bikeman564™ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #1 Posted December 2, 2020 https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/ This is interesting. Because ASME uses "shall" in the boiler code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkpow Posted December 2, 2020 Share #2 Posted December 2, 2020 1 minute ago, bikeman564™ said: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/ This is interesting. Because ASME uses "shall" in the boiler code. Have you been watching too much Judge Judy? Policy statements also have similar issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeman564™ Posted December 2, 2020 Author Share #3 Posted December 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, donkpow said: Have you been watching too much Judge Judy? Policy statements also have similar issues. No, (never watched her) but throughoot my career "shall" was/is the term used for a mandatory requirement. I just find it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddmaxx ★ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #4 Posted December 2, 2020 This is why lawyers get away with so much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkpow Posted December 2, 2020 Share #5 Posted December 2, 2020 13 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said: No, (never watched her) but throughoot my career "shall" was/is the term used for a mandatory requirement. I just find it interesting. Codes have legal weight when authorities adopt and enforce a given code. I'd go as far as saying that the boiler code has done more to influence codes use and adoption than any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeman564™ Posted December 2, 2020 Author Share #6 Posted December 2, 2020 Just now, maddmaxx said: This is why lawyers get away with so much. Devil in the details. There's a need for experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddmaxx ★ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #7 Posted December 2, 2020 1 minute ago, bikeman564™ said: Devil in the details. There's a need for experts. But lawyers can attempt to prove that red is green using little more than the ambiguity of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeman564™ Posted December 2, 2020 Author Share #8 Posted December 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, donkpow said: Codes have legal weight when authorities adopt and enforce a given code. I'd go as far as saying that the boiler code has done more to influence codes use and adoption than any other. True. It's the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeman564™ Posted December 2, 2020 Author Share #9 Posted December 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, maddmaxx said: But lawyers can attempt to prove that red is green using little more than the ambiguity of words. If something is written correctly, there's no disputing it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkpow Posted December 2, 2020 Share #10 Posted December 2, 2020 34 minutes ago, maddmaxx said: But lawyers can attempt to prove that red is green using little more than the ambiguity of words. Which is why I rely on numbers. Numbers don't lie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddmaxx ★ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #11 Posted December 2, 2020 37 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said: If something is written correctly, there's no disputing it That's not a good money bet. It appears that anything can be disputed...........not necessarily won, but for enough money one can find a lawyer who will try. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Far ★ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #12 Posted December 2, 2020 In OSHA-speak, “shall” means “must”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoo Posted December 2, 2020 Share #13 Posted December 2, 2020 Lawyer 101, the difference between shall and will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr Posted December 2, 2020 Share #14 Posted December 2, 2020 I just went through a policy review where our policy wonk's went through our SOPs and replaced "must" in every instance with "shall ensure that..." because in the current climate, 'must' is too aggressive of a word. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkpow Posted December 2, 2020 Share #15 Posted December 2, 2020 27 minutes ago, Zephyr said: I just went through a policy review where our policy wonk's went through our SOPs and replaced "must" in every instance with "shall ensure that..." because in the current climate, 'must' is too aggressive of a word. Too musty? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphie ★ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #16 Posted December 2, 2020 56 minutes ago, Zephyr said: 'must' is too aggressive of a word. Well yeah, of course, for Canadians. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphie ★ Posted December 2, 2020 Share #17 Posted December 2, 2020 Quote Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may." I give up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Wheels Posted December 5, 2020 Share #18 Posted December 5, 2020 Shall, should, annual, and other terms are often defined by our regulators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Administrator Posted December 5, 2020 Share #19 Posted December 5, 2020 Let me add some more confusion.... Because I am not in a public school, laws that only use "schools" in statute don't apply to me because the legal definition of my type of school is a chartered non-public school. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razors Edge ★ Posted December 7, 2020 Share #20 Posted December 7, 2020 On 12/2/2020 at 7:22 AM, bikeman564™ said: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/ This is interesting. Because ASME uses "shall" in the boiler code. HA! Bruce is my neighbor and I've met him before (and also worked tangentially with him). I agree and mildly disagree with his response, but "must" is the more "plain English" way to say something is mandatory, so it makes sense. My one quibble would be confusing legal with plain especially in regards to things like the US Constitution. Reading Article 1 (or really any part) of the Constitution rapidly shows how "shall" means "must" for quite a bit of the foundations of America's laws. One easy way to see that is how the word "must" appears ZERO times in the US Constitution. The word "shall" appears about THREE HUNDRED times. Go ahead and read this brief excerpt and see that is we act like shall does NOT mean mandatory, you really go sideways VERY quickly. Article I Section 1: Congress All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2: The House of Representatives The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkpow Posted December 7, 2020 Share #21 Posted December 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Razors Edge said: HA! Bruce is my neighbor and I've met him before (and also worked tangentially with him). I agree and mildly disagree with his response, but "must" is the more "plain English" way to say something is mandatory, so it makes sense. My one quibble would be confusing legal with plain especially in regards to things like the US Constitution. Reading Article 1 (or really any part) of the Constitution rapidly shows how "shall" means "must" for quite a bit of the foundations of America's laws. One easy way to see that is how the word "must" appears ZERO times in the US Constitution. The word "shall" appears about THREE HUNDRED times. Go ahead and read this brief excerpt and see that is we act like shall does NOT mean mandatory, you really go sideways VERY quickly. Article I Section 1: Congress All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2: The House of Representatives The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Interesting. Is the Constitution "law" in itself? I venture to say it is a foundation for law, one which laws are created upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now