Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: [SodalitasMilitarium] Proposal for an unoffical Roman Day gathering of as many NR citizens as possible
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:34:08 -0400 (EDT)


Subject:	[novaroma] Real live NR event
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:39:54 -0000

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/8/_/61050/_/968377204/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Once again I wish to invite all Nova Roman Citizens to attend the
Nova
Britannia gathering being planned for Oct. 14-15 in Maine. We have
reserved a lovely hall, but so far the numbers are such that we could
meet equally well in the Cassian living room.

If you have any questions, or would like to attend, please let me
know
as soon as possible, as I must make a decision on whether or not to
rent the hall.

Patricia Cassia


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Proposal for an unoffical Roman Day gathering of as many NR citizens as possible
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:38:45 -0600


Subject:	[novaroma] Proposal for an Unofficial Nova Roma Gathering
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <trog99@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:52:43 GMT


Subject:	[novaroma] "Roman Times" at Pennsic in 2001?
From:	"LegionXXIV" <legionXXIV@-------->
Date:	Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:05:25 -0400

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/8/_/61050/_/968382131/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

VICESIMA - QUARTA
LEGION XXIV - MEDIA - ATLANTIA

* PROVINCIA PENNSYLVANIA *
* MEDIA - ATLANTICA * AMERICIA *

Defending the Frontiers of Ancient Rome
in the Mid - Atlantic Province
of North America

September 8, 2000
Year of Rome 2753

Ave et Salutatio... Commilitonis

Hello and Greetings from Gallio Velius Marsallas,
Praefectus, Legio XXIV Media-Atlantia;
Tribune Militaris - NovaRoma - Gens Velia
aka George W. Metz
13 Post Run Newtown Square, PA 19073-3014
legionxxiv@-------- 610-353-4982
http://www.legionxxiv.org

Want a big event for a roman gathering?
How about Pennsic War at New Castle, PA.
This event will take place for two weeks from
August 3rd into the 18th in 2001.
There were over 10,000 registered in 2000.
It is a SCA battle event dealing mostly with medieval
time; but there is a Roman-Spartan contingent that is
growing. There were several siege engines in use,
including a historical researched Greek ballista that
was throwing 3 pound balls over 200 yards!
See it at http://www.legionxxiv.org/lrgballistacrew

I have attended for the last two years and had
a great time. The Coopers Lake Campground literally
becomes a small town with named streets, a transit
system, camp facades, shopping plazas, bazaars and
food courts.
The individual groups hold their own "courts" and feasts
or join with others for wine, food and song around their
camp fires.

On Wednesday Evening in the second week, Darkyard,
a Roman theme fighting unit, stages a parade through
the encampment. There were 34 marchers this year,
many in good Roman legionary attire. The Aquila, Vexillum
and Signum of Legion XXIV led the unit during the march.
Last year there was a cornu (tuba-horn) blaring and drum
beating cadence as we marched.
It was the most exciting Roman event I have participated in,
and the most Romans I have been with at any one time.
Legion XXIV had two members there in 2000 and 2001.
Most of the activities and battles take place during the second
week on Wednesday into Saturday; which is when we attend.
There are activities in the evening as well.

NovaRoma could acquire a land allocation and have one heck
of a get together. The campground is near the junction of
I-79 and US 422, 10 miles east of New Castle in far western
PA, north of Pittsburgh. It would be fairly central for the east
coast and east central states. It is not cheap, costing about
$90.00 to attend for any part of the second week.

Most people camp in tents; however motels are available about
10 miles away. Most everything is available on-site and there is
little reason to leave the encampment once you are in character
and costume. Provisions for parking campers is also provided.

True, we would not have our own all-Roman event; but what
about being among and observed by thousands of other
reenactors who are in the frame of mind and character?

Who is with me and Legion XXIV for "Roman Times" at
Pennsic-30 in August of 2001?

Let's talk about it and then start planning. Now is not too early!

Check out our Website http://www.legionxxiv.org
It is loaded with links to other roman legions, suppliers
and contacts, along with historical roman organizations
and data on equipment. Our "Links" pages,
"Roman Names" page, "Glossary" and "TimeLines"
are quite comprehensive, along with a
Photo Gallery thru Time. Take a look.

I remain, as always,
(take your pick)

Tuus in Sodalicio Imperium Romanae
Yours in the Comradeship of the Roman Empire

Tuus in Sodalicio Respublica Romanae
Yours in the Comradeship of the Roman Republic

Gallio / George

-----Original Message-----
From: jmath669642reng@-------- <jmath669642reng@-------->
To: SodalitasMilitarium@-------- <SodalitasMilitarium@-------->
Cc: Legio_VI@-------- <Legio_VI@-------->; novaroma@--------
<novaroma@-------->; COHORTES_EQUITATAE@--------
<COHORTES_EQUITATAE@-------->; SodalitasMilitarium@--------
<SodalitasMilitarium@-------->
Date: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [SodalitasMilitarium] Proposal for an unoffical Roman Day
gathering of as many NR citizens as possible


Subject:	[novaroma] for novaroman citizens from Argentina ( in spanish)
From:	"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 03:51:10 -0000


Subject:	[novaroma] Roma and Liberty
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 06:49:16 +0200

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Tired of searching for an apartment? Try Viva! It's fast and free.
Now serving Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, Denver and Las Vegas.
Rent by September 30th - get $100 cash!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9154/8/_/61050/_/968388569/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete Omnes!

