| Subject: |
Re: The proposal for the Comitia Populi Tributa |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 02:14:17 -0700 |
|
I do apologize for not being present at the meeting earlier today in regards
to this legislation. I was at the hospital with my mother being with her
while she was getting a blood transfusion. And, it is doubtful I will be
there today, becuase she will probably be discharged pending the location of
a surgeon for her.
But I do have some questions regarding this legislation. I have thought
about this legislation a great deal, in the time that I have had to myself.
And, well, here goes my questions:
1) Is Nova Roma recreating Ancient Rome? If it is, then shouldnt the
tribes be weighted to favor the Patrican Class, even lightly. If not, and
the Class division doesnt mean anything then why have the Tribune of the
Plebs? My understand, and please tell me if I am off-base, is that in
Ancient Rome. The Tribes heavily favored the Patricians. Yes, I am aware
that caused much abuse, but the Plebs did have an outlet in the Tribune
Position as a check on that. Would that position still be needed if the
Tribes were equal?
2) I know from the information I got from Marius that he has mentioned the
vagueness of the East, West, and Central Divisions? How will that affect
our International Citizens in Brazil, and in Europe? I am assuming the
Censors will distribute the citizens within the Tribes. Also, are we
immediately going to be beginning with the 30 tribes as stated in Article 4
Sec. 1?
3) Regarding the role of the Speaker. How long of a term does the Speaker
have? What if the Speaker goes contrary to the way the Tribe has voted?
Basically are there any checks to prevent any abuses in that powerful
position?
4) If a Praetor Urbanus or Censor may call the assembly together what
ramifications does this have in terms of voting or promulgating laws?
Basically, do proposed laws need to go to the Senate first and pass that
realm? Or can they be promulgated through the Comitia first and then sent
to the Senate? and what happens if the Senate declines the Legislation, can
it still be presented to the Comitia first?
I do apologize for all of my questions. I am just trying to understand
exactly how the Comitia will work in connection with the existing
governmental institutions and Magistrate offices in Nova Roma. Thank you
for all input. I understand this is a work in progress. And I am very
pleased to see substantial progress and Commend our Tribune Callidus for all
of his work in the creation of this legislation.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Praetor Urbanus
Masterofhistory wrote:
> From: Masterofhistor--------t;a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=029166066165056209112225046026229222078143100196169130152150" >masterofhistor--------..</a>
>
> Salvere iubeo Novae Romae!
> The Proposed Lex for the formation of the Comitia
> Populi Tributa
>
> I. In keeping with the constitution of Nova Roma,
> which outlines the Comitia Populi Tributa, I now
> submit these preliminary guidelines regarding the
> structure, the voting and the procedures of the
> Comitia Populi Tributa - the Assembly of the Tribes in
> Nova Roma. Fortuna faveat nobis - May Fortune favor
> us.
> I believe that the Comitia Populi Tributa,
> employing both Patrician and Plebeian Tribes could
> prove useful to Nova Roma and easier to implement than
> the Comitia Centuriata, which is somewhat cumbersome.
> Assigning tribes, voting and operational procedures
> are far more simplistic in these assemblies. The
> Romans in the Republic found this assembly to be of
> better use to them than the Comitia Centuriata and I
> too believe that the Assembly of Tribes can be put to
> good use now in Nova Roma.
> Historically, the assembly of the Comitia
> Populi (also named Comitia Populi Tributa) assumed the
> duties of the major popular assembly at the expense of
> the military assembly - Comitia Centuriata. This
> assembly had a more egalitarian voting structure and
> the added advantage of needing less ceremony allowed
> more room for deliberation in some respects. The
> Comitia Populi was the assembly of the entire
> population based upon their location. This Comitia
> Populi may have originally been a Patrician assembly
> (speculation comes due to Latin writing formulae),
> mirroring the Concilium Plebis of the Plebeian Order
> These two assemblies elected the various magistrates,
> voted on measures crafted in the Senate or sponsored
> by the magistrates. They also heard appeals involving
> non-capital offenses, served as a venue where citizens
> could address their elected officials and before the
> assembled citizens, the Priests, Pontiffs and Augurs
> made pronouncements. In the middle and late Republic,
> these two assemblies likely caucused together to vote
> on measures that concerned the Republic as a whole.
