EDITOR:

It seems Donald Trump’s lawyers are getting desperate. Recently, they resorted to playing a game of semantics, twisting the meaning of the word, shall, arguing that the Presidential Records Act does not require presidential records to be placed under the custody the Archives, but only suggests they may be turned over.

In their opinion, the words shall and may are functionally interchangeable, so that its use in the Presidential Records Act grants permission, as if the law said a president may turn over their records, rather than that he must turn them over.

If their definition of the word shall was correct, this might have been a strong argument.

According to my Oxford Dictionary, “when telling someone what to do, or when showing determination…the word shall is used…”

As anyone who attended Sunday school knows, the word shall does not mean, may, might, or should. It means must.

Over and over the Ten Commandments emphatically declare, you shall or shall not do this or that. They aren’t known as the “10 Good Suggestions.” They are commandments, carrying the force of law. And, in English they employ the word, shall, a modal verb which indicates action.

The word shall adds force to a prescribed action. It is functionally interchangeable with the word, must. For example, in English the First Commandment says, “You shall not worship other gods.” It would mean the same if it read, “must not worship…” Or, consider these examples: “You must not kill,” or “you must honor your father and mother.”

The Presidential Records Act says that the outgoing administration shall turn over all records to the U.S. Archives. It really doesn’t matter whether some are classified, and others aren’t. Secretly removing those records to his private resort and holding them there was illegal. He clearly broke the law.

Rather than attempting to defend his actions, his lawyers decided to play semantics — twisting the meaning of a word. But, what else might we expect from the associates of a man who continually twisted the truth, coining the term, “alternate facts”?

Dan Young

Escanaba