| Subject: |
Re: law: Inner consistency |
| From: |
Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia fresco@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 04:33:33 +0300 |
|
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=246157057089235135169082190036" >SFP55@--------</--------; wrote:
> ... a clear chain of command and responsibility tree.
> sort of like:
> Senate->Consuls->Comitia->Trib of the Plebs->Praetors->
> A flowchart showing responsibility of the different
> power structures and who they answer to.
Most respectfully from M.Prometheus
To Flavius Vedius Germanicus dictator,
to Q. Fabius who wrote the above lines
and to all NR citzens
A clear chain of command in my humble opinion would be
the very MINIMUM (but still not enough) to solve conflicts of power
among magistrates and assemblies.
But much BETTER it would be to avoid many such problems
if not simply having LESS ASSEMBLIES, at least stating clearly a
different area of business competing to each one.
Each assembly (except the mostly cerimonial Comitia Curiata)
appoints magistrates and makes laws binding the entire citzenry.
1) The comitia centuriata
2) The comitia plebis tributa
3) The comitia populi tributa
4) The Senate (But at least Senatus consulta have a clear place among
other laws:
quote: shall supercede magisterial edicts in precedence,
but may be overruled by properly passed laws. Unquote)
But also Magistrates like 5) Censors 6) Consuls and 7) Praetors
can issue edicta (on topics not specified i.e. unlimited by
constitution).
Only at the level of Aediles Curules there is a specification (i.e. a
limitation) of competence.
In my humble opinion this does not look workable at all
Each assembly or magistrate's law will be paralized by one other.
Every difference of opinion will become a litigation.
Also, in the real world, where constitutions foresee more assemblies
with equal power to initiate and issue GENERAL laws,
---- the law passes only after both have agreed on a text. (***)
(so it is never matter of the precedence of the most recent to
legiferate)
---- in my knowledge the maximum of these assemblies is just 2.
(***) One simple form of agreement of the second assembly
can be NOT intervening within a given period of time.
-----------------------------------------------
So, I conclude: in my humble opinion the simplest ways to solve
some of the above potential conflicts of power could be:
to reduce the number of the comitia
or to strip all the comitia except one of the power to issue general
laws
or at least to find limited matters of specific competence for eachone.
As for magistrates a chain of command or of precedence in power is good,
but even better would be to specify more peculiar competences for more
magistracies.
P.S.
I am surprised to see that the position of Censors takes precedence
face to
Consuls. Historically in which period was so ?
Thanks for accepting me in this discussion,
thanks for your comments
and excuses for my non fluent english.
Bene valete Quirites omnes.
Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia
|
| Subject: |
Re: Just some questions |
| From: |
Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:26:20 -0400 (EDT) |
|
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Razenna wrote:
> From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
>
> Salve, Germanicus.
>
> I've been wondering about a few things.
> When did the Censors outrank the Consuls?
They do not outrank in the sense that they can issue them commands
because they do not have imperium. However, censor was essentially the
pinnacle of a politicians career. The position had more prestige--
more auctoritas if you will though that does not capture the sense of it
either--than any other Roman magistracy. It was an elevated position and
was (and is) supposed to be above the fray of politics. That is why it has
been placed where it has in the new Constitution. This way a consul can
not use his intercessio over each and every action of a censor he does not
like (thus putting censor above everyday politics). He must go to the
comitia for that, a far more uncertain course.
> Why did you appoint yourself Censor? The Dictator does not need other
> offices to do his
> job. The People could have elected a person to be the second Censor,
which would probably
> been you, even without the prodigious amount of work you've been
doing since July 4.
Germanicus took the position because he already knew how to do the job, is
good at it and was ready to jump in and stay in for awhile, even after his
term as dictator was up, thus offering continued stability. He originally
set up this whole system, including the mechanism by which people become
citizens. He was a natural for a position.
> I do not remember you having been an Augur of Nova Roma in the past.
Dexippus and
> Scaevola were the two Augurs appointed by the Collegium Pontificum.
True, we do not have
> hard copy archives which can be thumbed through to check on things.
> May the Gods of Roma speed you in the conclusion of your labors.
Flavius Vedius was, by virtue of being a Founder, an Augur from the
inception of Nova Roma (I believe he was the only Augur) and a pontiff.
This really was before the creation of the collegium pontificum proper,
which was in August of 1998, when myself and Saevus became pontiffs
through Senatus Consultum.
