I "must" versus you "shall"
“Shall” has existed in important documents for millenniums. My understanding has always been it’s a term that denotes an absolute condition … pray on it. Though the meanings of the two words have very close association, wholesale changes in the legal use is unnecessary and suspicious for good reason. Notwithstanding, the absolute constants remain:
The U.S. Constitution (1787 AD) promotes overwhelmingly the use of “shall” as “must” appears not once, and
The Magna Carta (1215 AD) evidences the extreme preference to the use of “shall” as “must” appears not once, and
The Ten Commandments (multi-Begats BC) cite in divine mandate the use of “shall” eight times and “must” not once.
Those who operate in unison within the sophisticated political “establishment,” that advocate that “shall” is fungible scribble requiring change under the masquerade of curtailing “wiggle room” have apparently forgotten, or never understood, the founding convictions of the legal and religious authors, or their Documents.
The Federal Register [1935] Document Handbook was created by a 1998 Clinton memorandum. Who could have imagined such attention to detail could have such disruptive implications on law and religion? Certainly, those who desire to destroy American legal and religious ideals, or otherwise stated, those who serve the cause of fundamental change.
First it was “add the words.” I thought the DNA of man and woman meant …? Now it’s “replace the word.” Is this transgression a worthwhile cause? Tell Sen. Woodward and Rep. Dixon to stop this nonsense.
DAN ROSE
Samuels