>
> II. Tribes. The tribe, not the individual, was the
> principal voting unit in several assemblies of the
> Republic. Tribe in the Roman sense has nothing to do
> with ethnicity. It might be helpful to think of the
> tribes in the Roman political system as the wards or
> boroughs into which some large cities are divided. I
> believe the number of tribes varied but eventually
> topped out around 35 in the last centuries BC.. Being
> only a fraction of Rome’s population, Nova Roma needs
> far less than 35 tribes. To balance the Patrician and
> the Plebeian Orders, three tribes for each Order are
> needed. These shall be based roughly upon locality.
> The locality of the familial leader shall be used to
> determine the tribe his or her gens belongs to. This
> chart illustrates the system I am outlining:
>
> Patrician Tribes Plebeian Tribes
> East- 10 gentes East- 28 gentes
> Central- 10 gentes Central-28 gentes
> West- 10 gentes West- 28 gentes
>
> Note that these divisions are arbitrary ones, to
> facilitate a balance in the tribes, some gentes
> located relatively ‘East’ may need to be registered as
> ‘Central’ Or ‘West.’ As this is an online community,
> it shouldn’t matter that much. On a similar note, if
> a familial leader should change their locale, their
> tribal affiliation may not necessarily change. In the
> event that familial leadership changes, however, the
> gens may be required to change their tribe. Adoptions
> and adrogations will change the tribal affiliation of
> those involved. Transitions between the two Orders
> also will result in a change in tribe. New tribes may
> only be added in pairs, 1 Patrician and 1 Plebeian, to
> continue the balance between the Orders. It will
> likely be the duty of the Censors to assign and update
> the assignments to the tribes.
>
> III. Voting. Voting in the Comitia Populi Tributa
> followed the simple majority of the assembled tribes.
> Each tribe voted and the majority of each tribe was
> registered as the vote of that particular tribe. Thus
> if a tribe in question had 100 members and say, 74
> voted in favor of a proposal the tribe’s vote would be
> registered as affirmative. This voting system appears
> complex to many, however it is still used today as the
> method the United States uses to elect its President.
>
> Here is an example of a formal vote in the
> assembled
> Comitia Populi Tributa on some measure. The ‘Y’
> represents votes in favor and the ‘N’ represents votes
> against:
>
> Patrician Tribes Votes in Tribe Vote of
> Tribe
> East- 26Y and 12N Y
> Central 15Y and 19N N
> West 20Y and 7N Y
> Plebeian Tribes
> East 30Y and 9N Y
> Central 18Y and 13N Y
> West 11Y and 17N N
>
> Here the assembly votes 4 tribes ‘Y’ and 2 tribes ‘N’
> on this measure, thus it would pass the Comitia.
> There are many ways to proceed in the event of a tied
> vote. Simple majority of the individuals who voted
> may be used. More traditionally, the vote could be
> taken again or the measure might be taken to another
> assembly for consideration.
> On certain occasions, the Patrician and
> Plebeian Orders would caucus separately. This is how
> they elected certain officials or took informal votes
> which registered opinion or recommend action on
> certain
> matters facing the Republic. Here is a diagram of
> what the assembled Comitia might look like and what
> it’s separate groups are responsible for:
>
> Comitia Populi Tributa
> 3 Patrician Tribes 3 Plebeian Tribes
> elects Curule Aediles elects Plebeian Tribunes
> elects Plebeian Aediles
>
> Together these bodies elect:
> Consuls
> PraetorUrbanus
> Quaestor
> Together these bodies vote on measures
> presented to them by a Consul, Praetor or
> Tribune of the People
> Separately, these units may vote to recommend
>
> IV Procedures. Because this assembly is not that
> big on ceremony, the procedures that it follows are
> rather simple. The assembly may be summoned to order
> by a magistrate with imperium, a Consul or a Praetor
> Urbanus. Tribunes of the People, Quaestors and
> Aediles may summon the Comitia with the permission of
> the Consul or Praetor Urbanus. The Patrician tribes
> may be summoned and addressed by any magistrate with
> Imperium and the Plebeian tribes may be summoned and
> addressed by a Tribune of the People or a magistrate
> designated by a Tribune of the People. Measures for
> consideration may be brought to the assembly floor
> through a Tribune of the People, a Consul or a Praetor
> Urbanus. Other magistrates may do so with
> designation. Tribes and individuals may bring
> measures to the assembly with the sponsorship of a
> Consul, Praetor Urbanus or Tribune of the People.
