This type of "thinking" is one of the reasons professional requirements documents are moving their language to MUST instead of SHALL for requirement descriptions.
All because people can't understand how language was used when it was originally written. I don't think "shall" is ambiguous at all in a requirement, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.
Maybe this is a backdoor way to weaken the 2nd Amendment even more, "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can't infringe, it just means we're not supposed to, but we'll do it anyways.
Yeah, apparently this came up while desegregating schools. Schools were told they 'shall' integrate the minority students, and the schools said 'sure'. Just kept delaying it until finally the courts said 'now'.
I hope you're right, they obviously violated the spirit of the law, but they're saying that no official stoppage was announced, they were under the impression it would stop and left of their own volition.
It's obvious BS, especially considering they wanted to be there and were available and deceit was used to subvert the law but still that is what they're saying.
They will argue they WERE allowed and that everyone left of their own free will. How do we turn this into a legal argument before a court? Is the allegation that they were not allowed to watch and were forced to leave, if so, by whom?
"allowed" is the slippery one though. They've been saying "they were allowed to observe, it was their choice to leave, we made no official stop announcement. Hur durr".
Correct.
"Shall" means "must".
This is long-established legal language.
This type of "thinking" is one of the reasons professional requirements documents are moving their language to MUST instead of SHALL for requirement descriptions.
All because people can't understand how language was used when it was originally written. I don't think "shall" is ambiguous at all in a requirement, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.
Maybe this is a backdoor way to weaken the 2nd Amendment even more, "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean we can't infringe, it just means we're not supposed to, but we'll do it anyways.
Right, but shall also doesn't establish timeline or consequences for failure. I shall eat right, is a matter of life or death! Just not today....
True. If there's no penalty, or no will to enforce the law, then they usually get away with it. Unfortunately.
It's ultimately up to us, the people, to hold their feet to the fire.
Yeah, apparently this came up while desegregating schools. Schools were told they 'shall' integrate the minority students, and the schools said 'sure'. Just kept delaying it until finally the courts said 'now'.
They 100% will argue that, but it 100% won't fly. Observers must be informed about the when and where of the process to be able to observe.
I hope you're right, they obviously violated the spirit of the law, but they're saying that no official stoppage was announced, they were under the impression it would stop and left of their own volition.
It's obvious BS, especially considering they wanted to be there and were available and deceit was used to subvert the law but still that is what they're saying.
Except they made them leave and then locked the doors on them, which is literally the opposite of being allowed in.
Devils advocate - so they “Must be allowed”
They will argue they WERE allowed and that everyone left of their own free will. How do we turn this into a legal argument before a court? Is the allegation that they were not allowed to watch and were forced to leave, if so, by whom?
"allowed" is the slippery one though. They've been saying "they were allowed to observe, it was their choice to leave, we made no official stop announcement. Hur durr".