On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
3343:  FALSE

If any party's constitution actually authorized party members to act on
its behalf, then such an inference would be valid.  However, no party's
constitution currently does so.

I intend to appeal this judgment with 2 support, as I think that this
fails to adequately address the complex and nuanced ISIDTID arguments,
and in particular the amount of authority that the ruleset gives to a
Party constitution beyond that given by the rules.

Isn't a more obvious problem with the judgement that it ignores the usual meaning of the word "generally" in the statement? I.e. that it refers to a generality that is _not_ dependent on the current state of any party's constitution?


Reply via email to