Search the archive.

3 The verb “should” has various shades of meaning. In its ordinary meaning it does not express certainty as the word “will” sometimes does. In the telegram under consideration it seems to be used in the sense that, from the anticipated profits, plaintiff might receive a bonus of $25 to $50 per month. It is nothing more than an expression of opinion, with no definite assurance that such would be the result. The expression, “twenty–five to fifty dollars per month extra,” adds nothing to the certainty or definiteness of the proposal but is merely suggestive. The whole expression, “a part of profits that should mean from twenty–five to fifty dollars per month extra, to our minds cannot possibly be construed as guaranty or an unconditional promise to pay a minimum of $25 per month or a maximum of $50 per month out of the profits, in addition to the agreed salary. It is merely suggestive. Moreover, no method is provided for determining what the share of plaintiff in the profits might be; no per cent. is named. Whether net or gross profits or whether profits from the whole store or only the furniture department, were to be the basis of settlement, is all left to conjecture. There is no stipulation as to when settlements were to be made, which, obviously, might be either weekly, monthly, annually, or whenever the employment should cease. The expression in the telegram, “if you want to come and work hard, we will take care of you in good shape,” avails plaintiff nothing from the standpoint of law. The whole telegram is one well calculated to mislead, whether deliberate or not. Morally, defendant was under some obligation to increase plaintiff's salary in the event the concern prospered and plaintiff worked hard; but, legally, we are confronted with an insurmountable obstacle in so far as affording relief to plaintiff is concerned. It is an elemental and fundamental rule of law that a contract, to be valid, “must be certain and unequivocal in its essential terms, either within itself or by reference to some other agreement or matter.” 6 R. C. L. 644; 9 Cyc. 245; 18 R. C. L. 494; Burks v. Stam, 65 Mo. App. 455; Blaine v. Knapp & Co., 140 Mo. 241, 41 S. W. 787; United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406, 58 N. E. 527, 53 L. R. A. 288; Varney v. Ditmars, 217 N. Y. 223, 111 N. E. 822, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 758.

There is, of course, no bar to the Supreme Court adopting a Court of Appeal's reasoning as its own. Yet there is legitimate reason to question whether that was what the Supreme Court intended in 1983. First, as just shown, only the least authoritative of the three sources cited actually supports the word “must,” while the two Supreme Court decisions employ “should.” Second, barely a month later, the Supreme Court—speaking though the same justice—filed another decision which used the “should” formulation from the 1955 Allen decision as quoted in Abbott.20 Third, the 1983 Allen decision involved retirees (and Flournoy the widow of a retiree), who historically receive a heightened degree of judicial protection. (See fn. 19, ante.) Fourth, and most significantly, the “must” formulation has never been reiterated by the Supreme Court, which has instead uniformly employed the “should” *699 language from the 1955 Allen decision. (Olson v. Cory, supra, 27 Cal.3d 532, 541, 178 Cal.Rptr. 568, 636 P.2d 532 [“Although an employee does not obtain any ‘absolute right to fixed or specific benefits ... there [are] strict limitation[s] on the conditions which may modify the pension system in effect during employment.’ [Citation.] Such modifications must be reasonable and any ‘ “changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages” ’ ”]; Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492, 529–530, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309 [quoting Olson]; City of Huntington Beach v. Board of Administration (1992) 4 Cal.4th 462, 472, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 514, 841 P.2d 1034 [“changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages,” citing Allen v. City of Long Beach, supra, 45 Cal.2d 128, 131, 287 P.2d 765].)

It thus appears unlikely that the Supreme Court's use of “must” in the 1983 Allen decision was intended to herald a fundamental doctrinal shift. “Should,” not “must,” remains the court's preferred expression. And “should” does not convey imperative obligation, no more compulsion than “ought.” (Lashley v. Koerber (1945) 26 Cal.2d 83, 90, 156 P.2d 441; see People v. Webb (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 401, 409, fn. 2, 230 Cal.Rptr. 755 [“the word ‘should’ is advisory only and not mandatory”].) In plain effect, “should” is “a recommendation, not ... a mandate.” (Cuevas v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 406, 409, 130 Cal.Rptr. 238.)

3 used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past

realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise—Ellen Glasgow

Brock and Kaitlyn look to the word “should” in the phrase “in the event any of my children should predecease me” and claim the district court improperly found the word looked to the future. They claim the word should be interpreted as the past tense of “shall” to imply a duty or obligation. See Black's Law Dictionary 1379 (6th ed.1990). Looking at the phrase as a whole, however, rather than at a single word, we determine the phrase is considering possible future events. See In re Estate of Grulke, 546 N.W.2d 626, 627 (Iowa Ct.App.1996) (noting we must ascertain a testator's intent from the entire will).

