Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

Interesting perspective.  I've sensed something similar, and avoid calling an objection "invalid" as a result.  Instead, I always say "not a valid objection" (vs. "invalid"), as in "you've just told me that's not a valid objection", rather than "you've just told me that objection is invalid".  It's a subtle difference, but I think it reinforces the paradigm Holacracy aims for quite powerfully.  The latter labels the objection; the former conveys that there is criteria that this objection hasn't met.

Whether it makes sense to go further, I'm not sure.  I do think there's an issue with each of the three examples you gave that's perhaps worse than the issue you're solving: all three are subtly hiding facilitator & constitutional authority ("let us" and "we don't need to" are clues to reinforcing something different).  So I'm skeptical of those approaches, yet also intrigued, and I do think it's a good practice to avoid declaring an objection invalid (or valid for that matter; I also avoid saying "that's a valid objection").