You have one track where you have an individual and contemplate a tribunal that has expertise interpreting the statute, and then, on another track, you have the courts, which may not necessarily have the expertise to interpret it, and those two interpretations may come into conflict from time to time. We might even expect them or anticipate them to do so.
I don't know if there's historical context for this, but I imagine, if you were designing a process, you would probably not create two tracks that are going to cause conflicts in how the statute is interpreted. I mean, that wouldn't be ideal. Am I right? You probably wouldn't do it that way. I can understand why it wasn't contemplated that way, but this subamendment has that effect. That's what you're pointing to. What are the ramifications of those interpretative conflicts as we move through? Who would decide on what effectively becomes the interpretation if those interpretations come into direct conflict with one another?