Sunsetting—requiring that a statute expires on a specified date unless reenacted—can ameliorate the legislative dilemma caused by legislators’ incentive to act at an inopportune time in relation to a crisis. It puts into place an automatic, mandated reassessment of crisis-driven legislation and accompanying regulation, at a fixed point in time thereafter, when passions are less inflamed and far more information is available. Sunsetting has been used by Congress and state legislatures in the United States since the nation’s founding, although its use as a lawmaking strategy has ebbed and flowed over time. Sunsetting does not mean that legislation must disappear—only that it must be reenacted, perhaps with modification. In evolutionary biology, plasticity is the first response to a changing environment. Plasticity, however, has its limits, and there are costs to retaining the capacity for change. Thus, natural selection found reproduction, a fresh start in which offspring replace parents, with genotypes modified from the parental types through mutation or various forms of recombination. Recombination and reuse are also familiar tools in creating new legislation. Wilkerson et al. (1) explore this idea in depth, using “text reuse” methods to elucidate the evolution of policy ideas in legislation; and Li et al. (2) apply a similar approach to investigate bills related to the financial crisis in the first decade of this century.

Modern attention to the utility and advisability of sunset clauses reignited in the mid-twentieth century, initially as a potential avenue for limiting interest group capture of increasingly powerful federal or state agencies.7 Since then, a robust literature has developed exploring the virtues and vices of sunset clauses. Proponents of the use of sunsets contend that they promote evaluation and reassessment of governmental programs, ensuring that they remain effective and operate within the public interest.8 A sunset clause, Adrian Vermeule observes, “pushes the question onto the legislative agenda a second time and thus encourages the legislature to take a second look at the policy.”9 This reappraisal is argued to promote both governmental efficiency10 as well as democratic values.11 Meanwhile, sunsets may offer more opportunities for compromise and bargaining by lowering the stakes of the dispute. Negotiators may be more willing to accede to a temporary provision that will expire after a given period than one which is slated to have an indefinitely lasting effect. 12

Sunsets also are useful in enabling the acquisition of information by policymakers, which they can use to further tailor policies to better meet political goals.13 Sunsets are a means of facilitating experimentalism in policymaking, allowing “learning-by-doing” and thereby increasing both the effectiveness and legitimacy of laws.14 When a policy is enacted without an explicit end date, it often can persist via inertia alone. By contrast, because a sunsetted law needs to be renewed, it encourages policymakers to gather information and make assessments regarding what works and what does not in order to justify reauthorizing the provision (or to vindicate its abandonment).15

Lastly, Warren cites Sunshine and Sunset legislation as allowing Congress to exercise control over administrative agencies. 87 Sunshine laws "allow the sun to shine" on meetings where important public policy decisions are being made.8 8 Preventing these meetings from happening behind closed doors can make administrative decision making more democratically accountable.8 9 Sunset laws require agency evaluation at set intervals in order to ascertain whether their financial support should be continued.90 This review allows legislators to scrutinize agencies at regular intervals to determine whether the agencies are performing satisfactorily, need to implement changes, or be terminated.9 1

Perhaps Congress simply does not care about, or actually approves of, the continued evolution of United States antitrust law and policy in all its complexity. However, this silence or indifference has important consequences. It shifts power from the most democratic elected institutions to the more distant, less democratic institutions of agencies and courts to craft fundamental economic policy free from all but the most macro-level interventions or corrections. No legislature can spend all of its time on competition policy. But when it does, one should ask:

Is the legislature addressing fundamental issues or minor matters at the fringe?

governmentality: Reconceptualizing the ‘rule of law’ as rule ‘through’ law," European Journal of

International Relations, vol. 18, no. 1, pg. 29-52, christian

An alternative line of reasoning suggests that judicial internationalisation is legitimated partly by an appeal to its conduciveness to the promotion of the rule of law, democracy, human rights and constitutionalism at home and abroad.42 Indeed, this notion informs much of the literature arguing in the direction of judicial internationalisation.