I would like to thank Piscinus for his memorable post on the
real reasons why Rome is a name worthy of love and respect by all who
love humanity and freedom. It is not because of Rome's power, for
many empires have shown impressive-enough power, but for the strides
Rome made at developing the legal and institutional bases for human
freedom and dignity - and for the generous incorporation of outsiders
into this tradition. (Despite the Social War.)

Rome's is a story of the aristocracy and people's throwing off
the yoke of more-or-less absolute monarchy and installing collegial
magistracies to control the personal whims of individual
office-holders, and *then* of the common people's demanding and
progressively getting rights and freedoms in the state. All of this
being accompanied by a development of jurisprudence so impressive
that it forms the basis for most law in the world today outside the
anglophone countries, as it strongly influenced modern Japanese and
Chinese law on its merits, as well as being introduced by non-Anglic
European colonial empires into other regions of the world..

The tragedy and almost paradox of Rome's story is that after a
touch-and-go period in fighting the Punic Wars, She emerged
victorious, but also changed. Changed socially, militarily,
economically, and in Her foreign relations. The battles She waged
took in the whole Mediterranean world - but in forging the bulk of
Her empire with the last energies of the Republic Her people lost
their antique freedoms. Iulius as the great victor over all rivals
drew supreme power unto himself, and Augustus did so definitively,
ending the Republic as a true respublica libera and creating the
Principate. Essentially, perhaps, because there was a huge empire to
be held, and in times of crisis it is natural to give great powers to
the war-leader. Rome had a tiger by the tail and neither wanted to
let go nor, perhaps, dared. Having a "world" empire is not to be
lightly despised. Even less so is peace. Still, something precious
had been lost at home.

But I do not agree in calling this new system "fascistic". That
is a term which has been created to describe certain political
developments of our own century and depends for its complete
characterisation on the context of the modern nation-state. To apply
it to ancient civilisations is impressionistic, not scientific.

The Principate was authoritarian and even a dictatorship in the
modern sense, but it was not "fascistic". There was mostly rule of
law, there was mostly genuine public support, honourable men did not
feel it unworthy to serve the princeps, and if the Republic had been
restored in its old form, it is not obvious how the citizens and
non-citizens outside of Rome would have benefitted very much, since
there had never been provision for voting for those unable to come to
the comitia in person, even when they had the right to do so as
citizens.

But were the people of the empire eternally subjugated by Roman
arms? In the time of Trajan there were thirty legions. If we count a
legion as six thousand men, that means 120,000 first-class men under
arms, plus more auxiliaries probably not better than an insurgent
could have collected. Almost all of the first-class troops and very
many of the auxiliary forces were permanently stationed on the
borders to defend everyone alike from real threats of foreign
invasion. With a total population of perhaps 70 million people,
presumably the small fraction of one percent in the armed forces,
most tied down at the limes, simply does not bear out the idea that
this was basically a "military dictatorship". One is forced to
conclude that the Imperium Romanum was, by and large, *popular*.

Why was this? Outside of Italy and real Roman colonies most
lands and cities were *conquered*, were they not? Well, consider the
alternatives. For areas previously under native monarchs or
not-so-native Hellenistic monarchs, the Imperium provided another
monarch of greater prestige. One who provided better administrative
skills and very good protection indeed from one's unfriendly
neighbours without even the need to fight for it if one did not want
to join the army. To ancient city-states with a more-or-less
"democratic" tradition she offered indeed a certain real reduction in
freedom, but we must remember, that republican self-government was
the norm in internal matters. Athens, for example, twice rejected
proposals that gladiatorial games be established there as alien to
Her values, and they never were.

It is true that the princeps might do something untoward to a
given local community or individual, but the same princeps was also a
font of justice - as the case of the Christian Paul shows. And the
fact that he was allowed to live in his own rented house in Rome, do
his preaching freely while there, and be duly released at the end of
two years for lack of accusers according to the relevant Roman law,
clearly shows the advantages of being able to get out of an
unfriendly local jurisdiction.

There was also for a long time, until the Dominate, the
lingering feeling that somehow the Republic had been more the ideal
Roman government, and a princeps a necessary, but *not* ideal
imposition. This feeling, and not only love for tradition, kept the
old forms of respect for the Senate and prestige for the old
magistracies going for a long time, and the princeps was praised and
loved when he acted most like a modest private (upper-class) citizen.

I do not wish to create an unreal picture that is all sweetness
and light. Although the Roman Imperium enjoyed its emperors of the
most exceptional humanity and talent, it also suffered from some of
the worst monsters to take and keep great power in any civilised
place at any point in human history. The lack of a definite and
orderly mechanisms for passing on the authority of the princeps to
some suitable successor caused chaos all too often. Modern democratic
government does better most of what the Romans did in government -
but the only reason why this is possible is because we stand on the
shoulders of many generations of Romans who struggled for an open
society, for government by consent, for the sharing of powers by all
classes, for justice under law - and who were willing to share the
highly-desired results of this activity with others until the bulk of
the civilised and civilisable world known to them shared in those
still remaining and could call themselves - proudly - Romans.

It is for these things, and not for just conquering and holding
an empire any old way, that we still feel inspired by Rome.

But even if the Principate was not fascist and the Dominate a
time of such deep-seated structural troubles that almost anything
might be conceded as justifiable emergency measures, we have done
very well in Nova Roma to model ourselves on the Republic, the
Respublica Libera, when the holding of a great empire and the
squabbles of over-ambitious men marching even on Rome Herself with
Roman legions had not yet destroyed her hard-won freedoms.

Valete!