A little while ago, in response to your message, I went through some old
files. In the text of an AOL Instant Messenger chat (dated 2/4/1998) from
the days before the Founding, I asked Flavius Vedius where he would find
people to do augury, since I was at the time skeptical of the process (I
am much less so now) and at the time thought it a bit out of place in the
20th century. He said there was at least one person willing to do the
job--him since he said he did not share my skepticism. He has held the
position from then until the present since Augur is a lifetime position
with no excceptions (this was always in the Constitution).
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius,
Censor, Pontiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non scholae sed vitae discimus.
Seneca
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Such things have often happened and still happen,
and how can these be signs of the end of the world?"
Julian, Emperor of Rome 361-363 A.D.
Extant 331-363 A.D.
|
| Subject: |
Re: censors (was law: Inner consistency) |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:37:59 EDT |
|
In a message dated 7/25/1999 6:20:23 PM Paci--------Daylight Time, <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a>
writes:
I am surprised to see that the position of Censors takes precedence
face to Consuls. Historically in which period was so ?
Salve Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia!
It never did in Republican Rome . The Censors in the third and second
centuries could remove the Consul's senatorship due to the Lex Ovirna, but it
still would be hard to remove a sitting Consul.
Taken from the word "censtre," - to estimate- Censor was the title of a
magistrate who, although lacking both imperium and the right of an escort of
lictors, possessed great authority, since he interpreted the public morals
and supervised the leasing of public areas and buildings to the populace.
The censorship was probably instituted circa. 443 B.C E. as patrician and
civil magistracy, in order to make up and maintain the official list of
citizens, or the centis.
Those citizens was found guilty of suppressing or delaying information about
status and property, the censors (always numbering two,) were permitted to
take legal actions against them.
The censors entered their office in early spring and the rank lasted for
eighteen months, the revised roll or census being issued twelve or fifteen
months after their appointment. This registration took place in special
building in the Campus Martius.
The Equititum Census, which was the list of the Public Horse which made up of
the Roman cavalry, was held however in the Forum.
The censors had the right of striking off the names of those Eques who had
given false statements about their citizenship or class, or who no longer
merited the privilege of fighting as cavalry because of a drop in income.
Failure could be caused inappropriate behavior at home or while on military
service. They also could be stricken for bad supervision of provinces,
failure to maintain assigned public property, and other failures against the
state..
In Early Rome, the registering of the population for the Legiones (Levy),
seemed to take place in the spring and ended in a religious ceremony which
was called the Lustrum.
After 209 B.C.E. this ceremony was held every 5 years (quinto quoque anno,)
with the time between two celebrations a "lustrum.. "
While the word in Latin has to do with illumination, this was a purification
ritual, the writer Plautus describes one as a procession around the
afflicted object, priests carrying sacred objects. Mommeson contends that
this was a 5 year "lustratio populi" I.E. the symbolic cleansing of the
populace of Rome every 5th year overseen by the censors who guided the
procession.
The censorship became accessible to the plebeians by 351 B.C.E. with the
Leges Publiliae of 339 declaring that at least one censor must be a plebeian,
although two plebeian censors were not elected until 131.
It appears the power of the censors reached its height in the third and
second centuries.The Lex Ovirna (Circa. 312 B.C. E ), entrusted the Censors
to keep the senatorial rolls and revise them periodically. This duty had
always been taken care of by the Consuls.
Censors now were allowed remove from the rolls senators who had not observed
the tenets of their office, or had acted against law and public morality.
Many censors abused this authority, accepting bribes to remove other
senator's enemies on trumped up charges.
The authority of the censorship in this matter, was greatly reduced by Lucius
Cornelius Sulla and, eventually the Consuls or dictator assumed the task.
The Censorship fell into disfavor after this. Although down till the
Augustan Principate distinguished citizens still filled the office, the
censorship was doomed, and was rendered a dead office when the Flavians
appointed themselves censors for life.
Thereafter other magistrates oversaw the census. - Steve Phenow
Vale!
Q Fabius Maximus
|
| Subject: |
Website Access |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:49:58 PDT |
|
Salvete, populares:
Recently I sent a list of prayers and oaths, in Latin and English, which I
culled from the plays of Plautus, to Gangalius as Custos Araneum, asking
him, if he thought them suitable, to add them to the Pantheon page.