Concluding an analysis of judicial globalisation, Slaughter notes,

National Supreme Courts are amongst the actors that feel the exigencies of globalisation most keenly and urgently, for several reasons. First, these institutions are faced with the intellectual task of taking legal notions that have traditionally found their sole application within the domestic sphere and successfully transposing them to an internationalised environment. These notions (e.g. legal unity, judicial legitimacy and, more generally, the political ideals of democracy and accountability) are in need of a critical re-examination in light of globalisation if they are to retain their foothold in the modern world. Second, and more importantly, Supreme Courts are charged with responsibility for dispensing justice at the national level within a world in which problems frequently transcend borders. Ultimately, the task incumbent upon Supreme Courts is simply ‘to deliver the goods’, despite the changing contexts precipitated by globalisation. The expectations that these domestic institutions must meet therefore include certain standards of what might be called ‘output legitimacy’. In other words, national Supreme Courts are required continually to ensure an adequate measure of domestic justice, despite the increasing interconnectedness of legal orders.

This area of inquiry is one which, in recent years, has attained some degree of prominence in various scholarly circles, although not always with the same degree of urgency. A particularly salient focus for contemporary scholars is the emergence of large quantities of cross-cutting formal and informal legal relations between domestic jurisdictions that are largely unprecedented in terms of frequency and visibility and, most importantly, defy classification according to the traditional taxonomies of domestic and international law falling somewhere in between.1 Significantly, the fluidity of boundaries between domestic and international legal orders is primarily the product of domestic judicial agency. Judges and other legal actors cite each other’s decisions, engage in transnational dialogue, attend conferences, exchange best practices and generally become increasingly aware of and attentive to both transnational and international legal developments. And again, it must be reiterated that these phenomena occupy a middle ground between the domestic and the international legal order, being neither wholly domestic nor wholly international. In general, in the remainder of this article, these processes will be referred to as judicial internationalisation.

governmentality: Reconceptualizing the ‘rule of law’ as rule ‘through’ law," European Journal of

International Relations, vol. 18, no. 1, pg. 29-52, christian

Yet routinely we are given, as the answer to the most thorny national security/civil liberties dilemmas of the day, precedent from long ago. Are military tribunals constitutional? Well, the answer to that turns on what the Supreme Court said in 1942.5 Are enemy aliens stripped of their rights to habeas corpus? Well, the answer to that turns on what the Supreme Court said in 1950.6 And so on and so on. The debate here is stultifying and unilluminating. The answers to these vital questions should not turn, in any meaningful way, on what a handful of Justices may have thought a half-century ago, in a different world, with different legal standards. 7 Rather, they have to be decided by contemporary Justices translating the time-honored principles of our Constitution to facts of the modern era.8

It was perhaps because the language of judicial sunsets had not been invented, that the one possible recent example of it, Crutter, was itself hazy. Some of the haze is due, no doubt, to the way in which the Court shoehorned the sunset into the opinion. The Supreme Court for years has insisted on affirmative action having a "logical stopping point."27 But this stopping point was one internal to the programthe term was meant to refer to the time period in the affirmative action policy where the preference should end. In Crutter, however, the Court appears to have imposed an external, judicial stopping pointone that had nothing to do with the University of Michigan policy. The Court said, in essence, that it did not want to give the University carte blanche for all time.28 This does not really appear to be a claim about a "logical stopping point" as such; rather, it appears to be one about the vitality of a Supreme Court opinion in the face of evolving circumstances.

Critics might suggest that the Rule of Law gains derived from constitutional sunsets would be attenuated by private citizens’ hesitancy to act in light of uncertain high court jurisprudence during a period of interim constitutionality. These costs may include forgone transactions and postponed rearrangements while private actors are awaiting “final” decisions from the Court on a particular government policy that affects the range of choices and decisions facing such actors. But the same costs are generated in even greater quantity when the Court issues a closely divided decision regarding a controversial government policy that inspires efforts to reverse or significantly temper the announced ruling. In that relatively common scenario, private actors are in an even more tenuous position as the uncertainty clouding the Court’s decision might unravel it at any moment, rather than at a fixed point in the future.

The regulatory reform movement of the 1970s promoted the use of sunset clauses as a mechanism to improve legislative oversight of the bureaucracy and to increase regulatory efficiency. As Christopher Mooney has written, "[t]he contemporary concept of sunsetting dates from the idealistic political reform movement of the 1970s, which sought to transform a U.S. government considered bloated, in-efficient, and beholden to special interests. ' 16 In The End of Liberalism, Theodore J. Lowi favored sunsets as a mechanism to reinvigorate stagnant government bureaucracies. 17 To counteract the problem of interest-group liberalism, in which bureaucratic agencies were often captured by the interests they were meant to regulate, Mooney writes, "Lowi suggested a 'tenure-of-statutes act' that would set a 'Jeffersonian limit of from five to ten years' on the life of every law creating a federal agency."' 18 "The objective," Mooney notes, "was less to make these agencies disappear than to use the termination date to achieve what Lowi called a 'guillotine effect,' sparking effective legislative oversight and possible reorganization of agencies that had grown too big for their britches." 19 On this view, sunsets can advance the public welfare by ensuring that legislation creating regulatory agencies that have outlived their purpose expire or are replaced by more current public policy tools. The impetus behind the sunset movement was to improve democratic accountability by subjecting bureaucratic agencies to periodic legislative oversight and control.

