On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, comex wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Now, some facts, followed by actions. >> >> 1. Deputizing for an office and performing the duty does not take away >> the obligation for the officer to do that duty. Therefore, a person >> can deputize multiple times to perform the same duty (recent precedents). > > Which precedents? In CFJ 2406 I submitted a judgement which implies > that multiple deputisation is not possible (in this case, the > open-ended obligation for the Speaker to assign prerogatives was > fulfilled when Goethe deputised the first time; although e is not > Speaker, we pretend e is speaker for the purpose of that action so, at > that moment, 'the Speaker' did indeed assign prerogatives) and it > wasn't appealed. What am I missing?
Now I'm missing something. I don't see anything in CFJ 2406 that says we assume a deputy "is" the officer for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation. I would have appealed something that says that, because, well, it's not in the rules. -Goethe
