On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> Ah, this helps. It answers ais523's CFJ as well, perhaps. Judge Woggle
>> said that a "SHALL", once the time limit has passed, becomes an "open-ended
>> obligation". Which means that if (a) the Officer doesn't do it on time
>> and (b) the Deputy does it then (c) the Officer is *still* required and
>> able to do it (a second time after the deputy does). Though the Officer
>> has no time limit on doing so (and so can't be punished - therefore this
>> new open-ended obligation doesn't violate R101vi).
>
> For reference:
> {
> Judge woggle's Arguments:
>
> The caller's arguments suggest that "strict literalism" suggest that
> we must interpret the "ASAP SHALL ... by announcement" as "ASAP (SHALL
> and CAN) ... by announcement". Fortunately, this is not really true
> when we have to read in the "CAN", since strict literalism can't give
> us actual bounds on how often the CAN is permitted. (In fact, strict
> literalism would say SHALL but CANNOT, which precedent has apparently
> already rejected.) In the interest of the deputization rules working
> and the tradition that they apparently do work, it is reasonable to
> interpret the end of the extent as open-ended when the obligation is
> not properly fulfilled in time. There is, however, no compelling
> reason to interpret it as open-ended in the opposite direction.
>
> Therefore, I judge CFJ 2120 TRUE and CFJ 2121 FALSE.
> }
>
> You're taking the arguments out of context. The word 'open-ended' is
> referring to the end of the extent to which the late obligated is
> still able to perform the action, not anything about further
> obligations. While your argument is reasonable, woggle's arguments
> don't support it, I think.
I considered that. But the point was that CFJ 2120 was concerned with
cases where SHALL -> CAN (we'd already decided that SHALL -> CAN if you
were before the time limit).
So e was saying given that SHALL -> CAN, then in order to have a CAN after
the time limit, you had to infer that a SHALL -> CAN exists after the time
limit. Because if the SHALL ends at the time limit, then the CAN ends at
the time limit. So you need to infer a SHALL after the time limit, which
must therefore be an open ended obligation -- a SHALL that persists after
the time limit until the officer performs the action, and ensures that the
CAN likewise persists.
This current CFJ is just whether the first stage (the SHALL) can be
inferred. So Woggle has already answered this one, and took it one step
further to the CAN.
-Goethe