> Tribes may choose to elect a speaker from their
> membership to act as a liaison for the tribe in
> assembly matters and to facilitate communication
> between the members of the tribe.
> The Comitia Populi Tributa when summoned by a
> magistrate with imperium will be presented with a
> measure and asked to vote on it. The magistrate shall
> present a copy of the measure to be voted on to each
> tribe for its members to read and consider. The
> magistrate shall set a time limit in which to vote, as
> this is an online community perhaps a week or 10 days
> are needed. A preselected official will keep the
> votes and count them. At the end of the time limit on
> voting the results will be announced. It is my hope
> that a measure passed in the Comitia Populi Tributa
> will be regarded as binding to all. The Senate may
> want to put their final stamp on it before it is
> official though, they must decide that part.
>
> ===
> Respectfully,
> Avidius Tullius Callidus
> Paterfamilias, gens Tullia
> Tribune of the People
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at <a href="http://mail.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://mail.yahoo.com</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Are you hogging all the fun?
> <a href="http://www.ONElist.com" target="_top" >http://www.ONElist.com</a>
> Friends tell friends about ONElist!
|
| Subject: |
Re: What's in a Name? |
| From: |
Dexippus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:00:25 EDT |
|
In --------ss--------d-------- 4/10/99 12:01:55 PM EST, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=173075066165082194184241189100114253071048139" >JusticeCMO@--------</--------; writes:
<< For those who have personal issues with the word, I sincerley hope you
come
to terms with those issues regardless of the decision regarding terminology
in Nova Roma. In the meantime, I will maintain my pagan faith and do so
with
a clear conscience. >>
You Go Girl! Stand tall and proud! I stand with you!
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
Re: The proposal for the Comitia Populi Tributa |
| From: |
Dexippus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:07:10 EDT |
|
In a m--------g--------t--------/11/99 4:19:18 AM EST, <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a> writ--------br>
<< 1) Is Nova Roma recreating Ancient Rome? If it is, then shouldnt the
tribes be weighted to favor the Patrican Class, even lightly. If not, and
the Class division doesnt mean anything then why have the Tribune of the
Plebs? >>
That's what I've been asking all along...
--Dexippus
|
| Subject: |
Re: What's in a Name? |
| From: |
Gail and Thomas Gangale gangale@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:09:23 -0700 (PDT) |
|
All right, Crys, yer a PAGAN PAGAN PAGAN PAGAN PAGAN!!!
Salvete, Omnes.
My friend Dexippus asks, "Who are we trying to impress?"
And as you might have come to expect (or dread), I have an answer to this.
Quirites, even to briefly mention that we are living in a largely
Judeo-Christian world is to belabor the obvious. It is in this milieu that
Nova Roma aspires to grow, eventually into a territorial nation. Therefore,
it is altogether fitting and proper that we "try to impress" Christians and
Jews. And Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus, et cetera. We say that the
gates of the city are open, but across the arch is the word PAGAN. We say
that we welcome moderate people of all faiths, yet our sincerity would be
better demonstrated by our own use of more moderate language.
If, as an individual, you want to be a pagan, then by all means, be a pagan.
Revel in it! I certainly have no quarrel with that. But, as a nation, the
face that Nova Roma presents to the world should be one that is inviting,
not challenging; confident, not defiant. We have nothing to lose and
everything to gain by this.
And so I say, let us, as Novaromani, use a word that frees us of the
emotional baggage of the past, that turns away from the persecution of the
past, that uplifts us, ennobles us, and leads us into a future of hope and
peace.
May the Gods preserve the Senate and People of Nova Roma.
Vale,
Marcus Martianus Gangalius
-------------
Tom and Gail Gangale
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=123166234108158153184218249036129208" >gangale@--------</a>
<a href="http://www.jps.net/gangale/homepage.htm" target="_top" >http://www.jps.net/gangale/homepage.htm</a>
Mars Society California
The Martian Time Web Site
The Martian Ministry of Culture
Bunny Hill (and Catsville Too)
The National Primary System
World GenWeb Calabria
|
| Subject: |
Re: The proposal for the Comitia Populi Tributa |
| From: |
Razenna razenna@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:16:04 -0700 |
|
Salvete.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> I do apologize for not being present at the meeting earlier today in regards
> to this legislation.
<Snip>
What meeting? Have I missed something? I know I've been out at the Celebrate
History convention since Friday, but I have been checking my mail when I've
gotten home at night, albeit a skimming. Where was the meeting? Have we found
another good use for the Forum chatroom? How did the meeting come out?
