Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
"If you haven't read it, how the devil do you justify asserting what it contains?

If you read my posting you would see it was not I who asserted what I wrote. I said I was listening to Rush and learned.

"I was listening to Rush this morning and learned" that one of the things the congress changed in order to get their bill through was to change the wording."

According to my dictionary SHALL is the same as SHOULD, meaning "OUGHT TO"

So now read it as

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall OUGHT TO have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

B>SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall OUGHT TO have standing to bring a suit under this Act.................................... In such a suit, the District Court shall OUGHT TO determine de novo FROM THE BEGINNING any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall SHOULD issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

The Congress did not say "You Will" or "You Must"

The wording of "Shall" gave them the permission to do so.

Thanks for the link to the whole Congressional Bill.

231 posted on 03/31/2005 5:44:29 PM PST by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Spunky

SHALL is mandatory language, under the law. The Congressional compromise in the law (cited in one of the Federal Court decisions) was the SHALL regarding an injunction to reinsert the feeding tube or otherwise provide sustenance and hydration. That was watered down to discretionary MAY, but it was assumed that because they were ORDERED to undertake a de novo review, that they would have to preserve the patient, lest the issue become moot. The Federal court prejudged the case without performing the de novo review it was ordered to o.


240 posted on 03/31/2005 5:49:24 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies ]

To: Spunky; Cboldt
Among other things, Spunky told Cboldt:
1) "According to my dictionary SHALL is the same as SHOULD, meaning 'OUGHT to'";

2) "The Congress did not say 'You will' or 'You must'"; and,

3) "The wording of 'Shall' gave them permission to do so.

Don't know what dictionary you're using, Spunky; but here's the legal definition of "shall"--from Black's Law Dictionary:
Shall. As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. [emphasis added] In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term "shall" is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning, as denoting obligation. [emphasis added] It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which mnay be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears. People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal.App. 752, 13 P.2d 989, 992.

But [emphasis added] 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. Wisdom v. Board of Sup'rs of Polk County, 236 Iowa 669, 19 N.W.2d 602, 607, 608.

After reading all of that definition, doesn't it become much less difficult to why it all depends on what the legal definition of "Is." is?
293 posted on 03/31/2005 7:41:32 PM PST by Longwalled Newbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson