Frankender;10820 Wrote:Those “bureaucratic writing standards” do apply here as well.
Must is most definitely more significant than shall. A quick google search of the definition of shall is:
“2. expressing a strong assertion or intention. "they shall succeed"”
Expressing strong intention is not the same as an action that is required (must).
Secondly, how can a proposal such as this limit citizens’ access? Sounds like a cop-out to me.
When I say "bureaucratic writing standards", I mean the actual FAA policy he linked. These are motivated by the complexities of common law and are therefore not representative of the language itself.
"Shall" is an archaic synonym of "will" used in tandem with a limited set of pronouns or, in the context of obligation, any pronoun. I don't need to google that because I looked it up in a paperback dictionary several days ago.
A law does not need to explicitly say "must" because laws are authoritative; because a law says you will or shall do something, you must do it. If you don't then you have violated the law by way of your actions contradicting it and are therefore guilty of misconduct or otherwise at the mercy of the delegate's ire. It's logical, differing wholly from an emotional assertion like "they shall succeed" or "they will succeed", in which cases the person is making a statement that may not be true in order to express the depth of their dependence on that condition.
It makes laws less accessible because it means anybody who wants to write one will have to endure fruitless arguments about trivialities instead of its actual intent. It's just laying a mine for potential legislators to step on.