Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
Yes, it is the law of the land. And the rule that it sets is that there are no mandatory rules for the treatment of a flag, although I'm sure that other laws would forbid me from destroying a flag that belonged to someone else, but that's the same under the law as the destruction of any property.My guess is that the word "should" was used because a mandatory word such as "shall" would violate the First Amendment. That's just a guess. Maybe someone else knows for sure.
|
dc,
You could be right. I guess I have always looked upon laws as being a mandate to do or not do something (with, hopefully, clarity). "Congress shall make no law..." for instance. I admit that written the way it is removes (should) finality and therefore one who acts otherwise isn't breaking this statute.
(If this was tax law, I'd go to committee reports and legislative history.) Also, my guess is that this section has been in the USC for a long time, maybe back when people really knew grammar. Should means Should, not SHALL or MUST.
Crow tastes better warm!
edit:
I am not a lawyer. BenzLGB is. See next post.