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Constitutional questions
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:59:09 -0700

Sulla: Ok Folks this is going to be a long one....if you arent interested, then,
you might want to delete this now.

> Salvete Quiribus
>
> Sulla Scripsit:
> >>Ave, here is the relevant law. Under the Lex Vedia, "II. Any individual
> elected to the office of curule aedile or appointed to the office of
> provincial governor may, at the discretion of the censors, be included in the
> album Senatorum six months after assuming office (assuming that the
> individual was not already a member of the Senate)." Now, the key here is
> the discretion of the Censors. The Censors are the individuals who add and
> remove Senators from the Album. Therefore the recommendation from the
> Senate as to who they recommend is just that. A recommendation. >>
>
> Respondo:
> First, you have only reemphasized the point I had made in my earlier
> post. The censor's duty to enter names in albums does not equate with any
> power allowing them to withhold approval.

Sulla: Actually no I didnt, what I did was quote the relevant passage that
pertains to the issue that you have raised. And, again, the relevant statement
there is "at the discretion of the Censors." So, I have pulled out my Law
Dictionary, and here is the legal defination of discretion, "n. the power of a
judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract,
trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion
within general legal guidelines. Examples: a) a judge may have discretion as to
the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; b) a trustee
or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the
beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; c) a District
Attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of
one year) or felony; d) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or e) a
planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to
a zoning ordinance." Keep in mind that the examples are in American law but the
emphasis is the same. Also, is another definition of discretion, "discretion
noun [U]
choice, or the right to make a choice, based on judgment
Troopers have discretion in deciding whom to stop for speeding.
Whether or not to hold the meeting is at the discretion of the president (= a
decision to be made by the president)." This is taken from Cambridge online
dictionary.

> If you look in the Album Civis and
> notice that a citizen of voting age has not been assigned to a tribe or
> century does that mean the censor has withheld that citizen's right to vote?

Sulla: In the example you cited above, the album civium example the answer of
course would be NO. Becuase that process is clearly spelled out in the
Constituion. However, there is a maybe answer, that my colleague and I are
trying to resolve if in the event a citizen is under 18 years old! But, given
you spelled out generalities. The general answer would be no. It is the duty of
the Censors to put all citizens in Tribes and Centuries. How, that is done, is
again at the discretion of the Censors! :) There are some guidelines to assist
the Censors in this process.

>
> After all, Lex Vedia Centuriata, Sect II.A stipulates that "new citizens
> shall be entered into their respective centuries as they join." But by not
> assigning a new citizen to a century upon entry the censor would not only be
> negligent in their duty, by what you claim, he would also be usurping a power
> he does not possess under the Constitution.

Sulla: No, see you are mistaken, that process is spelled out. But, the
discretion in this situation again lies with just how the new citizen is placed
in the Century, or in his Tribal Placement. So, now you see just how the
discretion works. The Constiution gives guidelines, and the fact that in the
example you gave, the fact that each citizen will be placed in tribes and
centuries. But how that implementation is carried it is at the discretion of the
Censors.

> Would not such a usurpation of
> authority need to come under judicial review as to the constitutionality of
> such an improper action?
> The part of the Lex Vedia Senatoria you quote is section II. This is a
> section, meo animo, that requires some reconsideration. What it allows is
> for two individuals, as censors, to stack the Senate with their own
> candidates, without recourse to any other authority. This is an extremely
> dangerous aspect to Lex Vedia Senatorium which should have been reviewed
> against the Constitutional provisions.

Sulla: I believe the likelyhood of that happening is very slim. Possible but
slim. Given that there should be 2 magistrates in office there is that built in
Check of the dual magistracy system. As per the review of the Lex Vedia
Senatoria, I believe it is adequate as it is. It gives 3 ways individual can
enter the Senate. Election to office a senior magistracy, election to a lower
magisistracy (in which those magistrates can petition the Censors directly) after
holding office for 6 months, and finally, Senatorial recommenadation (upon Censor
approval). Therefore the Lex gives ample avenues for citizens who want to get in
the Senate the means to do so.

>
> As I point out in my first post, the Lex Vedia Senatorium provides three
> ways for cives to be elevated to the Senate. By election in the Comitia
> Centuriata, by the Censors, and by the Senate itself. The section of concern
> here is section III. It is not just a recommendation, it is a *nomination*
> which implies some election. In the context of the Lex that election takes
> place in the Senate as this provision is precisely for the Senate to elevate
> cives into its own body. What you are suggesting converts a censor's duty to
> serve the state to a power to over rule it.
>

Sulla: Actually no. Reference my above defininition of discretion. The Lex
gives the discretion to the Censors.

>
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>Actually, in my opinion, the word maintain is further defined by the Lex
> Vedia. The Lex Vedia clarifies the roles of the Censors in this matter. As
> stated in the Websters Dictionary, "to keep in and existing state." Also, "to
> uphold and defend a current position" and "to continue or preserve in." So,
> while the Constitution provides the broad brush strokes, the Lex Vedia
> clarifies for the Censors exactly how we do our duty.>>
>
> Respondo:
> Everything you have quoted here pertains to the censors' obligation to
> perform a duty. Doing one's duty is NOT the same as having a power bestowed
> on you. Maintain=to keep=to coninue=to preserve. Where does it say here
> that you as censor have the power to over rule the Senate and the people?

Sulla: Read the Lex Vedia and then read the legal defination of Discretion!
Besides who is overruling the Seante and People. The People have not been
involved execpt for the fact that the People elected both Censors! As magistrates
of Nova Roma both my colleague and I are doing our duty and using the authority
given to us by the laws of Nova Roma.

