Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.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.
Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.
The citation I posted from Black's Law Dictionary cites STANDING CASE LAW, not opinion, ignorant fuckwit.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.....
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....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
I posted the citation to Black's Law Dictionary and gave an accurate layman's translation, ignoramus shithead.Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.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.
Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.
Grow the fuck up.
Congress has no judicial authority. they can bark all night, and all it will be is annoying.from plainlanguage.gov1. 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.
"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.
the supreme court ruled on it dumbass....you get stupider as the days go by nat....here let me make you feel at home....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.....
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....
Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.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.
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 fuck up.
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
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?....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.
Calling you Ignoble is not a personal affront, clearly in your case it is high praise.
"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.Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.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.
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 fuck 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?
You lost the argument, shitferbrains.....Heat ain't going to make up for the dearth of light you bring to the topic.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.
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.
"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.Ad hominem smears of me don't change the fact that you're a total ignoramus about this topic.Please excuse Oddball, he seeks to be seen as a noble, but those who know his works recognized how ignoble he truly is.
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 fuck 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?
Reading for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
Had enough of getting your ass handed to you yet, Psycho?