Sunset clauses can also improve public policy by increasing opportunities for, and by improving the quality of, legislative decision- making. Sunset clauses promote democratic oversight and accountability by providing the legislature with periodic opportunities to revisit questions with the additional information or experience necessary to adjust or to recalibrate public policy. Sunsets can also encourage policy innovation and legislative learning by creating incentives for policy makers to develop mechanisms for policy implementation and assessment. Moreover, sunsets may provide legislators with an institutional imperative to seek and develop improved informational resources. Some students of sunsets refer to these as "deliberative" benefits, which are elements or characteristics that improve second stage legislative decision-making by improving the quality and functioning of the deliberative process. 20

Uncertainty is inherent in the estate planning profession. Both state and federal laws are constantly evolving as are the family dynamics and economic circumstances that drive individual estate disposition wishes.208 The “death tax” did not get repealed per the initial goal of the proposed tax plan as it never made the final cut. However, the exemption amount was doubled, which essentially had the effect of nearly repealing the tax as only the estates of the uber-wealthy will reach the $11.2 million threshold. This amount though, will reverse to the old rates come 2025.209 This means that if the law properly sunsets, taxpayers who thought they fell within the exempt amount are suddenly deprived of their $5.6 million gross estate exemption. Since there has been a deprivation, and that deprivation was of property, there must be a process in which to give the taxpayers due process. The process is in place, but not enforced or respected. Therefore, the judiciary should either declare sunset provisions unconstitutional all together or order the legislature to actually enforce such provisions.

Conclusion Long term tax planning is essential for confidence in the future. The new Tax and Jobs Act was a major shake-up for the country. It also appearsto be riddled with unfairness for a majority of Americans in the long run in terms of the deficit it is set to create. Compensation for such spending issues could come in the form of lost benefits, causing another deprivation for taxpayers. The legislature is accountable to the rules and to how they impact the country’s economics. This should be done through the enforcement of sunset provisions. The runaround the legislature gets away with by not footnoteallowing sunset provisions to kick in harms citizens and shows disrespect for the country’s constitutional system.

Justices of the Supreme Court have repeatedly claimed that the decisions about what cases to decide and how to decide them are not affected by politics. Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing that he is like an umpire, not a batter. Justice Neil Gorsuch said that justices are not like “politicians with robes.” Shortly after her confirmation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett told an audience that her goal was “to convince you that this Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

The justices are not convincing the American people. Favorable ratings of the Court have declined dramatically, according to numerous polls. This fall, a Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans “disapprove” of the job the Court is doing, which aligns with the 60% who disapproved of overruling Roe. A substantial majority have lost faith in the Court’s vaunted impartiality and believe it is too affected by “politics.” A Quinnipiac poll conducted after the Dobbs leak in May of last year found that 63% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics. A Yahoo poll around the same time found that 74% believe the Court is “too politicized.”

What still has not emerged is a comprehensive account of the validity and typology of sunsets as a tool of judicial doctrine. Kysar’s observation about “lasting legislation” applies just as well to judicial decisions. Judicial precedents are not “permanent,” they are merely “lasting”—they have binding effect unless and until they are overturned, and courts as much as legislatures always retain the freedom to overrule their own past decisions.29 In the judicial context, a sunset would declare that the binding authority and precedential value of a given legal holding does not last indefinitely, but instead shall expire at a given date. On that date, the legal rule might simply revert back to the status quo (as if the instigating decision had never been binding); future cases on the topic would become matters of first impression.30 Alternatively, a decision could announce a new legal rule that would come into force after the initial rule expires—the new rule becoming the binding precedent and authority going forward.31

The words “outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive,” in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive. Bass v. Pease, 79 Ill. App. 308, 318.

The specific grounds of objection are that the court should have used the word “shall” instead of “should,” that the word “should” is merely advisory, and that the jury was left at its discretion in the matter of reduction of the damages. It has been said that the word “should” is the past tense of the word “shall,” and we think, in the connection in which it was used, the jury understood that it meant more than simply advisory.

In the case of Smith v. State, 142 Ind. 288, 41 N. E. 595, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that it was more imperative than the word “may.”