whitehall
Diamond Member
Anybody who compares one of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to some obscure provision of the Tax Code is afflicted with TDS.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
No, they're afflicted with sheer stupidity, along with an inability/unwillingness to understand the goofy nuances of legalese.Anybody who compares one of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to some obscure provision of the Tax Code is afflicted with TDS.
So then "shall not be infringed" is only a guideline?Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
And I explained to you, in plain English (which your arrogance and confirmation bias prevent you from comprehending), the legal definition of the words "shall" and "must"....Again, in the hope that this might permeate your concrete skull; if those words are used in a manner that they can be construed to compel you to surrender your rights, they then read as the permissive "may", implying that you "may not" if you so choose....This is not my opinion, it is a point of settled law."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.
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?
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.
Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
WTF is your whiny OP about? needs a link.
you mean that thread ran from after getting your ass handed to you again?....that one?....Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest.
the supreme court ruled on the meaning of shall and must in a statute....must means its mandatory, while shall means may.....so shall not be infringed means it may be...So then "shall not be infringed" is only a guideline?Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
A-yup.you mean that thread ran from after getting your ass handed to you again?....that one?....Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
Well gun control just got easier.the supreme court ruled on the meaning of shall and must in a statute....must means its mandatory, while shall means may.....so shall not be infringed means it may be...So then "shall not be infringed" is only a guideline?Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
Not quite.the supreme court ruled on the meaning of shall and must in a statute....must means its mandatory, while shall means may.....so shall not be infringed means it may be...
possibly....shall is one of the most litigated words in the English language....because it can also mean "may, will or must."Well gun control just got easier.the supreme court ruled on the meaning of shall and must in a statute....must means its mandatory, while shall means may.....so shall not be infringed means it may be...So then "shall not be infringed" is only a guideline?Believe it or not.....on another popular thread, Trump "defenders" are arguing that the term (verb) SHALL really means a politte "may" when House committee members cite the existing LAW as to why Trump's tax returns should be handed over.
But, this is not the only moronic attempt by Trump sycophants.....
Since the Mueller report was handed over to the Trump stooge Barr, it has become obvious that the existing DOJ policy places a sitting president ABOVE the law since it clearly states that such a sitting president cannot be indicted......essentially, a sitting president is ABOVE the scrutiny and repercussions for acts committed by any other citizen.....
However, when it comes to handing over Trump's tax returns, his ass kissers DO revert to making Trump just another citizen who must be "protected" from the meanies who are investigating his probable misdeeds.
I don't expect for Trump followers to take this obvious hypocrisy too seriously....after all, there are strict rules within the Trump cult and any attack on his orange ass SHALL not be tolerate.....LOL
post 15....Not quite.the supreme court ruled on the meaning of shall and must in a statute....must means its mandatory, while shall means may.....so shall not be infringed means it may be...
If "shall" can be construed to you being forced to surrender your rights (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) it then legally reads as "may" (or may not).