Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] anyone from the Albany NY area...
From:	"Kyrene Ariadne" <kyrene@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:35:31 -0400


Subject:	[novaroma] Update
From:	"Lauriat" <blauriat@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:43:30 -0400


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Gatherings
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Tue, 12 Sep 2000 05:31:03 -0700

-------------------------- 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/_/968761957/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Due to the current list settings, and typing this during a break at
work, I sent this to Dalmaticus instead of to the list in general.
Dalmaticus was kind enough to send it back to me so I could forward it
on to the list. Once again I agree with L. Cornelius Sulla, this time
in saying that I do not like the above settings, =({[:-) CAE

The big catch is that Nova Roma is not an Historical Re-Enactment
organization. Also, SCA tournies require people in period garb.
Things might have changed, but I remember that people in garb from
outside the core SCA period were looked down upon.
(This was in the sense of being "out of period")
That is neither here nor there put alongside the fact that not
everybody in Nova Roma is likely to be into costuming, nor wants to
be. [I
am, though I have no Roman costumes.] A NOVA ROMA get together
should be for Nova Romans to get together, to meet each other,
without
side matters getting in the way. SCA tournies are fun, I doubt
that part has changed in 20 some years. They are also a LOT of
work, and can be expensive. People of a particular region arranging
to all go to a particular hotel for a weekend might be more
productive for our finding out what each others faces, and voices,
are
like. SCA is a good medium to take advantage of as the occasion
presents itself, as are the Roman re-enactor outings. Basically,
Nova
Roma needs its own "events". A quick, and friendly thought while on
break at work.

Bene valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.


Subject:	[novaroma] Constitutional Questions Continues
From:	Piscinus@--------
Date:	Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:59:07 EDT

-------------------------- 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/_/968770779/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salve Sulla

I ask questions; you respond by calling me a demagogue.

I raise hypothetical situations; you cry that I have made accusations
about you.

I present arguments to support my position; you resort to name calling.

You offer definitions for many words you do not comprehend. But the only
words that could have proved your argument you could not find. They are not
to be found in the Constitution. Parva leves capiunt animas. Sapiens nihil
affirmat quod non probat.

I offer my sympathies for the pain you must have felt at one time; you
respond by making personal attacks. Your gens sends messages that we should
overlook what has been posted in the past. But what really do any of us know
about one another except by what we have posted in the past? My posts to a
public list are open for all to see. Do you wish to hide yours? Should we
compare the posts I have made since I came to Nova Roma to those you have
posted in that same period? Epistulae meae non erubescunt.

Weak attempts to turn attention from my valid arguments by self-righteous
posturing will not make your argument with me, Sulla. Nor can a lawyer's
cheap ploy hide the facts. If you think that by NOT performing the duties
assigned to you by the Constitution that you should somehow gain authority
over an action by the Senate, then you are wrong.

The Constitution does not give either censor any power of intercessio.
The Constitution does not allow any lex passed in any comitiae to overrule a
Senatus Consulta. In fact it says just the opposite when the Senatus
Consulta is about the internal affairs of the Senate. Under the Articles of
Incorporation a censor is no more than a secretary. The Constitution, as the
by-laws of that nonprofit corporation, mandates duties for the censors to
perform that are only record keeping in nature. To assume anything more
about those duties is to usurp the authority of the Senate and the powers
that properly belong to other magistrates.

The only power given to the censors in the Constitution is that of the
nota. But that is a collegially administered authority, which does not apply
in this matter we discuss. First the Conscript Fathers would have to be
recognized as Senators before a nota could be jointly issued by the censors.
There would have to be just cause for such an action. You are trying to deny
that the three new Senators named in the Senatus Consulta are senators,
without issuing notae against them. And you are trying to affirm that until
both censors agree to place their names in the Album Senatorum that they are
not Senators. If your interpretation of the Constitution and the Lex Vedia
were upheld it would give one censor the power to overrule the Senate. Your
interpretation flies in the face of your other assertion that joint
magistracies provides a system of checks and balances against someone
assuming dictatorial powers or from acting as a demagogue. The fact that
censors are involved here disproves your theory all the more, because the
censors, without the power of intercessio, can not even act against one
another. What you are trying to do in taking your position is to turn the
authority of nota into a power of intercessio that the censors do not have.

Ab manu
Gn. Moravii Piscini

__________________________________

Moravius, 6 Sept. # 15259:
<<only one censor could theoretically prohibit an individual from being
elevated into the Senate>>

Moravius, 7Sept. #15296
<<It was my stated purpose, and so it remains, to generate a discussion
about the Constitution. In doing so I stated some hypothetical situations
which I foresaw as mere possibilities. At no time in my post to the main
list did I intend that either Censor Marius Merullus or Sulla should be
construed, inferred, or otherwise identified as contemplating such
hypothetical situations. If there was some unintended insult in my words
then I should like to apologize for not having been clearer in my comments.>>

Moravius, 9 Sept. #15324
<<My deepest symphaties that you should ever have felt that way after all the
time and effort you devoted to make this organization what it is today.>>

Sulla, 9 Sept. #15334
<<Given the statement here..and the accusation I got in the response on the
Constitutional question. I would like to know which is the truth, the
accusation you gave me in that Constitutional email...or this.>>

Moravius, 7 Sept. #15288
<<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. Nova Roma has
taken on a life of its own.>>

Sulla, 9 Sept. #15334
<<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... So which is it! According to the 6 page post you said I was making
NR a game! Now here you are essentially changing your story. Even quoting
my very emotional email. So, come on Gn. Moravius were you lying then or
now? :) >>