Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Up the Celtae
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:43:34 EST

Salve Vado

Although I know that Gnaeus Tarquinius can stand up for himself, I cannot
let stand the implication that by disagreeing with me and blocking my use
of the veto he did anything improper.

On 12/2/00 12:11 PM Nick Ford (gens_moravia@--------)
wrote:

>Salve Tiberi Hiberni
>
[snip]
>saving only one occasion when he was persuaded to
>negate the veto of his colleague and thereby compromise the sacred integrity
>of his office by nullifying the Tribunate entirely - a state of affairs
>unheard of in ancient Rome.
>
You know very well that Roma Antiqva had no rule that the tribunicial
veto must be collegially agreed upon and therefore the case is entirely
different. Under the rules in Nova Roma, Tarquinius acted properly by
voicing his opposition to my use of the veto. Technically, I cannot even
say that it is "my" veto - it belongs to the Tribunes as a collective
power. It was my opinion that it should have been imposed: it was his
opinion that it should not have been. To say that he "compromised the
sacred integrity of his office" by disagreeing with my opinion (which
happened to be aligned with your viewpoint) is unfair, not to say
disingenuous.

Was I "ticked off" at the time? Certainly. But there is nothing "sacred"
about my opinion or that of anyone else here.

It is also untrue that he has done nothing else. He has been involved in
several issues. His involvement has not often included making speeches in
the Forum, as I have done, but that doesn't mean that he has not been in
communication with the principals involved in issues of the day, and with
me about our shared responsibilities.

>Accusing the man (note that I use the word without Tarquinius' offensive
>inverted commas) of sleeping on the job is giving him the benefit of doubt,
>in my opinion. After months of inactivity and absence from anywhere in NR
>that I know of, he appeared in this forum, broadcasting hysterical
>allegations, telling the cives they'd never had it so good, but that they
>never would again if they voted for the people he'd insulted and accused but
>wouldn't name, and then insisting that some of the credit of our
>micronational peace and political stability was due to him. So we should all
>vote for him again. Do you really think this is reasonable behaviour?
>
Whether you will vote for him is for you to decide, but do not mislead
others about the facts. He was not asleep on the job: he was hampered by
very limited access to the network, as he explained to the other
magistrates in the past, and as he has explained to everyone here.

I wonder, since I make so much more noise than does Tarquinius, when it
will be my turn to receive this kind of criticism.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Candidate for Praetor

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975807818/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Cursus Honorum
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:56:11 EST

Whoops! I am embarassed to see that I am so accustomed to typing
"Tribunus Plebis" that I inadvertently put it where I meant to say
"Praetor."

On 12/2/00 4:32 PM LSergAust@-------- (LSergAust@--------) wrote:

>Salve M. Apollonius Formosanus
>
>On 12/2/00 9:52 AM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Sulla may think he has scored a point against me by pointing out my
>>"inconsistency". His demonstrated psychology of obstinately sticking
>>to his right to impose his will on a private citizen and stonewalling
>>at any attempt to get this corrected from outside would seem to show
>>that he associates this with some virtue.
>>
>What are we to make, Formosanus, of your obstinate determination to
>impose your own private will on the republic and its magistrates and
>citizens by continually hacking away at the same old topic with the same
>tired rhetoric after everyone else on both sides of the matter has
>finished with it and moved on? Can you never accept a decision that goes
>against your own wishes? Have you no concern for anything except whether
>you get your own way?
>
>You are an eloquent and learned man, Formosanus, and you have much to
>offer here. But, mea sententia, the way you operate - wearing everyone
>down by endlessly droning on about old issues, gathering a political
>faction and pretending it is "nonpartisan," and declaring your intent to
>so radically alter the state as to destroy its essential nature and then
>offering yourself innocently as a candidate for office in that targeted
>state - is very disturbing and smacks of the worst kind of demagoguery.
>
>Do you know what memories your behavior has brought to my mind?....
>
>"FORMOSANUS IST NOVA ROMA, UND NOVA ROMA FORMOSANUS IST!"
>
>That's really what your behavior is telling us, isn't it? Only you have
>The Truth about what this republic should be, and the rest of us are
>going to have to accept it eventually.
>
>
>Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
>Candidate for XXXXXXX
Candidate for Praetor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975808578/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Piscinus and the Roman Republic
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 03:15:54 +0100

Salve Australice,

> I do not agree that the faction you call the "Amici" is being demonized.
> I think what is happening is that this group, by virtue of having chosen
> to be members of the "Amici," is being tarred with the brush of your
> paterfamilias' rather radical posted manifesto for the group. This is an
> occupational hazard of those who choose to run in packs - any member of
> the pack is liable to be shot as a wolf because of actions by other
> members.
>
> If, as you have argued, the "Amici" are not a faction but just a group of
> concerned civies who chose to go off and talk among themselves rather
> than in the Forum, then I suggest they would do well for themselves as
> individuals and for the good name of this group/faction/wolf
> pack/whatever to now openly declare, before the citizens in this Forum,
> how each of them stands with respect to the Manifesto of Apollonius
> Formosanus. Titus Labienus Fortunatus has already done so, and I respect
> him the more for that.
>
> This is a time when some of the members of this group/faction/wolf
> pack/whatever are standing for important offices in our government. Those
> candidates who, having aligned themselves with him by joining the
> "Amici," will not declare whether they do or do not follow Formosanus'
> revolutionary Manifesto, will only leave the citizens of Nova Roma uneasy
> and distrustful of why they will not say publically where they stand.
>

You are making four mistakes here; namely:

1. The statement is not written by my pater, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
but was mainly drafted by Gnaeus Moravius Piscinus. Direct your criticism to
him instead.
2. If I sign a Statement, it means I agree. Period. Everyone here in NR
seems to be making a mistake of going ad hominem. It's about ideas in the
first place, not about the people that present them. Once you mix those up
you've got a problem.
3. You find it justifyable that because we agree on a statement a
controversial citizen of this state also agrees with, we just need to bare
with the chance of being shot as well. This is nonsense, as far as I'm
concerned. Reputation is again nothing much to fight over - it's the
ideology! Say, have you ever carefully read the Statement? Are you a member
of the Forum? Stop confusing people with their ideals, please.