>
> I agree the Lex Vedia Senatorium, Sect. III refers to the DUTY you are to
> perform, but it does not grant you a power to exercise. You seem unable to
> distinguish the difference.
>

Sulla: Read the legal defination of discretion.

>
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>As for your final part on this. Just who are you referring too Gnaeus
> Moravius?
>
> Respondo:
> Too? As in more than one? No, I think it has already been shown that it
> would require only one individual usurping powers and authority through
> misinterpretation of the constitution to cause a governmental impasse
>

Sulla: No, just who are you referring to! Who are you implying when you say one
individual is/shall be/or will be usurping powers and authority. There is only a
choice between C. Marius Merullus and myself. So, which one of us?

>
> Sulla Scripsit:
> >>Censors are acting Constitutional, we are both communicating on this
> matter. For you to suggest otherwise is interesting. Just what are you
> trying to say? Are you grandstanding to the People to gather potential votes?
> Or are you just acting as a demogague? Or are you suggestiong that you
> are going to create a Constitutional Crises if you dont get your way? I
> see, if you dont get your way, you are going to create a Constitutional
> Crises.
>
> Respond:
> No, you are not acting in a constitutional manner when you assume a power
> you do not have, nor is it constitutional when you act under an edictum, or
> even a lex that conflicts with the Constitution.

Sulla: Again, I totally disagree with you. Once again, I refer you to the
defination of discretion.

>
> Do I have an ability at creating a constitutional crisis? Does it so
> frighten you that a lone civis who does not hold any government office should
> being asking questions? Where do you find the potential danger of a
> constitutional crisis?

Sulla: How convinent for you to evade the question. Once again, just what do
you intend to do if you do not get your way? And, just to answer your first
question, I have no idea about your ability to create a Constitutional Crises.
As per your second question, No, asking questions are fine and very educational
to me as much as it is to other citizens. Being accused of acting maliciously or
out of personal spite is an entirely different animal. As for your third
question, I honestly dont know....yet.

>
> Interesting you should use the word demagogue. When a citizen begins to ask
> questions, points out potential problems and concerns, you refer to them as a
> demagogue? And if a citizen asserts his or her other rights what do you call
> them?
>

Sulla: Actually no, when a citizen comes with a question I try to be one of the
first to respond. However, you have already accused one of the Censors of
usurping Constitutional Authority and to this date have failed to mention which
one. Added to the fact that there has been no decision by the Censors in regards
to this very issue. So, again I ask my question to you again, what do you intend
to do if you do not get your way? As a Senior Magistrate and Senator of Nova
Roma, I am concerned.

>
> Moravius scripsit:
> >>If that is the case then what body is to rule when there becomes a conflict
> of interpretation, as to whether or not a question is constitutional?
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>I think this would be a question for our Praetors? Dont you?
> Moravius scripsit:
> >>What body rules on whether a magisterial edictum is constitutional or not?
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>Well, I think you might need to read the Constitution, becuase it states it
> quite clearly there
> Moravius scripsit:
> >> Where is the provision to enforce the Constitution as the *highest legal
> authority*?
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>Again, I think you need to read the Constitution.
>
> Respondo:
> I think it is you, Sulla, who needs to read the Constitution. Praetors
> do not have it in their purview that (Sect. I.A) "all leges (laws) passed by
> the comitia, decreta (decrees) of the priestly collegia, magisterial edicta
> (edicts) and Senatus consulta" should be subject to their judicial review.

Sulla: No, I have read it many times and I have referred to it when I am
responding. But I do have a question for you. Just where does it say in the
Constitution anything about Judicial Review? I am very interested in this.
Since Judicial Review was established in the United States by the case of Marbury
v. Madison (1803). And, Judicial Review is not even in the US Constitution.

>
> My question still stands unanswered. To ensure the provision (I.B) by which
> the Constitution is made *the highest legal authority within Nova Roma*, what
> body has the responsibility of judicial review?

Sulla: Again, to my knowledge there is no Judicial Review. There isnt anything
in the Constitution elluding to it. According to, Roman Law by Hans Julius
Wolff, the Praetors are the ones responsible for the administration of justice.
And, it was that role to what I was posting about earlier. As apart of the
administration of justice, the Praetors would have to be knowledgable about Roman
Law, and know when it does and does not apply. And be able to implement it when
needed.

>
> If there wasn't such a provision, or if there is not a comitia or other
> panel to enforce it, then any fool who could attained office could start
> issuing a whole series of edicts contrary to the Constitution, and in the
> name of Nova Roma.

Sulla: I disagree with that, Nova Roma just as in ancient Rome has a number of
built in checks to prevent that from happening. We have seen magistrates veto
the acts of other magistrates. And on top of that, an edicta is easily
overturned. As it is the lowest form of law in Nova Roma.

> What I pointed out in my previous post is that if we had
> to rely on other magistrates attempting to veto them, and then move back and
> forth in a continuous sequence of edicta and intercessi, this would cause a
> disruption of efficient governance There is the true potential of a
> Constitutional crises, Sulla.

Sulla: Again, I disagree, for a number of reasons. First as I stated before
Magistrates have a number of checks. Secondly, there is the veto. Thirdly, a
number of vetos have been exercised and to the credit to the government of Nova
Roma there as been NO disruption of efficent governance. Finally, if that
magistrates wants to continue his/her political career they will take the
response of the People in due stride before the implement controversial laws.