He told me, regretfully, that he couldn't, as he had been denied write
access to the website of which he is magister.
To whom should cives submit their work now, for consideration for its
inclusion on the website, if not to the Web Master?
Pending a reply, and the inclusion of the stuff on the website, I shall be
happy to copy the file to anyone who cares to ask.
Valete bene in pace deorum,
Vado.
|
| Subject: |
Re: law: Inner consistency |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:09:48 -0400 |
|
Salve,
<-------- size=-1 color="#008000">> From: Marcus Prometheus Decius Golia <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a>
>
> A clear chain of command in my humble opinion would be
> the very MINIMUM (but still not enough) to solve conflicts of power
> among magistrates and assemblies.
>
> But much BETTER it would be to avoid many such problems
> if not simply having LESS ASSEMBLIES, at least stating clearly a
> different area of business competing to each one.
Okay, let's get this stated clearly once and for all. The number of comitia
is not going to change. There were four historically, and four there shall
be in Nova Roma (even if one is ceremonial).
> Each assembly (except the mostly cerimonial Comitia Curiata)
> appoints magistrates and makes laws binding the entire citzenry.
>
> 1) The comitia centuriata
> 2) The comitia plebis tributa
> 3) The comitia populi tributa
> 4) The Senate (But at least Senatus consulta have a clear place among
> other laws:
> quote: shall supercede magisterial edicts in precedence,
> but may be overruled by properly passed laws. Unquote)
>
> But also Magistrates like 5) Censors 6) Consuls and 7) Praetors
> can issue edicta (on topics not specified i.e. unlimited by
> constitution).
> Only at the level of Aediles Curules there is a specification (i.e. a
> limitation) of competence.
That's not completely accurate.
The edicta issued by censors are limited to their job-tasks, which are quite
specifically delineated in the new constitution, and deal with maintaining
the membership and other lists. Basically, it's only consuls and praetors
whose job descriptions are somewhat vague. And even there, there are some
guidelines. Both consuls and praetors may issue edicts "necessary to engage
in those tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma". Just
what does that mean? Well, it's fairly clearly defined in the preface to the
constitution:
"We hereby ... form our union for the purpose of the study of, education
concerning, and recreation of the ancient Roman Republic." (from the preface
to the constitution).
Of course, praetors (and aediles) also have the responsibility to administer
the law, and may issue edicts for that purpose as well.
If someone can come up with a more clearly defined job description for the
consuls, I'd love to hear it. Just as long as we don't have another
situation where the consul thinks his job is to do everyone else's job.
> In my humble opinion this does not look workable at all
> Each assembly or magistrate's law will be paralized by one other.
> Every difference of opinion will become a litigation.
What you call paralization, I call a balance of power. Central to the
Republican Roman model is the notion of competing balancing forces. In
instituting a heirarchy of comitia, you would strip away that balance of
competing powers. Why would the bottom-rung comitia do anything at all, when
the real power is held one or two rungs up the chain of command? Besides, in
practice, I think you'll see most laws coming out of the comitia populi
tributa in any case. The process is quicker than the comitia centuriata, and
they represent all the citizens, rather than just the plebeians.
> Also, in the real world, where constitutions foresee more assemblies
> with equal power to initiate and issue GENERAL laws,
> ---- the law passes only after both have agreed on a text. (***)
> (so it is never matter of the precedence of the most recent to
> legiferate)
> ---- in my knowledge the maximum of these assemblies is just 2.
That would be wonderful, were we forming a new nation based on the latest
democratic political theory. However, we're trying to re-create something
based on the ancient Republican Roman model. And in that model, the various
comitia's laws were of equal validity, and could theoretically cover any
topic. (Even those of the comitia plebis tributa were eventually extended to
cover the entire population, not merely the plebeians.)
> So, I conclude: in my humble opinion the simplest ways to solve
> some of the above potential conflicts of power could be:
>
> to reduce the number of the comitia
Not going to happen.
> or to strip all the comitia except one of the power to issue general
> laws
Ditto.
> or at least to find limited matters of specific competence for eachone
Show me a source for this idea. I don't think it sounds very Roman.
> As for magistrates a chain of command or of precedence in power is good,
> but even better would be to specify more peculiar competences for more
> magistracies.