> But I do have some questions regarding this legislation.
<Snip to the end>
As do I. As Dex said, I have some of the same questions. I have others, but
there is one that is paramount to any other questions on this topic. Does a
proposal on the organization of the Comitiae (tribes, etc.) from the populace
(yes, Tullius is a magistrate, but TribPlebs do not have this within their venue
[ of course I know that any error in my reading of the constitution will be
pointed out in a friendly manner by others] ). It was my understanding that the
Censors and their appointed assistants were the ones with the job. So, what is
the purpose of the populace discussing any proposal on the setting up of the
tribes if it is among ourselves?
As I mentioned to Tullius when we were discussing his proposal, before he posted
it to the populace, I had been wondering if the Censors and the others working
on this project would be helped along by a number of suggestions for how the
tribes might be established. I recall from a talk with Cincinatus that one of
the big problems with the setting up of the tribes was deciding what formula to
use.
Avidius Tullius Callidus has presented us with one formula. Scaevola also
presented us with a formula a number of days earlier.. Both of these are based
on geographical areas. Scaevola's was to have the tribes be based on the
Provinicae. Callidus's was to have the populous divided into "East", "Central"
and "West". I do not like the territorial method. But then, what was the basis
of the ancient tribes? Maybe this is what should be discussed. Not what our
modern minds might adapt to the word "Tribes". I recall from my reading that
at times, in Roma Antica, there was concern of a tribe becoming over large and
thereby having more power than some felt was proper. Yet if the tribe voted in
the elections of the State (Rome) as only One vote equal with the other tribes,
this concern with the size of one tribe compared with others should not have
mattered. Running alongside this is the concept that if each of our Tribes is
to have the same voting power as any of the other Tribes, then each Tribe should
be roughly the same size. This can not be done if the Tribes are based upon an
administrative area or gens.
If the Tribes of Nova Roma are supposed to have one vote each when they vote in
comitia then they should have approximately the same number of citizens in
them. One easy way to do this is to first decide how many Tribes we wish to
begin with. Thirty-five (35) maybe too many for only 240 citizens, three (3) is
far too few. Maybe nine (9) or ten (10). Ten is a good Roman number!
Okay. We say we are going to have ten tribes (names to be decided later after
more open, friendly discussion). Then take the names of all the citizens and
tally off each one to a tribe in rotation until all the citizens are allotted to
a Tribe. As new citizens come in they will be allotted to the Tribes in the
same way. I am not up on the higher maths, but no Tribe should be larger than
any other by more than one citizen. This way each Tribe's speaker in a comitial
vote will be representing the same number of citizens.
Lastly a matter which goes back to before the last election. It was suggested
that Nova Roma might be wise have all voting done on the basis of one person one
vote. That is how the populace was deciding important issues before the general
election. It was said that one of the first things that the Tribes might decide
would be to virtually do away with themselves. One vote per person has great
deal to say for itself. If it is the will of the populous that each citizen
casts their own vote directly in the all elections, without going through the
rigamarole of voting for a speaker to vote on the matter at hand, then we should
not waste an inordinate amount of time and energy on how to set up the Tribes.
See? There are many things to consider. Some of them should be considered
before the aspects of one plan for the Tribes or another. Other things, such as
the possible transience of the Tribes and their speakers, should be considered
while the work on the Tribes is going on. And after the Tribes are set up we
will decide whether each citizens vote should be considered to be sovereign in
and of itself rather than being filtered through a speaker whose own agenda is
already being question, before there are any such critters.
There is a lot to think about, Quirites, and to discuss. Establishing the
Tribes is not an easy task that only needs a suggestion to be put on the floor.
This is why it has taken the duly appointed magistrates who have been working on
it since January (and before) so long.
Valete.
Caius Aelius Ericius
Propraetor ad Califroniam Provinciam
Pontiff
Paterfamilias genti Aeliae.
-------------------------------------------------------
[Damn the Latin endings! Full speed ahead!]
|
| Subject: |
Re: The proposal for the Comitia Populi Tributa |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" amg@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:41:49 +0100 |
|
Salvete Razenna et omnes
>> I do apologize for not being present at the meeting earlier today in
regards
>> to this legislation.
I apologize as well.
>Avidius Tullius Callidus has presented us with one formula. Scaevola also
>presented us with a formula a number of days earlier.. Both of these are
based
>on geographical areas. Scaevola's was to have the tribes be based on the
>Provinicae. Callidus's was to have the populous divided into "East",
"Central"
>and "West". I do not like the territorial method.