> There is the true threat of future
> demagoguery; not by a citizen exercising his rights, but by a magistrate
> usurping authority through a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Sulla: I disagree, the primary reason why I disagree on this is the dual
magistracy system that Ancient Rome had that we have reimplemented in Nova Roma.
That would serve as a primary check on any attempt at demagoguery of a
magistrate. Then if that is not sufficent there is the veto powers of other
higher magistrates.

> I would also suggest that whatever body we elect to have empowered with
> such a responsibility of judicial review also be consulted before submitting
> a lex or edictum. First to give it a constitutional review, and secondly to
> ensure that the wording is clear. Make that part of the legislative
> precedents to avoid judicial review as much as possible.
>

Sulla: Again, Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. Therefore, in my
opinion, that would create a major Constitutional Change in and of itself. Is it
something we should consider, Sure, and I hope that some of our better legal
experts might want to give some input in this matter.

>
> Moravius scripsit:
> >>A series of edicta and intercessi? And when it reaches the highest
> magistrate(s) and still conflicts with the Constitution, what practical
> provision is there to resolve the problem?
> Sulla scripsit
> >>What exactly are you referring too? No one has a conflict with the
> Constitution. And, for example if I am seeking clarification in regards to
> the Constitution I refer to the Praetors who interprete the Consitution, as
> cited in (IV, A, 3, b) under the terms administer the law
>
> Respondo:
> Praetors do not have the power of judicial review of constitutional
> questions. What Sect. IV.A.3.b refers to in administering law does not extend
> their purview to interpret the law beyond that of any other magistrate.
> Although you might ask their advise, or that of anyone else, they do not have
> constitutional authority to rule on the any measure's constitutionality.
> Also Praetors do not have authority to over rule a higher magistrate, nor the
> right of intercesso over actions of any comitiae, the Senate or Collegium
> Pontifici. Read the Constitution.
>

Sulla: First off, you never mentioned Judicial Review. Secondly if you have
read the Constiuttion or done a search in the Constitution for Judicial Reivew
you would have realized its NOT THERE. Therefore you need to read the
Constitution.

>
> Moravius scripsit:
> >>Is the only practical solution allowed in Nova Roma to either invest the
> consuls with absolute powers or to appoint a dictator? Is there to be no
> rule of law in Nova Roma then?
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>I believe there is consistent rule of law in Nova Roma. We have proven
> that by our transition of power from Consuls to Consul and by fostering this
> stable government since our Noble Dictator Flavius Vedius Germancius.
>
> Respondo:
> That is only your opinion.

Sulla: Your absolutely correct, my opinion as Censor, Consular and Seantor, et
al! And as one who has been a citizen of Nova Roma since its first day!

> The Archives tell a very different story.
> Having an attempted coup does not bespeak a stable government.

Sulla: Even the United States had trouble with its first government under the
Article of Confederation, then with various mutinies. But look at it now. A
very stable Government. I believe that Nova Roma is on that path too. Since the
implementation of the Vedian Constitution there has been no serious political
issue that threatens Nova Roma anywhere near the extent as the Constitutional
Crises in the Summer of 99.

> Resorting to
> a dictator to restore order out of a constitutional crisis does not display a
> stable government.

Sulla: In this I do disagree. Here, the old Senate did something very
distasteful, in that I mean appoint a Dictator, invalidate the first election and
completely overhaul the entire government. Then, once it is done, to have our
first elections? Peacefully with little issues resulting from it. Also, I would
say that another major test was the transition from the Consulship of Decius
Iunius and myself to Consuls Q.Fabius and Marcus Municius was also a major
accomplishment in establishing a stable government.

> The appointment of magistrates by a dictator is not a
> smooth transition fostering a stable government.

Sulla: Acutally, you can view this in two ways. Flavius Vedius negated the
elections, BUT he maintained the officials who were appointed in that negated
position. He as Dictator didnt have to, but again, he had the ultimate authority
to decide. Of course the other way to view it is yours. But consider this,
since that time have we needed a Dictator since? Despite the fact that we have
gone through 3 elections.

> All that has happened thus
> far is one election since the dictator handed down the Constitution.

Sulla: Nope your wrong. 3 Elections have occured. Let me break them down for
you since you have not been in NR that long:

1st election - Was when I was elected Consul. I was the first truly elected
magistrate in Nova Roma.
2nd election - Was the December election that Decius Iunius and I oversaw in
which elected most of the magistrates in Nova Roma who are currently serving.
3rd election - Was the election that took place in April that elected C. Marius
Merullus as my colleague, and M. Octavius as Curule Aedile.

> There
> are still a few things to be worked out here before you can claim Nova Roma
> is a stable government.

Sulla: I think everyday NR continues to operate adds increased validity in Nova
Roma's stable government. And while I agree there is alot to do, we are doing
better now than we did when NR first started back in March 98.

>
> The only point I have been making is that all of us, omnis cives Novae
> Romae, should be looking at how the government is structured under this
> Constitution. Do you find such a discussion by free citizens on how they are
> to be governed a form of demagoguery?

Sulla: Absolutely not. I love political discussions because I learn alot from
them. My issue is accusations. You have accused when clearly no action has been
done either way.

