Which means you provided nothing valuable to the discussion.
HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Which means you provided nothing valuable to the discussion.
Maybe one of those illegals you want here will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.
Honestly, gaybait, what is it about illegal immigration that makes you cream your panties?
Faggot, you’re the stupid fucks that want to change the Constitution. Go have mommy wipe your ass now, shitstain.
I contributed the information about the vagueness of the term "shall." What did you provide valuable?
The courts have often said "shall" means "may" and not "must" including interpretations of the Constitution. That is one of the big historical arguments and the reason that term is no longer used in current laws.
Since there has never been a case involving calling a convention we don't know any specifics, but what makes you think the use of "shall" in Article IV is any different than in Article V? And I never claimed it does not mean "must" in Article V, only saying the courts have never ruled on it but have ruled it means "may" in other constitutional provisions.
A more interesting question is whether Congress can limit a constitutional convention to certain designated issues. Some amendments were proposed by Congress because public support was heading toward states calling for a convention on that topic and Congress feared it could not limit the convention to that topic.
Good article on the subject:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...l/1526330787/pdf_The_Other_Way.pdf?1526330787
I might enjoy you quoting some of that ostensible legal expression.
But subordinate law courts do not have jurisdiction over the lexicon. Here's what The American Heritage® Dictionary has to say about it:
shall (shàl) verb, auxiliary
past tense should (sh¢d)
1.Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:. a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b. Something, such as an order, a promise, a requirement, or an obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2.Archaic. a. To be able to. b. To have to; must.
[Middle English shal, from Old English sceal.]
Usage Note: The traditional rules for using shall and will prescribe a highly complicated pattern of use in which the meanings of the forms change according to the person of the subject. In the first person, shall is used to indicate simple futurity: I shall (not will) have to buy another ticket. In the second and third persons, the same sense of futurity is expressed by will: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. The use of will in the first person and of shall in the second and third may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave; You and she shall leave tomorrow is likely to be interpreted as a command. The sentence You shall have your money expresses a promise ("I will see that you get your money"), whereas You will have your money makes a simple prediction. Such, at least, are the traditional rules. But the distinction has never taken firm root outside of what H.W. Fowler described as "the English of the English" (as opposed to that of the Scots and Irish), and even there it has always been subject to variation. Despite the efforts of generations of American schoolteachers, the distinction is largely alien to the modern American idiom. In America will is used to express most of the senses reserved for shall in English usage, and shall itself is restricted to first person interrogative proposals, as in Shall we go? and to certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. Shall is also used in formal style to express an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should. In speech the distinction that the English signal by the choice of shall or will may be rendered by stressing the auxiliary, as in I will leave tomorrow ("I intend to leave"); by choosing another auxiliary, such as must or have to; or by using an adverb such as certainly. Many earlier American writers observed the traditional distinction between shall and will, and some continue to do so. The practice cannot be called incorrect, though it may strike American ears as somewhat mannered. But the distinction is difficult for those who do not come by it natively, and Americans who essay a shall in an unfamiliar context run considerable risk of getting it wrong, and so of being caught out in that most embarrassing of linguistic gaffes, the bungled Anglicism. See Usage Note at should.
should (sh¢d) verb, auxiliary
Past tense of shall
Usage Note: Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than should. Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should've. See Usage Note at if, rather, shall.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Any word yet on whether Don's anchor baby spawn will be exempted?
"Consider the case of Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, (4) where the U.S. Supreme Court held that "shall" means "may."
http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx
When my father said “shall,” we a ll knew what he meant. When my teachers said “shall,” we all knew what they meant. And when the Lord said “shall ” in the Ten Commandments , we all knew what that meant. In the old days, “shall” meant “shall.”
“Not so,” says Justice Antonin Scalia.
In Castle Rock vs. Gonzales , the Supreme Court took the meaning of the word “shall” and redefined it to mean “maybe or maybe not.” Such
a distortion is perplexing at best."
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/WhatDoesShallMean.pdf
Into the Night
Verified User
Only if the present Constitution is to be amended. If the Constitution is dissolved by the States, they do not need Congress. It no longer exists!
Into the Night
Verified User
He can. He has full authority to write such an order.
That would be a better solution, since it would make it harder for a president to change the policy back by an executive order.
We shall see.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
How can a child born in the United States be deported? It is a criminal violation to cross the border. And it is a civil violation to to overstay a visa (although usually border crossers are treated like visa overstays because of the difficulty of proving that they actually ever illegally crossed the border). This is why illegal immigration usually is not prosecuted as a crime, by the way. If it were a crime, it would require a trial and proof of lack of citizenship in court. Civil remedies, however, can be applied without a court case, the process is much more streamlined. And deportation is considered an acceptable civil penalty. If illegal immigration were treated as a crime, the courts would be backed up endlessly and enforcement would become impossible.
But a child born in the United States has done neither. What criminal or civil statutes have they violated? It cannot be against the law to merely exist. So what right does the US have to apply any criminal or civil penalties to this child, including deportation? What part of the constitution gives the government the ability to do so?
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
He has no authority to do so.
The American Heritage® Dictionary persuaded me it depends on a variety of factors, syntax, context, etc.
It surely CAN mean "may" in some usages.
What do you suppose "god" meant when he said "thou shalt not take thy lord god's name in vain"? You figure god meant, if you wanna, go ahead?
Wrong.
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/
“Lexicon”and legal usesof terms are two different animals.
^Laughable ignorance
Please cite the provision that says states can dissolve the Constitution or create a new document without Congress calling for the constitutional convention.
It certainly is not in Article V.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Will Don be able to grandfather in his anchor baby spawn?
That's easy. Children of illegal immigrants are also illegal immigrants by association, and therefore belong with their parents in their parents' native country. Deportation for all illegals, and deportation immediately.
Where in the Constitution does it say that children born in this country whose parents are illegal immigrants are automatically US citizens?
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
See Don's children.