I think that the territorial method is the most simple, as we have already
the provincial framework to base ourselves. Nevertheless, to have a tribe
per Provincia is not fair as Provinciae with less citizens have the same
weight of Provinciae with more citizens. As such, a superset of Provinciae
is required, and it is here that I agree with Avidius Tullius Callidus.
Don't forget that (although for different and surely LESS DEMOCRATIC
reasons) Diocletian had already adopted a similar organization, i.e.
Prefaecturae and Dioceses as supersets of Provinciae to easy administration.
Nevertheless, Razenna reminds us of something... Are tribes really needed
for voting? Shouldn't the people decide? My answer is YES. My sugestion is:
lets form the assembly based on tribes. Lets follow the plan of Avidius
Tullius Callidus. Then, the people can decide wether to continue with the
tribal system or to vote as individuals.
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Aedile Plebis
|
| Subject: |
The Comitia Populi Tributa |
| From: |
Masterofhistory masterofhistory@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Nova Roma,
I'm pleased to see the discussion on my proposal
unfolding. Several of you have given me your candid
opinions of the measure and the overall response has
been positive. The Praetor Urbanus, L. Cornelius
Sulla, asked me a series of questions about my
proposal for the Comitia Populi Tributa. They cover
many different topics and I answered the more relevant
ones here in this post, though I'm not sure if all
matters can be cleared up in just one reply. Since
many of you have indicated that you are interested in
following this proposal, I decided to post my reply to
Sulla in the mailing list. The following are Sulla's
questions and my responses:
Sulla: 1) Is Nova Roma recreating Ancient Rome? If
it is, then shouldnt the tribes be weighted to favor
the Patrican Class, even lightly. If not, and the
Class division doesnt mean anything then why have the
Tribune of the Plebs? My understand, and please tell
me if I am off-base, is that in Ancient Rome. The
Tribes heavily favored the Patricians. Yes, I am
aware that caused much abuse, but the Plebs did have
an outlet in the Tribune Position as a check on that.
Would that position still be needed if the Tribes were
equal?
Tullius: Yes, Sulla NR is recreating the
institutions of the Romans. By joining Nova Roma, we
are acknowledging the desire, the need and the
importance of these institutions in the modern world.
In our politics we shall endevor to employ those
institutions of the ancient republic which served her
well for approximately five hundred years.
Tribes in ancient Rome get confusing to many
readers because of our modern associations with the
word. Consider tribe to mean voting bloc or voting
district when you study Roman political assemblies.
In the major assemblies that used tribes, voting
strength remained relatively equal. Plebeian citizens
grew to vastly outnumber the Patrician citizens,
however tribes served to balance the numbers. This is
why I am calling for equal numbers of tribes for each
Order. Our main assembly ought to reflect the balance
between the Plebeian and Patrician Orders.
The real inequalities or 'favored' voting you speak
of, appear in the Comitia Centuriata - the assembled
centuries, which in reality was the Roman army
assembled to vote. In this assembly of centuries, the
strength of a unit's vote was essentially based upon
wealth and social class of the individuals it
contained. Personally, I don't want to make it my
business to know the income of the citizens of Nova
Roma, so using this sort of method to form an assembly
is not tolerable to me. Thus, I turned my attention
to developing the Comitia Populi Tributa. At any
rate, in Nova Roma, I believe that the Patrician Order
is favored in any assembly by the fact that members of
the Patrician Order are more active (generally
speaking) in Nova Roma than many Plebeians are.
Be that as it may, what I sought to do with this
assembly is to ensure that everyones' vote counted.
This does nothing to affect Patrician dignitas, which
had little to do with voting anyway. These Orders
originally stemmed from religious obligations, though
only remnants of this can be seen in the Republic's
history. Yet in the Republic, Patricians and
Plebeians continued to perform separate though vital
duties for the benefit of the entire population and
state as a whole. It is a pity that such a Marxist
and socio-economic spin has been placed upon these
societal divisions and in my research on the subject,
those modern obsessions just do not hold water when
talking about the Orders of the Romans.
Sulla: 2) I know from the information I got from
Marius that she has mentioned the vagueness of the
East, West, and Central Divisions? How will that
affect our international Citizens in Brazil, and in
Europe? I am assuming the Censors will distribute the
citizens within the Tribes. Also, are we immediately
going to be beginning with the 30 tribes as stated in
Article 4
Sec. 1?
