Re CFJ 3680— I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I think you’re right that the plain language meanings could go either way, and I have no problem with the plain language being interpreted in the parliamentary sense so that only one objection counts as an objection.
The rest of the reasoning is a bit hard for me to follow, though. I take you to be saying that, even if doing X is regulated, the act of *posting* the message “I do X” is often (maybe usually or always?) unregulated. In this example, I think you’re suggesting that it is unregulated to perform the sequence of steps that results in “posting an objection” (i.e., sending to a public forum the text, “I object”). But I think that’s not right. No Faking, for example, regulates the *posting* of the objection, because it is illegal to post a message that says “I object” if you know it is INEFFECTIVE (e.g., if you already withdrew an objection). Not sure where that leaves us. Maybe I am just confused.