>
> Moravius scripsit:
> >>Clarissimi viri, there is such a thing as carrying tradition a little too
> far. Lack of consideration of the consequences of ill defined
> constitutional provisions for a modern organization I would regard as such an
> instance.
> Sulla scripsit:
> >>Its interesting you say that. I think tradition is one of the foundation
> blocks of Nova Roma. Just as it was in ancient Rome. Consider exactly
> what we are doing. We are trying to rebuild a society and government that
> has ceased to exist for almost 1500 to 2000 years (depending on if you are an
> Imperialist or a Republican). Ancient Rome followed tradition just as much
> as they followed laws. And, when we dont have laws to dictate our action one
> of our ways to interpret our actions is to view tradition. Even in legal
> theory, using the intent of the Fathers (in American Law) is a mode of
> interpretation of the law. (American Constitutional Law, 10ed). Therefor
> I do disagree with you.
>
> Respondo:
> Yes, consider exactly what you are saying here. Government institutions
> are defined by the society they serve. It is not the other way around. If
> you think that one individual, be he Dictator or a Dungeon Master, handing
> down some outline forms a society you are gravely mistaken. We are an
> international community of free citizens brought together through modern
> technology. Reference to American Constitutional law is rather meaningless
> here, first because it does not have to do with ancient Rome, and secondly
> because we are an international organization. On the other hand, since Nova
> Roma was incorporated in NH, you might want to have the bylaws reviewed
> against American corporate laws, which may significantly revise the
> Constitution.

Sulla: The reference of American Constitutional Law was simply to illustrate the
validtiy of going back to the intent of the fathers as a valid form of legal
analysis. Clearly you didnt get that. But thats ok!

>
> If you think you are trying to revive ancient society then consider
> exactly what you are saying. Are you suggesting as Festus did that women
> should have their rights revokes? Deny women the right to hold office, to
> vote, to even be citizens? Shall our children become subject to manus?
> Perhaps you believe we should revive the practice of exposing our unwanted or
> orphaned children? Slavery? No, I do not think that is what you meant to
> say. And if that is not the kind of society we are building then why should
> we restrict ourselves to the kinds of institutions such a society did have?
> Those institutions did not even save the Republic you are attempting to
> emulate.

Sulla: ROFL its amazing how when someone brings up the fact of viewing tradition
and the way the ancients thought, people who try to score points bring up these
issues of Woman and slavery. Really Gnaeus Moravius, have you read the Faq? Or
even the first page of the website. Have you even looked at the Album Civium or
Album Senatorium. I think that any of those sources would answer your question,
because I wont....

>
> Tradition is a body of practices and beliefs held in consensus among the
> members of a society. Tradition is built up over a long period of time; it
> is not imposed. Tradition is composed of shared values that arise from all
> people within the society; it is not handed down from above by one
> individual. We may be looking back to ancient Rome for examples, as the
> American Founding Fathers had over two-hundred years ago, but we are building
> our own tradition, just as they also did. Every action, and every inaction,
> performed today sets a precedent for what tomorrow's Nova Roma tradition will
> be. Discussion, conferencing, dialogue and review is how to build a
> tradition in the nature of the society we now possess.

Sulla: I agree and with that you have taken my position. Tradition will evolve
incrementally. But, one of the foundation blocks of tradition is the ancient.

>
> In less than a year, since you became censor, the population of Nova Roma
> has nearly doubled, and it is going to continue to grow exponentially.

Sulla: yes I am aware considering the fact that since I became Censor I have
approved 159 citizens.

>
> Whether you care to overlook it or not, Nova Roma has already changed. It is
> no longer the role playing game you seem to envision it to be.

Sulla: Oh how interesting, NR a role playing game? I am sure you dont remember
when I resigned. When I very emotionally accused NR of being a RPG. I would not
spend 5 hours a nite doing Censor work if I thought NR was a RPG. During the
month of April when I had no Censor Colleague and I had to prepare for the
elections, getting citizens in Tribal placements, Century Placements and voter
codes, AS WELL As my regular Censor Duties. I hardly slept that month. I tell
you here and now. I would never have done that if NR was a RPG. Nor do I think
most of the magistrates who serve NR currently would do so if NR was a RPG. So I
think you need to modify your statement a bit.

> Nova Roma has
> taken on a life of its own. Either it adjusts to that concept and reflects
> the society it is beginning to form or it will become just a game we all once
> played. Someone wrote a post saying they would prefer a group of only 100
> cives who all shared his common view of Nova Roma. Well, today Nova Roma
> already has over 500 members, and next year will likely have over 2000 cives.
> Dictatorial methods, poor organization and lack of communication is not
> going to hold such a community together. And the choice as to what kind of
> community we shall have, now and in the future, is a matter for all of us to
> discuss.

Sulla: I dont see any dictatorial methods, or poor organization or for that
matter lack of communication. I see a functioning nation that is constantly
evolving and changing with every new citizen we get. But if NR will continue to
grow and develop it will be because of all of its citizens not just the
magistrates.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Subject:	[novaroma] Proposal part II, of what I think will become a long discussion
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 07 Sep 2000 19:05:48 EDT

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Click for more information on how eGroups members save with beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8050/8/_/61050/_/968419428/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salve all.

Well, I have been asked where I think would be good, etc...

Perhaps we could look for somewhere in the middle of the US...??? we could
just say the geographic middle and that's it. no matter where that is.

I would suggest NY we have two nice cities that have pretty good names for
the sake of our nation "Syracuse and ROME!!!" (bet you didn't know we had
these did you??? ;)

Anyway,

Round 2 "DING"

Vale

ATR

Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus
Praefectus Legionis & Tribuni Militum,
Legio VI of the Northern Army
& Cornicularius,Sodalitas Militarium et Nova Roma

"Nos Sumus Romae milites, parati stamus ad potestatem et gloriam eius. Roma
est Lux."
"we are soldiers of Rome, for her might and glory we stand ready... She is
the Light"

www.geocities.com/legio_vi

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Proposal vis a vis a NR National event
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 08:54:48 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] Proposal part II, and geography stuff
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 08:22:10 -0600


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Proposal part II, of what I think will become a long discussion
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:13:05 EDT

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/968422386/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salve all,

I appologize, I was just trying to add a bit of light hearted humor and
used the two cities with ancient names as a jest.