Tullius: I have received one other comment on this
vagueness. I do not think it is such a cause for
alarm. I stated in the proposal that because we are an
online community, location is not as big an issue as
it was to the Romans of long ago. The names I chose,
East Central and West, are just to point out the basic
locality of the tribes. I suppose they could have been
called Red Green and Blue for all that it matters.
Yes, you are correct in assuming that the Censors will
have the final say in appointment of the gentes to the
tribes. As What I am doing is providing Nova Roma
with the opportunity to examine the way individuals,
families and tribes will be assigned. What I have is
a 'template' which can be used to assign all citizens
and all citizens who join Nova Roma to their
respective tribes.
Article IV section I calls for 30 Tribes and Article
IV section III calls for 35 Tribes for the Plebeians.
I designed this assembly as a union of Articles I and
III because this union was basically how the Romans
voted after the Licinio-Sextian rogations of 367 BC.
The Plebeian assembly and the Patrician assemblies
basically merged after this date, though it took time.
There are discrepancies to be sure, however I believe
they can be easily remedied. I believe that the
constitution's 30 tribes is an ideal number to be
obtained when Nova Roma is much more populous than it
is now. I hope that one day the population of Nova
Roma will be large enough to divide into 30 tribes,
however right now, I am just picking smaller numbers
to start out with; three was easy, five would work
well too.
Sulla: 3) Regarding the role of the Speaker. How
long of a term does the Speaker have? What if the
Speaker goes contrary to the way the Tribe has voted?
Basically are there any checks to prevent any abuses
in that powerful
position?
Tullius: Speakers are my suggestion for a liasion
between the tribes, however it is just an idea.
Speaker is just a convenient example. Each tribe may
want to choose its own way of communicating with the
assembly. Speakers, if selected, would not be a
magistrial office, they would not be an officer at all
so they have no power to overturn their tribe's vote
or go contrary to it. I certainly hope someone who
assumes any role of leadership is not the type who
would act in that manner. Besides I stipulated that
before the voting in this assembly, a magistrate would
be selected to be a voting judge meaning all votes
would be seen by this official as well as the tribal
liasions.
Sulla: 4) If a Praetor Urbanus or Censor may call the
assembly together what ramifications does this have in
terms of voting or promulgating laws? Basically, do
proposed laws need to go to the Senate first and pass
that realm? Or can they be promulgated through the
Comitia first and then sent to the Senate? and what
happens if the Senate declines the Legislation, can
it still be presented to the Comitia first?
Tullius: This Comitia Populi may be summoned by the
highest offices, but anyone may bring measures and
legislation to the magistrates who will lay this at
the floor of the Comitia for the whole nation to
consider. If a magistrate has legislation, this
certainly can go to the Comitia for a vote and then to
the Senate for final consideration. What I hope my
Comitia Populi can do is serve as a method by which
the citizens, the backbone of Nova Roma, can bring
their ideas. When this assembly votes in favor of a
piece of legislation I hope the Senate will regard the
people's decision as meaningful and ratify the thing.
In this way the voice of the citizens will be heard.
Conversely, measures adopted in the Senate and
approved by the Senate may be brought out to the
Comitia Populi Tributa for a vote. This should be
necessary, because traditionally, the Roman Senate had
no actual powers to create binding legislation. Here
in Nova Roma the Senate does have the power, however
it is my hope that the Senate will take the citizens'
opinions on an issue into account when crafting their
Senatusconsultae. The approval or disapproval of the
Comitia Populi Tributa ought to advise the Senate on
the direction their legislation should take.
Sulla: I do apologize for all of my questions. I am
just trying to understand exactly how the Comitia will
work in connection with the existing governmental
institutions and Magistrate offices in Nova Roma.
Thank you for all input. I understand this is a work
in progress. And I am very pleased to see substantial
progress and Commend our Tribune Callidus for all
of his work in the creation of this legislation.
Tullius: There is no apology needed, Sulla. I
brought this to the Concilium Plebis and then to the
entire population at large for the purpose of
constructive debate. I want to carry a piece of good
legislation into the Senate. This Comitia Populi
Tributa is to be an assembly of all the citizens of
Nova Roma, they ought to have a chance to view it,
comment on it and offer their opinions regarding its
construction.
And lastly Sulla, I hope your mother is doing better
after her transfusion.
