Ohhh no, not them - this is, IMNSHO, stuff one DOES wish on one’s worst enemy: let them drink till their innards rot.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Although you might find the task difficult, be sure to watch this to end.
1 Like
6 Likes
5 Likes
FML, Trump’s lawyers were literally just arguing about the meaning of SHALL in the impeachment section of the constitution.
5 Likes
In legislation, shall and must do actually have specific meaning. It means that the following actions are non-optional. Should means highly recommended (but not mandatory) , may is “totally optional.”
This is why the Paris Accords were held up for days: whether a clause would read “should” or “shall”, because the legal requirements for each are incredibly different.
7 Likes
Fair enough, but I think that they still don’t actual have a leg to stand on, constitutionally.
3 Likes
Does anyone know of transcripts of the trial, including of the videos?
1 Like
It seems like this should have it by tomorrow?
They seem to run a day behind. Here is the link for the senate:
I’m afraid I can’t speak to accessibility of the page, so I apologize if it’s not accessible for you.
I’ll post if I find another transcript, but going straight to the source might be your best option. They have to keep complete records by law and they also have to make them accessible by law (doesn’t mean it is, but… more likely to be).
5 Likes
Thank you.
3 Likes
“I’m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people” – Donald Trump.
5 Likes
It is at least somewhat more consequential than arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.
(Not that it’s a better argument. Just more consequential.)
I’m more incensed by the reports that they somehow tried to claim that impeaching Trump would be the same thing as disenfranchising everyone who voted for him…
2 Likes
Historically, shall is associated with debt, sometimes with slavery.
1 Like
Hm. But I think in this context it’s related to what the congress can do with regards the impeachment trial. they were arguing that since the world shall was used in regards to removal from office if convicted, that makes the whole thing unconstitutional. I do find the Impeachment manager’s counter-argument convincing… that letting him off the hook would nullify the whole concept of that no one is above the law. It would certainly move any progress made on equality before the law further back than it already is.
7 Likes
Which, it can be argued, is exactly the design here, if it does not specify current office. One can also note that “shall” does not mean “this is the only action” but “if the conditions are in place, this must occur.” In other words, all “shall” means in this context is that you can’t leave him in office.
It’s like if a piece of regulation reads “if the party is not in compliance with section two, they shall cease operations until such time as compliance is achieved” doesn’t mean that if they have already suspended operations that the violation doesn’t exist or that they can’t face other monetary penalties that may also be spelled out in that section, it means that the shutdown isn’t an optional part.
Basically, that shall is designed to prevent a case of “LOL, he did it. Naughty boy, five smacks on the knuckles.” “Shall” delinieates a minimum course of action. It does not rule out non-optional steps.
The GOP’s argument is like saying that because a company shall or must pay a minimum wage, that they are forbidden from offering benefits or higher pay, or that because they shall provide a lunch break, they can’t allow other breaks in the day. No, the only thing is that those other things are optional. An employer may provide more breaks, but isn’t obligated to.
Fortunately, enough people saw through the bullshit to vote in favour of moving forward.
7 Likes
The perspective of an agency that wants to make certain things mandatory.
2 Likes
My English professor made a point of MacArthur’s use of “I shall return” rather than “I will return” being an emphatic indicating commitment to see it through - definitely not a ‘maybe’, and stronger than “I will return” would’ve been; non-negotiable.
I’ve never heard anybody use ‘shall’ in real life, but if I did, I’m pretty sure I’d interpret it that way. Stronger even than ‘must’, which acknowledges obligation, but not failure; whereas ‘shall’ doesn’t care about obligation but also doesn’t allow failure. If you shall do something, you’ll do it or else.
Of course, lawyers argue in Wonderland.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
– Lewis Carroll
3 Likes
Yesterday’s transcript:
4 Likes
How is it for readability/accessibility for you? Of course, they have a stronger obligation to follow ADA standards, so I’m curious to know how they’re doing? Stuff like this is pretty critical, I think, for everyone to be able to access.
3 Likes