ATR

>From: <gmvick32@-------->
>Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
>To: Aurelius Tiberius <kminer_rsg@-------->
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Proposal part II, of what I think will become a
>long discussion
>Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 08:17:03 -0600
>
>Salvete Tiberius et alii,
>
>I agree with your first part, that someplace in the middle of the U.S.
>would be
>good....but I'm a bit puzzled by your second part?
>
>Syracuse and Rome, NY are wonderful cities I'm sure!! I'm sure they would
>be
>excellent places to hold meetings for the east coast folks, and every time
>I've
>visited upstate New York I've been impressed with the beauty of the country
>and
>the spirit of its people...however...
>
>NY is nowhere near the middle of the U.S. It could, however, serve as a
>middle
>area where Nova Brittania and Medio-Atlantic folks could come together
>easily.
>Perhaps that's what you're really meaning to achieve, and that's ok. :)
>
>For looking at the central region of the U.S., any of the following cities
>could
>more legitimately be called the middle of the U.S. than Syracuse and Rome:
>
>NORTH-CENTRAL
>- Souix City, IA
>- Des Moines, IA
>- Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
>
>MIDDLE-CENTRAL
>- Kansas City, MO
>- Omaha, NE (the closest city to "dead center" on the map, where I've heard
>some
>were already thinking of a 5th-year event, even though there are no current
>NE
>cives)
>- Oklahoma City, OK
>
>SOUTH-CENTRAL
>Dallas, TX
>Fort Worth, TX
>Austin, TX (I believe the UT-Austin has an outstanding Classics program)
>Houston, TX
>
>NOTE I don't name my own city, Denver. Denver's too far west, just like
>Chicago
>is too far east to really be "central".
>
>Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
>
>
>Aurelius Tiberius wrote:
>
> > Salve all.
> >
> > Well, I have been asked where I think would be good, etc...
> >
> > Perhaps we could look for somewhere in the middle of the US...??? we
>could
> > just say the geographic middle and that's it. no matter where that is.
> >
> > I would suggest NY we have two nice cities that have pretty good names
>for
> > the sake of our nation "Syracuse and ROME!!!" (bet you didn't know we
>had
> > these did you??? ;)
> >
> > Anyway,
> >
> > Round 2 "DING"
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > ATR
> >
> > Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus
> > Praefectus Legionis & Tribuni Militum,
> > Legio VI of the Northern Army
> > & Cornicularius,Sodalitas Militarium et Nova Roma
> >
> > "Nos Sumus Romae milites, parati stamus ad potestatem et gloriam eius.
>Roma
> > est Lux."
> > "we are soldiers of Rome, for her might and glory we stand ready... She
>is
> > the Light"
> >
> > www.geocities.com/legio_vi
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > http://profiles.msn.com.
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


Subject:	[novaroma] Reenactment
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:40:06 -0400 (EDT)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/8/_/61050/_/968424012/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete, August Senate Fathers, and Nova Roma Citizens;

This is a brief note to tell you that from now until mid-November, I am
committed to every weekend involved in renactment. I will usually leave
here sometime in the early P.M. on Friday (sometmes Thursday) and will
be out of circulation / contact until the following Monday morning.

I notify you of this simply because in my reenactment travels it may
well be that I shall be in your area, and would welcome any of you to
come out to the reenactment and visit with me. It may well be an
opportunity that will come only once a year and I should very much like
to take advantage of that if possible.

I will post a brief messgae each week of where I will be should any NR
citizen wish to take advantage of such.

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Proposal part II, and geography stuff
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:56:37 US/Central


Subject:	[novaroma] more on the possibility of a NR event
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:46:26 EDT


Subject:	Fw: [novaroma] the Conscript Fathers - very long
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:49:13 -0400

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Tired of searching for an apartment? Try Viva! It's fast and free.
Now serving Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, Denver and Las Vegas.
Rent by September 30th - get $100 cash!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9154/8/_/61050/_/968440064/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete Senator Erici et alii

I apologize to those whom I'm boring with this post, and to those who have
expressed frustration with my and my colleague's position in this matter.

>>Okay. Who are these other people that you think should have been
>considered for being Senators?

I am not going to answer that question in this venue, as posed. To do so
would be to give a basis to the notion that the censores are "stacking the
Senate" with their own choices for senators. Perhaps it is a paradox, but
my position stems from my desire to define and limit the role of the
censores in adding senators. To present you or the People at large with my
own "wish list" of senators would be a step in the opposite direction, as I
see it now. Instead, I'll repeat that the recently passed senatus consultum
did not contain all the people that qualified for inclusion. If the pool is
not enlarged to include all qualified candidates, then I intend to move
forward, with my colleague, in considering the pool as it is. But the
Consules have a couple of months still in which to enlarge the pool by
putting additional people before the Senate, and I am hoping that they do
so. In the meantime, I am in no way rejecting those already nominated,
rather I am waiting, with the intention that the proper authorities and
chain of responsibility be rigidly observed. Consules > Senate > Censores

Why didn't you bring them up to the
>Senate, since it appears that you believe the Senate should have
>considered them along with the names that were put to a vote?

