Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zzpat who wrote (64426)	4/3/2018 11:15:29 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 364309

The LEGAL synonym for 'shall' IS 'may'. As decided by the Supreme Court. Get over it and eat your broccoli.

To: zzpat who wrote (64426)	4/4/2018 3:08:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364309

I asked for one instance where the word "shall" is used to mean "may." I ask for one reason why that's relevant to anything in this conversation. The constitution lays out things the government MUST do True, but most of what it says is not that, but rather what it CAN do and can not do. When it uses shall its usually uses "shall have the power to" which in no way means "must do". Getting back to article one section 8 Right at the begining - "The Congress shall have Power To" and then it proceeds to list what powers are given to the congress. Here's a link usconstitution.net No where does it say "must do" or "shall do X", its all a listing of powers of congress meaning it can do. If "shall have the power to" actually meant the same as "shall", then it would be unconstitutional to never declare war. Do you actually believe that. The first declared war for the US was the War of 1812. Was congress violating the constitution, or does shall mean "shall once in awhile" or "shall after 23 years have passed". No one in congress now was in office the last time congress declared war, most members were not even alive back then. Is the fact that we haven't declared war in almost 76 years (Declaration of war against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania - June 5, 1942), mean that congress is violating the constitution by not declaring war. Section 8 also says congress shall have the power to ... "borrow money on the credit of the United States". In the unlikely event that we had a surplus would that be a violation of the constitution? Or if having any outstanding loans means the "requirement" is met, in the even less likely event that all federal debt was paid off would that be unconstitutional? Of course not. Really how as a matter of legal interpretation, English grammar, or just plain old common sense can you turn "shall have the power to" in to a requirement. Its silly.