It does not say "required" it says "shall." That might sound like a requirement to us but not based on previous Supreme Court cases that say
it is not a requirement.
Two examples are from Article IV that says states "shall" grant full faith and credit to other states and that governors "shall" extradite fugitives. But there have been cases in which these have not been honored and they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
By definition, in the sense of laws, it means mandatory. A synonym of mandatory is required. Provide the name of a case where 2/3 of the states had requested a Constitutional convention and the Court said no. An Article IV case isn't the same thing although you didn't name a case from it either only claimed it.
I don't think there is a case involving a requested constitutional convention and I doubt Congress would refuse to call one unless they strongly opposed the purpose for which the convention was being requested. But my point was that the term "shall" does not mean required based on Supreme Court decisions. I don't understand why you think "shall" would differ based on whether it is the 4th or 5th article.
One of the full faith and credit cases dealt with Reno's quickie divorces. A couple married to other people went to Reno and got divorced. They returned to their home state and married each other and were charged with bigamy because their state did not recognize the Nevada divorce.
One of the extradition cases involves country singer Ferlin Husky. I'm sure you can easily find the names of these cases if interested.
The term shall may not have meant something in the Article IV cases but that doesn't equate to it meaning required in an Article V case. Perhaps the Court looked at the Article IV cases that way because divorce involves something that they deemed is a State issued based on the 10th amendment in comparison to the level of government with authority based on Article I, Section 8. To say that the same thing would apply in a issue that is clearly a federal issue would be determined the same is a pure guess.
CFM is a fucking idiot:
“We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
Looks like it was just an election ploy, like the caravan... no executive order will be issued.
You fools got duped another time, when will you learn?
Bookmarks