===
Respectfully,
Avidius Tullius Callidus
Paterfamilias, gens Tullia
Tribune of the People
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at <a href="http://mail.yahoo.com" target="_top" >http://mail.yahoo.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Latest Telephone Scam - Beware |
| From: |
GWMETZ@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:26:07 EDT |
|
VICESIMA - QUARTA
LEGIO XXIV - MEDIA - ATLANTIA
* PROVINCIA PENNSYLVANIA *
* MEDIA - ATLANTICA * AMERICIA *
Defending the Frontiers of Rome
in the Mid - Atlantic Province
of North America
April 9, 1999
Year of Rome 2751
Ave et Salutatio... Romani of NovaRoma
Hello and Greetings from Gallio Velius Marsallas,
Praefectus, Legio XXIV-Media-Atlantica;
Tribune Militaris, NovaRoma Gens Velia
aka George W. Metz
13 Post Run Newtown Square, PA 19073-3014
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=123143014056175043015098190036129" >gwmetz@--------</--------; 610-363-4982
Received a telephone call last evening from an individual
identifying himself as an AT&T Service technician who was
conducting a test on our telephone lines.
He stated that to complete the test I should touch
nine (9), zero (0), the pound sign (#) and then hang up.
Luckily, I was suspicious and refused.
Upon contacting the telephone company, I was informed that by
pushing 90#, you give the requesting individual full access to your
telephone line, which allows them to place long distance telephone
calls billed to your home phone number.
I was further informed that this scam has been originating from
many of the local jails/prisons. I have also verified this information
with UCB telecomm, Pacific Bell, MCI, Bell Atlantic, GTE and NYNEX.
Please beware.
DO NOT press 90# for ANYONE.
The GTE Security Department requested that this information be
shared with EVERYONE I KNOW. PLEASE pass this on
to everyone YOU know. If you have mailing lists and/or newsletters
from organizations you are connected with, I encourage you to pass
on this information to them, too.
As always I remain;
Tuus / Vester in Sodalicio Romanae Rei Pubicae
Yours in the Comradeship of the Roman Republic
Gallio / George
O====<|| S P Q R ||>====O
L E G I O
X X I V
M A
ooooooooooooo
O====|<|| S P Q R ||>|====O
| |
O =============O
|| | | ||
|| | L E G | ||
|| | X X I V | ||
|| | M A | ||
|| | | ||
|| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||
\/ | | \/
| |
| |
|
| Subject: |
Re: What's in a Name? |
| From: |
JusticeCMO@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:22:07 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/11/99 10:01:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056131009152219130232203140129208071" >Dexippus@--------</--------; writes:
> You Go Girl! Stand tall and proud! I stand with you!
>
> --Dexippus
>
Heeheehee...::waving very small flag!:: Thanks!
Prsicilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: What's in a Name? |
| From: |
JusticeCMO@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:48:46 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/11/99 11:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=123166234108158153184218249036129208" >gangale@--------</a>
writes:
> But, as a nation, the face that Nova Roma presents to the world should be
one that is inviting, not challenging; confident, not defiant.>>
But that is my point exactly! To me, and the vast majority of pagans I
associate with, the word pagan is NOT a defiant and challenging term. It
simply isn't!! It is a definition, a descriptive term, no more no less.
<<We say that the gates of the city are open, but across the arch is the word
PAGAN.>>
It is a term descriptive of the official faith path of Nova Roma. Just as
every church and synagogue I drive past has a large sign saying "welcome"
right above their posting of the days worship services and events. They are
sincere. So are we as a nation. They are simply saying "hello and welcome
to a place that practices a monothesitic faith but to which you are welcome
to enter". We do the same in Nova Roma by saying "welcome to this pagan
land". You are asked to come in, get comfy and make some new friends. To my
knowlegde there is no neon sign proclaiming "welcome to Nova "Pagans
Rule-hahhahahaaa nyah nyah nyah" Roma. We have no pagan pride parades, we do
not send pagan literature to known Christians, we certainly do not tolerate
slams against any particular faith. Even the pagan citizens rarely, if ever,
dicuss the many varied paths we follow in any detail.
<<We say that we welcome moderate people of all faiths, yet our sincerity
would be
better demonstrated by our own use of more moderate language.>>
I disagree. I think we as a nation demonstrate our sincerity here on this
list. And at dinner with fellow citizens. And in phone cnversations. And
in speaking to the public at events such as Roman Days. I *can* go on. In
point of fact, we DO make newcomers welcome to our pagan land. Any perceived
threat or challenge seen in the term pagan is, in my estimation, imagined on
the part of the reader.