Let's see; tribunes safeguard the constitution, quaestors handle the
finances, aediles supervise gatherings and festivals, praetors administer
the law, censors administer the membership lists, and consuls handle the
general administration. Other than the consuls-- which is defined, although
I'll grant could be re-worded-- which one wasn't clearly defined?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Stuff |
| From: |
"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:27:47 -0500 |
|
Salvete,
There have been some updates to the Sodalis Pro Infantia page.
The address has also changed.
<a href="http://famromo.wiccan.net/" target="_top" >http://famromo.wiccan.net/</a>
There will be additional changes made (I meant to do some last
week, but Terry had an accident and the older kids were here so I
didn't get around to doing what I wanted to do) and I will update as
needed.
I received no response to the offer of memberships to NR parents,
so I am assuming no one is interested. Anyone who would like
membership in the Sodalis Pro Infantia need only apply at the
website where the information will be forwarded to everyone for the
vote.
Valete,
Amethystia Iunia-Cornelia Crystallina
|
| Subject: |
Re: Just some questions |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:17:42 -0400 |
|
Salvete Erici et alii
>From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
>
>Salve, Germanicus.
>
>I do not remember you having been an Augur of Nova Roma in the past.
Dexippus and
>Scaevola were the two Augurs appointed by the Collegium Pontificum. True,
we do not have
>
>Vale.
>C. Aelius Ericius.
>
I thought for sure that Saevus, not Scaevola, was Dexippus' colleague in the
collegium augurum. And Saevus quit that post (more than once?) on the heels
of the impeachment/interregnum thing.
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Fasces and Red Tape (was observations) |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:00:48 PDT |
|
Salvete, Quirites! Scripsit Q. Fabius:
>I. On Lictors.
>As a Roman historian I see nothing wrong with lictors or the decurary being
>included in the doc. First off we are trying to recreate the Republic.
>And
>sure, we do not have these role players today. But consider, one day, Gods
>be willing, we will have public displays. Rather then rewriting the
>constitution to include them then, why not cover them now? Vadius has, and
>I
>for one see nothing wrong with the effort. As for their relevance in
>modern
>NR, they are wholly symbolic.
- Ita, I should edepol hope so! Still, you never know...
<AMPUTATIO> Yes, they could be used as body guards, but
>only in pinch. Personally, I'd rather take a gladius against an unwieldy
>axe, any day of the week. The Bronze statue of a lictor in British museum
>shows the axe was placed in the middle of cane rods.
- Not cane, surely? (I can't think of any kind of cane native to Europe,
that would do the job). If Plautus' slaves' frequent allusions to beatings
are anything to go by, I fancy the rods would have been made of elm.
<AMPUTATIO> Was Flavius Vedius the right choice? Again I'd say yes. He has
trimmed a lot of red tape.
- Yes, but an awful lot of this red tape now seems to be tied up around a
number of fasces, estne, amici? >;->
Valete bene, omnes,
Vado.
|
| Subject: |
Re: Re: Fasces and Red Tape |
| From: |
SFP55@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:04:36 EDT |
|
In a message dated 7/26/1999 10:01:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> writes:
<< Not cane, surely? (I can't think of any kind of cane native to Europe,
that would do the job). If Plautus' slaves' frequent allusions to beatings
are anything to go by, I fancy the rods would have been made of elm.
Salve Vado!
I meant sugar cane <G> SCAers say Rattan <BG>
This is what happens when one writes from Latin to American.
I meant the material that walking sticks (Canes) were made of. Springy yet
strong. Since they have their origin in Tuscany, perhaps popular?
Vale!
Q Fabius
|
| Subject: |
Re: law: Inner consistency |
| From: |
Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:21:22 -0400 |
|
Salvete omnes!
In response to QFM's and Golia's points,
Part of the problem is that because we're (a) reconstructing and (b) have a
written constitution, a lot of what was merely custom and practice in Roma
Antiqua has for us to go into the Constitution.
So here's my two-pennorth on trying to deal with the problems of
overlapping competences:
A) Assemblies, laws and edicta:
1. Comitia Centuriata does legislation of constitutional significance,
i.e. constitutional amendments. We've got that in Germanicus' latest draft.
I suggest that all criminal laws carrying exile as a penalty should
also be reserved for C. Centuriata. It's the final court of appeal for this
purpose, and it makes sense to be careful with exile. Also consistent with
Roma Antiqua: C. centuriata was the final court of appeal in capital cases.
2. C. Tributa or Conc. Plebis do other sorts of legislation. It
doesn't matter that there are two. The ancient romans used only Conc.
Plebis, leaving C. Tributa for elections only; the roman law books don't
say why, but my guess is, because Conc. Plebis was convened by tribunes and
as such less liable to disruption by vetoes than C. Tributa. My guess would
be that NR will in practice use C.Tributa, leaving Conc. Plebis for
elections only.
I would reserve all legislation carrying criminal penalties for Lex
passed in an assembly. Nulla poena / Nullum crimen sine lege, no
punishment/ no crime without a statute, is an ancient rule of roman law.
3. The power of the Senate to issue senatus consulta binding citizens
generally should be reserved for temporary and/ or emergency action when
calling one of the Comitia is not practical.
4. While, in Roma Antiqua, curule magistrates generally had the power
to issue edicta, we actually only know of 3 types which made law: the edict
of the urban praetor, which established remedies in civil litigation
between roman citizens and as such made private law; the edict of the
peregrine praetor, which established remedies in civil litigation between
foreign residents and roman citizens in parallel to and sometimes slightly
different from the urban praetor's rules; and the edicts of the aediles,
which regulated markets, consumer protection and associated matters.
I would therefore suggest that the power of the higher magistrates
to issue edicta should be tightened up to (a) eliminate the power to impose
criminal penalties, and (b) focus on the limited purposes for which the
power is given.
This leads into
B) Magistrates
The tasks of the Censors, Aediles and Quaestors are sufficiently clearly
defined in Germanicus' latest version. This leaves Consuls and Praetors.
1. Consuls are responsible for defence, foreign affairs and internal
security (not that we have much of these) and for convening the Comitia for
elections, etc.
2. Praetors are responsible for civil justice and private law, and for
presiding over comitia or juries for criminal trials.
Neither of these are actually very big jobs for NR. E.g. Sulla and I stand
ready to hear any citizens who want to sue each other under roman law (I am
in process of drafting some civil procedure rules...) ... not much demand
yet :). It might help if we did some research about which magistrates had
to conduct which public sacrifices (i.e., for moderns, ceremonies) at which
festivals and occasions. Part of the point of NR is to develop the
religious aspect of its public life. ...
Vale,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
De magistratuum labore |
| From: |
"RMerullo" rmerullo@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:51:33 -0400 |
|
Salvete Omnes
Some of the posts on the recent thread on the chain of command seem to me to
presume that magistrates will be in perpetual conflict. The calls for more
definition of the office of consul, the emphasis on clarifying seniority of
consuls vs. censors, flowcharts, et cetera...
On a practical note, Article IV of the constitution could be changed
slightly, such that the definition of each office's power of intercessio
could include, rather than the phrase "or magistrate of lesser authority" a
list of all magistrates whose actions can be vetoed. As an example, for the
office of Consul:
d. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against another consul,
praetor, aedile or governor;
On a more general note, are we going to be looking to impose a veto on each
other's actions?
I think that intercessio was an important power of Roman magistrates, and we
should have it here. But these offices shouldn't be about who can veto
whose actions.
In the Germanican constitution, as in Republican Rome, the consuls have
power of intercessio over most of the other magistrates (exceptions being
tribunes and censors, right?). That means that, in order for the
magistrates generally to do anything, they will have to report to the
consuls to the extent that the consuls require it.
We're not a large organization. We shouldn't need a flowchart explaining
the hiearchy of magistrates. The consuls are the chief executives, the
bosses if you will. If we elect to the office of consul people who are
veto-happy and power-hungry, we're through. If we elect to lesser offices
people who cannot or will not cooperate with "normal" (ones that don't
micromanage and veto everything before them) consuls, then we'll certainly
suffer some setbacks and move forward very slowly if at all.
I think that a coherent legal basis for Nova Roma is of the utmost
importance, and I would like to thank Germanicus for all the work that he is
putting into doing just that. I further thank him for replying to most of
my comments, even though many of my comments have disagreed with certain
points of his laws, and even though he clearly has a lot of other things to
do.
Even more important than the legal basis, however, is a spirit of
cooperation. Before any of us runs for an office, he/she should consider
whether he/she is prepared really to cooperate with other people --
reporting to superiors, assigning tasks to subordinates and consulting
colleagues to exchange views on operational issues. If one cannot do that,
why bother?
Valete
Gaius Marius Merullus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Website Access |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@--------) |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:47:42 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve, Vado;
I would like to have the information for the Eagle that you offer. It
will make up a part of the backlog, to be used as there is space for it
in the newsletter. In that respect it would eventually all get to the
citizens, and it would assist in the constant problem of filling pages
with articles..
Vale, Citizen Vado;
Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: law: Inner consistency |
| From: |
SFP55@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:47:30 EDT |
|
In a message dated 7/26/1999 2:21:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a> writes:
<< The ancient romans used only Conc. Plebis, leaving C. Tributa for
elections only; the roman law books don't say why, but my guess is, because
Conc. Plebis was convened by tribunes and as such less liable to disruption
by vetoes than C. Tributa. My guess would be that NR will in practice use
C.Tributa, leaving Conc. Plebis for
elections only.<<
Salve Praetor M. Mucius Scaevola.
I would agree with on many of your points, except the different Com. rose and
fall in importance depending on the period. Since we never are sure what
period we attempting to emulate, I agree that the Tribunate should be the
watchdogs for the people.
>>I would reserve all legislation carrying criminal penalties for Lex
passed in an assembly. Nulla poena / Nullum crimen sine lege, no
punishment/ no crime without a statute, is an ancient rule of roman law.<<
Which will lead us back to the table of XII. Except we don't have one.
>>3. The power of the Senate to issue senatus consulta binding citizens
generally should be reserved for temporary and/ or emergency action when
calling one of the Comitia is not practical.<<
Presumable the Assemblies will be summoned by e-mail? How long would you see
a response time to be. OR would you be in favor of seeing the Assemblies
convened
by a certain date seasonally In the spring and in the fall?
>> I would therefore suggest that the power of the higher magistrates
to issue edicta should be tightened up to (a) eliminate the power to impose
criminal penalties, and (b) focus on the limited purposes for which the
power is given.<<
Very sensible.
>> 1. Consuls are responsible for defense, foreign affairs and internal
security (not that we have much of these) and for convening the Comitia for
elections, etc. <<
Their first duty was to summon the Senate. They also were expected to lead
armies, etc.
>> 2. Praetors are responsible for civil justice and private law, and for
presiding over comitia or juries for criminal trials.<<
Our Praetors also act as provincial governors, ambassadors of NR good will,
and foreign emissaries.
Good points raised though. I'm sure Flavius Vedius will take heed.
Vale,
Q. Fabius Maximus
|
| Subject: |
Re: Website Access |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:19:59 -0400 |
|
Salve,
> From: "Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
>
> Salvete, populares:
>
> Recently I sent a list of prayers and oaths, in Latin and English, which I
> culled from the plays of Plautus, to Gangalius as Custos Araneum, asking
> him, if he thought them suitable, to add them to the Pantheon page.
>
> He told me, regretfully, that he couldn't, as he had been denied write
> access to the website of which he is magister.
>
> To whom should cives submit their work now, for consideration for its
> inclusion on the website, if not to the Web Master?
While this has been the de facto case since the Interregnum, I suppose the
time has come to make it official. As legally appointed Dictator, I hereby
declare that Marcus Martianus Gangalius is no longer web master of the
official Nova Roma web site. I hereby assume the office of curator araneum
through the end of the year.
I do this for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that I, as
censor, am in the process of developing a web-based database application to
facilitate the smooth functioning of the censors' office, linking it to the
online application form. It's going to be a lot of work, but hopefully it'll
make the job of future censors a whole lot easier. Holding the office of web
master will really help with this task. (I should say I intend to step down
come December, and the post will be taken by whoever gets elected.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
| Subject: |
Senate Membership |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:34:17 -0400 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
As legally appointed dictator of Nova Roma, I hereby declare that the album
senatus shall consist of the following individuals:
Caius Aelius Ericius
Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Marcus Cassius Iulianus
Gaius Drusus Domitianus
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Minervina Iucundia Flavia
Decius Iunius Palladius
Marcus Mucius Scaevola Magister
Gaius Triumphius Cicero
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
This edictum supercedes all others pertaining to Senatorial appointments and
previous enrollment status.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus
|
| Subject: |
Senate Membership Addendum |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" germanicus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:48:46 -0400 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla is hereby added to the album senatorium. His omission
from the previous list was an error on my part.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Dictator
|
