Explain to me, the lawful meaning of "SHALL"

[Oddball]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, nat. For that I am truly sorry. Not.

WHAT IS SHALL?

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.

What is SHALL? definition of SHALL (Black's Law Dictionary)

You gonna run away again?

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

No, they were so in legal writings a long time ago....I started studying these words as they relate to contracts back in the mid-1990s.

 

[Lesh]

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Are you still talking about the Mueller "No Collusion No Obstruction" Report

REALLY?????..................THAT'S what the Mueller report "concluded"????

Find a 5th grader to explain to you even what the stooge Barr stated in his little, cute "summary."

(how dumb are these Trump ass kissers?? ...and fellow morons, "cheer")........LMAO

Curious, you're a 5th grader aren't you?

and he is 17.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, nat. For that I am truly sorry. Not.

WHAT IS SHALL?

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.

What is SHALL? definition of SHALL (Black's Law Dictionary)

You gonna run away again?

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

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.

Doesn't matter when it "became so"

It took hold in legal writings for a reason. It was redefined as "may" for a reason. Shall, in its strictest legal sense, is not a command. The word "must" is. As so explained in your quote.

Remember, shall is may. That's been the legal definition for over a century now.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, nat. For that I am truly sorry. Not.

WHAT IS SHALL?

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.

What is SHALL? definition of SHALL (Black's Law Dictionary)

You gonna run away again?

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

No, they were so in legal writings a long time ago....I started studying these words as they relate to contracts back in the mid-1990s.

Sure ya did frogface. Care to cite a source that shows your point?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you still talking about the Mueller "No Collusion No Obstruction" Report

REALLY?????..................THAT'S what the Mueller report "concluded"????

Find a 5th grader to explain to you even what the stooge Barr stated in his little, cute "summary."

(how dumb are these Trump ass kissers?? ...and fellow morons, "cheer")........LMAO

Curious, you're a 5th grader aren't you?

and he is 17.....

Holy crap.

 

[nat4900]

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

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.

Well, according to these Trump ass kissers........when the writers of the law stated.
".....the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” ..........they really meant that it depended on:

Whether the requested tax returns should come from ANYONE but an orange clown

Whether the tax returns were requested on a Tuesday

Whether the requested tax returns "disturbed" the delicate sensibilities of Trump ass kissers......

etc..........I am sure that the writers of that statute were a bit "confused"....LMAO

 

[Oddball]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, nat. For that I am truly sorry. Not.

WHAT IS SHALL?

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.

What is SHALL? definition of SHALL (Black's Law Dictionary)

You gonna run away again?

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

No, they were so in legal writings a long time ago....I started studying these words as they relate to contracts back in the mid-1990s.

Sure ya did frogface. Care to cite a source that shows your point?

You cited it...Black's Law Dictionary...I've had a hard copy of it since 1995.

So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, Lush.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, nat. For that I am truly sorry. Not.

WHAT IS SHALL?

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.

What is SHALL? definition of SHALL (Black's Law Dictionary)

You gonna run away again?

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

No, they were so in legal writings a long time ago....I started studying these words as they relate to contracts back in the mid-1990s.

Sure ya did frogface. Care to cite a source that shows your point?

Yeah, the precedent was set in Wheeler v. Chicago.

IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ANNO DOMINI ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN.

(1913 for people who hate me for tying in all caps)

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

 

[nat4900]

Doesn't matter when it "became so"

It took hold in legal writings for a reason. It was redefined as "may" for a reason.

QUICK, moron.....contact the NRA to lobby for the 2nd amendment to be RE-WRITTEN that "......the right to bear arms MUST not be infringed..........."

(hopefully these ass kissers haven't bred too many other morons......LOL)

 

[Harry Dresden]

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

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.

Well, according to these Trump ass kissers........when the writers of the law stated.
".....the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” ..........they really meant that it depended on:

Whether the requested tax returns should come from ANYONE but an orange clown

Whether the tax returns were requested on a Tuesday

Whether the requested tax returns "disturbed" the delicate sensibilities of Trump ass kissers......

etc..........I am sure that the writers of that statute were a bit "confused"....LMAO

nat are going to back up what ya said about me or are you going to keep rambling your bullshit?...dont be a pussy nat,i cant hurt you...

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 260008

 

[Weatherman2020]

Doesn't matter when it "became so"

It took hold in legal writings for a reason. It was redefined as "may" for a reason.

QUICK, moron.....contact the NRA to lobby for the 2nd amendment to be RE-WRITTEN that "......the right to bear arms MUST not be infringed..........."

(hopefully these ass kissers haven't bred too many other morons......LOL)

CHOSE THE FORM OF YOUR DESTRUCTOR

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doesn't matter when it "became so"

It took hold in legal writings for a reason. It was redefined as "may" for a reason.

QUICK, moron.....contact the NRA to lobby for the 2nd amendment to be RE-WRITTEN that "......the right to bear arms MUST not be infringed..........."

(hopefully these ass kissers haven't bred too many other morons......LOL)

Eh... why am I even acknowledging you at this point?

Are you serious? For even one iota of a moment in your life?

Shall not be infringed. = May not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall (may) not be infringed.

Looks like a command to me.

You have very little understanding of how legal definitions work.

The funny button is down there, to the right corner of this post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It only became so in legal writings after 2010

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.

Well, according to these Trump ass kissers........when the writers of the law stated.
".....the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” ..........they really meant that it depended on:

Whether the requested tax returns should come from ANYONE but an orange clown

Whether the tax returns were requested on a Tuesday

Whether the requested tax returns "disturbed" the delicate sensibilities of Trump ass kissers......

etc..........I am sure that the writers of that statute were a bit "confused"....LMAO

nat are going to back up what ya said about me or are you going to keep rambling your bullshit?...dont be a pussy nat,i cant hurt you...

You already did hurt him.

You're a wizard, Harry.

 

[nat4900]

nat are going to back up what ya said about me or are you going to keep rambling your bullshit?...dont be a pussy nat,i cant hurt you...

Look Trump ass kisser......I have NO desire to research your fucking threads....This forum is NOT about you....and I follow the adage about NOT wrestling with pigs..........LOL

 

[Oddball]

Eh... why am I even acknowledging you at this point?

Are you serious? For even one iota of a moment in your life?

Shall not be infringed. = May not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall (may) not be infringed.

Looks like a command to me.

You have very little understanding of how legal definitions work.

The funny button is down there, to the right corner of this post.

Not only that but the case in question makes it (relatively) clear that the permissive reading of the words occurs when one is being forced to surrender their rights, not as language to affirm and underscore them.

I don't think gnat's reading comprehension level is anywhere near high school level.

 

[nat4900]

Eh... why am I even acknowledging you at this point?

Are you serious? For even one iota of a moment in your life?

Shall not be infringed. = May not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall (may) not be infringed.

Looks like a command to me.

You have very little understanding of how legal definitions work.

The funny button is down there, to the right corner of this post.

Well, obviously the above moron got a law degree from Trump University......LOL

(go play with your guns, nitwit.....)

 

[Harry Dresden]

nat are going to back up what ya said about me or are you going to keep rambling your bullshit?...dont be a pussy nat,i cant hurt you...

Look Trump ass kisser......I have NO desire to research your fucking threads....This forum is NOT about you....and I follow the adage about NOT wrestling with pigs..........LOL

so in other words its all nat talk....you are losing another thread nat ....time to run and start yet another.....