I am not in control of what is put before the Senate. It is not up to me to
decide who is put before the Senate for its consideration of recommended
elevation to senator. You yourself have expressed frustration when items
put up for a vote are changed in mid-session, whether in the Senate or in an
assembly. And you're right, it's a lousy practice. I didn't see the
proposed consultum until it hit the Senate list -- if I had, then I might
have been able to do something earlier. But I'm not interested in playing a
blame game here, rather trying to do what is best for now and the future.

FYI to
>the People of Nova Roma: the three worthy citizens who were voted on
>by the Senate were placed on the agenda by the Consuls, not the
>Senate. I can think of several good reasons why these three names
>were put forward, but I'm not going to second guess the consuls on
>this.

I would like to say again that I have not stated any opposition to any of
those three worthy citizens.
>
>I am sure that the people, as well as the Senate, would like to know
>who you are considering for the Senate.

I am going to consider the set of all people nominated by the Senate.

I'd also like to know the
>criteria you are going to employ. Such would be very useful to the
>Senate in the future.

Yes, and I think that it may be useful to future censores as well. It is a
good question, let me do my best to answer it:

I proceed from our ius publicum, the Constitution and supporting laws.
Censorial discretion over inclusion of individuals is clearly there in the
law, as has been discussed in this forum recently. As I have stated, this
is a large power, one of the several large powers of the office of censor.
Given that this discretion, to put it bluntly, "the final say", is already
there, I asked myself a couple of questions --

i How can one limit this power?
ii How does its existence make sense, in other words, to what good use can
it be put?

An answer to i is that censores can avoid interpreting the law to mean that
they themselves select candidates. Censor Sulla and I refrained from debate
and voting on the item in question. We abstained and allowed the senators
to consider the candidates. In my view, this precedent should be
followed -- censores sitting in the Senate should abstain from such votes,
since they have a role later in the process. Even more important, censores
should resist the urge to interrupt proceedings by re-writing the consultum
"on the fly", second-guessing, as it were, the Consules, who have total
discretion over all items put before the Senate for voting (with the
exception of "special" sessions of the Senate brought to order by Tribuni
Plebis or Praetores, neither of which has happened in my memory).

Now to ii, why the discretion and what good is it. Whatever the honorable
Flavius Vedius Germanicus intended, I recognize a sensible use of this
discretion. His original intent may differ from my own interpretation, and
I would be interested on his perspective on this. I am just as interested
in feedback from M Cassius Iulianus, D Iunius Palladius, and of course even
more so from my colleague L Cornelius Sulla Felix. Censores have access to
information about all the citizens that no magistrate necessarily has,
extending outside the citizens' activity in Nova Roma. It is therefore
quite possible that the censores would have negative information pertaining
to a citizen nominated for the Senate, even approved by the Senate, that
noone else would have.

I am not implying for a second that Censor Sulla or I have negative
information about anyone, nor that we would look for such information. But
the possibility of such is there, as is the discretion.

Now, supposing that a censor has information about a nominee to the Senate
that, in the censor's mind, makes that person, with reasonable certainty,
unfit for the duty and privilege of being a senator, should the censor blurt
this potentially damaging information out on the Senate floor? I think not.
Should he/she publish details of it on the list? No. The censor would be
obliged to safeguard the Res Publica by rejecting the candidate, sharing
potentially damaging details of his/her reasoning only with the other
censor, and optionally with any other party that the rejected candidate
him/herself requests.

In the absence of any such negative information (the norm), it is my belief
that the censores would by default agree with the Senate's recommendations.
In other words, if a censor has a specific, alarming fact about a nominee,
of which he is so sure that he shares it with his colleague, then he can
block a Senate nominee. Otherwise, he cannot.

Finally, these are my views, which are of exactly the same weight in this
process as the views of Censor Sulla. My review of nominees, and my
criteria and position throughout, are not fixed in stone but subject to
revision on the basis of his input, as, I believe, his position and criteria
should be to mine.

As well as being valuable to the people of Nova
>Roma in their understanding of how their government works, of how
>their Senators become such.

The fundamentals of the procedure and qualifications are already there in
the laws previously cited in this thread. But there is still room for
intepretation, which can be clarified through precedent and preserved
practice. Whether or not the precedent being set now will "stick" depends
on future censores, Consules and senators, and is, I believe, subject for
another day or so to tribunician veto. In other words, I may be judged
completely wrong in this, and perhaps face consequences for my position. I
recognize this and accept the outcome.

An informed citizenry will probably take
>a larger role in their government. "Knowledge is power." [I couldn't
>resist throwing in that old saw. ;-) ]

I agree. That's why I am replying to you publically, not privately.

>
>I am looking forward to your candidates for the Senate. I am sure the
>Senate will consider them fairly and generously.

I am looking forward to seeing them considered by the Senate too. But I am
not going to dictate to the Consules -- if either of them desires assistance
from the office of the censores in drawing up a list of qualified nominees,
we can help.
>
>Valete.
>C. Aelius Ericius.
>(speaking as a citizen, but still a) Senator.
>Augur. Pontifex. Paterfamilias.

Valete

C Marius Merullus
Censor Suffectus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Provincia Gallia
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 20:26:44 +0200


Subject:	[novaroma] Your congratulations regarding my civil rights
From:	"Herr Sch�fer" <schaefer.paxromana@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:26:44 +0200 (CEST)


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Constitutional questions
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:48:50 -0400


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Proposal part II, and geography stuff
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:09:44 -0600