posted
And I would point out that no one has challenged my statement that the ruling creating NEW law was still illegal, regardless of whether the previous law was valid or not.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
Clearly if they may accept the ballots then they may not accept the ballots as well.
Clarifying such is not creating new law.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 24, 2000).]
posted
It's quite clear that this statement that the ballots "may be" discarded is directional, not optional, as it is clearly part of a process to be followed.
As in "you may now do so-and-so."
It may even be imperative, as "may" in legal cases can often mean "should."
example: in a series of instructions regarding the baking of fruit-filled cookies, you might see "you may then add the desired filling." This isn't 'may-optional' this is 'may-directional.' As in 'once you have reached this point, THIS is the next step.'
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 25, 2000).]
posted
This may not have been the best anology, being that you may add the desired filling, if one wants the filling.....
I don't want any damned filling!!!!
is another option....
A slightly better one is a firing range (damn guns again). "You may fire when ready." This would be more dirctional than the cooking, since you are there to fire your weapons anyway.
posted
In the language of law, if there was to be no option, then it would have read something like:
After such time no ballots will be accepted.
Or some such. The "may" in this case is discretionary and not directional.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Ah, but both definitions can be used and be correct in the given syntax. There are therefore two possible interpretations of that single code. HOWEVER, we are dealing with the code as a whole, not any individual code.
There are two possible definitions of the word "may" in 102.112. One contradicts 102.111. The other does not. The logical thing to do is to accept the interpretation that eliminates the contradiction.
Under any circumstances, may has several possible meanings, as First has so rightly pointed out, and while they may IMPLY that other options...
*glances down at dictionary page*
Ah. Well, I feel silly. I should have looked this up in the first place.
Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, pp. 735:
may 4: SHALL, MUST -- used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation
Aside from being a prime example of the degridataion of our language, this should end the debate. "May" can be synonymous with "shall" if it is required for legal consistancy. In this case, it is. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
In the 3 citations above 102.166 (4), Chapter 102.111 and 102.112 the word Shall appears 16 times.
May appears only 5 times as such:
"...or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount."
"The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount."
"...such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."
"Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals."
(emphasis added)
May is also used as To be allowed or permitted to and used to express possibility or probability.
Look at section A of 102.166 (4) which reads:
"...or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount."
Section C
"The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized..."
(emphasis added)
A manual recount it an option not a requirement.
The usage of "If" means that the recount is not mandatory.
May has not been substituted for shall.
The usage of may in these statutes, rather than leading to the degredation of the English language and all of mankind is used as discretionary language...alowing the option of a given action rather than sealing off the avenue with shall do and must do.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 25, 2000).]
posted
Somebody needs to invent some sort of system to deal with this sort of thing. We could have people real good at defining the words, and we'd call them...oh, I don't know, lawtalkers, I guess. Then we'd have other people who would make a decision based on their talks. They could be called...judgementalists.
posted
Dude. The use of 'may' in the optional sense in one paragraph does not preclude its being used in the directive sense in another paragraph. The number of times it is used is totally irrelevant. The fact that "shall" is used in the other paragraph in a similar directive sentence REINFORCES the concept that 'may' is directional, it does not contradict it.
Ritten: Then what the hell are you doing using the recipe process for fruit-filled cookies? Wouldn't using the recipe process for regular cookies do you better?
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Dude, I know both of those things. They were exemplary. It is still my opinion that the use of may in question is discretionary.
Oh my, language and law can be intrepreted...thank goodness we have courts.
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 25, 2000).]
posted
Perhaps. My point is that such an interpretation, based on the rules of the language, would be in error.
Indeed, using the discretionary meaning in this case would open up a can of worms, legally speaking, that the justices might never be able to close again. After all, if 'may' can be interpreted this way in ONE legal document, why not in ALL of them? Even when the intent is clearly directional? You know a smart defense lawyer would try that...
I'd just bet that that would make thousands of laws open to similar interpretation... a problem that could have repercussions for YEARS, some of them potentially dangerous.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Might that be the very reason why it went to the Court in Florida?
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
"May" is defined as "shall" under the circumstances that "the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation." The second code makes it clear that this IS, in fact, the required interpretation.
The supreme court was wrong. Get over it.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
Omega, may I point out that, regardless of your IQ, those on the Supreme Court are, I'd imagine, well educated and very well versed in matters pertaining to law. Which, do to your age, you can not say the same. When matters of law are in question I will trust their judgement.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic