whatever it means and other statutes, the supreme court definitively told us that xiao does not mean must. that "shall" rob - does not mean must. chief justice roberts knew what he was writing. 67-568 pages, chief justice roberts spoke about their all sorts of people who will not be subject to the tax. it was in the original statute. is, chiefstion justice roberts says, we would expect congress to be troubled by the prospect of making all of making all this people outlaws. but nevertheless, chief justice roberts says that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lou of buying health insurance. so the supreme court gave us the answer already. this is tying in with my overall theme. what the plaintiff states are asking here, and what the district court did, is entirely inconsistent with how we know courts are supposed to act. because we know that courts are required to uphold, to give a statutory provision a possible interpretation, if that is constitutional as a put one that is not. severability,der you are directed, you're instruct