I go back to my original post. The point here is that yes, some folks have a
problem with the term pagan. Why would we asume the problem is with a mere
word and not the concept of a ploytheistic religion? Maybe this is my own
inexperience talking, but I have found that the vast majority of grief I get
from folks due to my religion is not over what I choose to call it, but that
it is polythesitic. That, my friend, will not change with a mere alteration
in terms.
<<We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by this>>
I disagree. I feel if we begin a pattern of altering or softening who we are
as a nation in order to attract new members, we will be selling a small piece
of ourselves. I am NOT NOT NOT suggesting we all start sporting "pagan and
proud" bumper stickers or that it become mandatory for every citizen to learn
some pagan cheer. I simply say live and let live. And let the term pagan
stand not as a threat or a flaunted term, but as simply what is is.....a
descriptive term of our national religion.
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
Comitia Reform (was Re: [novaroma] Re: The proposal for the Comitia Populi Tributa) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" jkbloch@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:16:24 -0400 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
My apologies for coming into the discussion late, but I thought that it
would be relevant to bring up a proposal I put before the Senate for
discussion, ironically on the very day that Tribune Populi Avidius Tullius
Callidus posted his proposal regarding the Comitia Populi Tributa. A couple
of the specifics of my proposal still need to be worked out, and are indeed
being discussed at this moment. But, in brief, my proposals (which I truly
believe would best serve our Republic) are:
- Centuries that reward those who are older (for their life experience) and
those who donate more time and money to the State.
- Tribes based on geography, as they were in ancient Rome (more or less).
- A separate Comitia Populi and Comitia Curiata, with the curiae of the
latter based on gens (and roughly equal in size).
- Direct voting by tribes and centuries, rather than the cumbersome and
abuse-prone system of spokesmen that we currently have.
For those who want some more "meat", here 'tis:
Historically, the Centuries of the Comitia Centuriata favored those over 45
and those who were wealthier. In my proposal, the centuries would be
weighted towards those over 30 years old (i.e., older centuries would have
fewer people than younger centuries) and weighted towards those who had made
the most contributions towards Nova Roma (in time and money; i.e., those who
had contributed the most would be in smaller centuries than those who had
contributed less). Obviously, if you're one person in a century of 10
people, your vote carries more weight than if you're in a century of 50
people. You still don't have an overwhelming advantage, just a smidge more
influence.
Historically, Comitia Plebis had 4 "urban tribes" and 31 "rural tribes". In
my proposal, the 4 urban tribes would be made up of individuals outside
North America; 1 for Europe, 1 for Asia/Australia, 1 for Central/South
America, and 1 for Africa. The remaining 31 would be divided amongst the US
States and Canadian Provinces, so that collections of states and/or
provinces would be roughly (probably very roughly) equivalent in population.
That way, non-Americans wouldn't be overwhelmed by inclusion in tribes that
also included Americans.
I've never been happy with our Comitia Populi, which is actually an
amalgamation of the historical Comitia Populi and the Comitia Curiata. My
proposal divides the duties of the two as they were historically. The
Comitia Populi would have the same tribes as the Comitia Plebis.
Historically, the Comitia Curiata's curiae were based on birth. My proposal
has those curiae divided evenly, with individuals in the same gens being
grouped in the same curia.
Also, as our Constitution now stands, only the spokesmen of the Comitia
Populi are permanently elected; all the others are elected for the vote at
hand and then discarded. I believe this is a cumbersome and unnecessary
device, and one prone to abuse. My proposal to the Senate does away with it
(except in the case of the new Comitia Curiata, whose spokespeople are
elected for life); the vote of each tribe and century should simply go to
the majority of its members. (How would you like it if 90% of your tribe
voted for spokesman X, who suddenly voted against their candidate because it
suited his fancy?) This way we keep the historical apparatus of voting by
groups, but we allow for modern technology by counting direct majorities
within those groups.
While I don't normally approve of of bringing Senate discussions into the
public venue, since the topic of Comitia reform has come up both publically
and in the Senate, it seemed appropriate to do so in this case. Just wanted
to let everyone know that the Senate really is trying to _do_ things to make
Nova Roma better!
In service to to the Republic,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Senator
|
