats just like you are in this forum....

I treat all fuckheads the same....regardless of their proclivity for ass kissing......Take care of your orange lips.

nat you claim like your idle dean that you back up your bullshit....show a post of mine kissing trumps ass....or will you run from yet another thread?....

 

[nat4900]

Until recently, law schools taught attorneys that "shall" means "must." That's why many attorneys and executives think "shall" means "must." It's not their fault. The Federal Plain Writing Act and the Federal Plain Language Guidelines only appeared in 2010. And the fact is, even though "must" has come to be the only clear, valid way to express "mandatory," most parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) that govern federal departments still use the word "shall" for that purpose.

 

[Olde Europe]

Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.

I'd rather settle for "Ignorable".

 

[B. Kidd]

Shall is like the word might.

For e.g., I shall overcome. Translated it basically means maybe, somewhat maybe, somewhat maybe not, maybe not.

Shakespeare was right: kill all the lawyers!!!

 

[Oddball]

It's a matter of Murican case law, Eurotrash fuckwit.

Now get the hell back into your own lane.

Please excuse Oddball, he seeks to be seen as a noble, but those who know his works recognized how ignoble he truly is.

Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.

Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.

I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.

Grow the **** up.

I have Ballentine's Law Dictionary - 3rd Ed. 1969. To wit:

"Shall, providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in a Constitutional provision" 16 Am J2d, ordinarily, a word of mandate, the equivalent of "must" where appearing in a statute.

Are you capable of comprehending this ^^^ paragraph?

"Shall, providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in a Constitutional provision" 16 Am J2d, ordinarily, a word of mandate, the equivalent of "must" where appearing in a statute.

Reading for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Had enough of getting your ass handed to you yet, Psycho?

 

[nat4900]

Virtually EVERY Amendment includes the verb SHALL meaning a mandatory command.

BUT, now based on Trump ass kissers, the term "shall" has become just another moronic defense of the orange clown.......

We will see before decent courts if we are still a nation of LAWS....or a nation of SEMANTICS to defend the scourge currently polluting the oval office.

 

[Oddball]

Virtually EVERY Amendment includes the verb SHALL meaning a mandatory command.

BUT, now based on Trump ass kissers, the term "shall" has become just another moronic defense of the orange clown.......

We will see before decent courts if we are still a nation of LAWS....or a nation of SEMANTICS to defend the scourge currently polluting the oval office.

You lost the argument, shitferbrains.....Heat ain't going to make up for the dearth of light you bring to the topic.

 

[B. Kidd]

Virtually EVERY Amendment includes the verb SHALL meaning a mandatory command.

BUT, now based on Trump ass kissers, the term "shall" has become just another moronic defense of the orange clown.......

We will see before decent courts if we are still a nation of LAWS....or a nation of SEMANTICS to defend the scourge currently polluting the oval office.

Correction. Not "we will see..."; "we shall see".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please excuse Oddball, he seeks to be seen as a noble, but those who know his works recognized how ignoble he truly is.

Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.

Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.

I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.

Grow the **** up.

I have Ballentine's Law Dictionary - 3rd Ed. 1969. To wit:

"Shall, providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in a Constitutional provision" 16 Am J2d, ordinarily, a word of mandate, the equivalent of "must" where appearing in a statute.

Are you capable of comprehending this ^^^ paragraph?

"Shall, providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in a Constitutional provision" 16 Am J2d, ordinarily, a word of mandate, the equivalent of "must" where appearing in a statute.

Reading for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Had enough of getting your ass handed to you yet, Psycho?

Read my posts carefully you f'n idiot, I asked a question in the OP.

In my experience Shall is mandatory, reading orders of probation which include terms and conditions such as "You shall not own, possess or have in your custody and control a firearm"; You shall not drink alcohol;you will report to your Probation Officer as directed. If they do violate these shall not's we would arrest them when a no bail bench warrant is issued at the PO's request and signed by the judge.

Reality reflects that the 2nd A. phrase, shall not be infringed is not mandatory, as too many situations exist where that right is not enforced. Read Heller, moron.

Go pound nails you ignorant jackass.