Vale!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
<< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
--**--

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975809878/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Voter Codes
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:02:10 -0800

Ave!

As most of you might be aware of, my scribe, M. Octavius Germanicus and
I have completed a mass emailing of voter codes. They are different
than the previous voter codes that were issue. Please make certain that
you have this email. If you did not receive an email please contact me
either at censors@-------- or alexious@earthlink.net.

Thank you

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975810360/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Consular Campaign Goals - Marcus Cassius Julianus
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:23:20 EST

Salvete,

Now that my candidacy is official, I would like to begin setting forth some
of the goals I hope to achieve if elected Consul by the Citizens of Nova
Roma. This first post concerns my preliminary ideas on Laws and a Nova Roman
legal system:

********

LEGAL SYSTEM AND LAWS

The work of establishing the foundation of Nova Roma is not yet complete, and
our lack of a cohesive system of laws is the most critical example of this.
Nova Roma originally declared its sovereignty before a legal system could be
codified. We have now reached the point where this must be done to insure the
integrity of our community and the rights of our Citizens.

There are already Citizens working on the formation of a body of laws for
Nova Roma. As Consul I would consider it crucial to increase the number of
people involved in this project so that the work can be finished within a
reasonable time. I would also encourage that the work be broken up into
scheduled segments for easier completion.

I am not an expert in Roman Law. As a "layperson" I must say that I prefer
having a reasonable collection of understandable laws to a maze of complex
ones, so I am in favor of laws being made available to the Citizens for
comment even before they are brought to the Comitia for official vote.

The following six points are the legal issues I feel are most important at
this time:

1. The creation of a "Citizen's Bill of Rights", more fully outlining the
legal benefits of Citizenship, as well as providing Citizens recourse when
problems occur. The basic Citizen rights are indeed covered in the
Constitution of Nova Roma, but I believe that further explanation of and the
procedures for invoking those rights would be beneficial.

2. Rules regarding the organization of Sodalitas, lists, etc, so that there
can be a clear delineation between what is "officially" part of the
infrastructure of Nova Roma, and outside projects that happen to be created
by Nova Romans or others with Roman interest. This is in the hopes of
keeping our growth organized and to eliminate the possibility of redundancy
of effort.

3. Limited Civil Laws. My personal belief is that the opportunity for
Citizens to sue one another personally should be small. Most behavior between
Citizens can be easily regulated through moderation of the list, and some
clearly posted rules of conduct. Although there are some who feel that Torts
between Citizens is an answer to interpersonal problems, I see such a course
creating even more problems. People are usually quicker to "sue" than to
solve problems, and my guess it would be less hassle for anyone to leave Nova
Roma entirely than to defend themselves in civil court.

Other, more serious "crimes," (theft, physical assault, destruction of
property) I would hope to see fall under macronational law rather than Nova
Roman law. Our declaration of sovereignty says that we are subject to the
laws of the lands in which we physically reside, and therefore we are easier
off not duplicating such laws internally at this stage.

4. Governmental law covering the actions of magistrates. While there is
constitutional provision for the removal of magistrates under certain
conditions, the conditions themselves have never been clearly spelled out.
This is dangerous for Magistrates, because without rules almost ANY behavior
might be considered grounds for impeachment or removal. Conversely, Citizens
should have a clearly stated benchmark by which to judge the actions of
magistrates.

5. Laws concerning the actions of Citizens. There must be laws which clearly
state what actions are to be considered "illegal", and worthy of a legal
process by the state. (As opposed to say, common minor mishaps that should be
summarily dealt with by a list moderator, and then as quickly forgotten.) So
far in Nova Roman history we have had two instances where Citizens have acted
in ways which were thought to be detrimental to Nova Roma itself... but could
not be dealt with easily because there were neither laws nor established
consequences for breaking those laws.

6. The establishment of an official Nova Roman court system, for issues that
must be decided by trial. I have no doubt that such situations will be only
the rarest exceptions if we have created laws that are rational and
understood by all Citizens, but an organized process for fair trials must be
made.

************

I have no doubt that Citizens with interest in Roman Law will introduce other
important legal points in the coming year.

No matter what legal issues are introduced, I pledge to do my utmost to make
sure that laws are as simple and clear as possible, and to see that Laws are
a servant of Nova Roma rather than her master. Let us not create laws for the
sake of laws, but only to help our nation to work together with less
friction.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Candidate for Consul

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975813804/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Endorsement of L. Equitius Cincinnatus
From:	"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 03:48:06 -0000

Quiritibus salutem

Sulla told us:

> > >Lucius Equitius is already my established Nomenclator. Him and I have
had an >>>ongoing working relationship for the past year. Whereas I have
only spoken to M. >>>Marcius Rex only once EVER.

And then I pointed out:

> > Except, of course, for a recent exchange in the Senate on - what shall
we
> > call it? - certain exigencies of the Censor's office, followed by an IM
> > exchange, followed by another exchange in the Senate.

To which Sulla replied:

> Actually your right. Since he was admitted into the Senate about 2
> weeks ago he has been in the Senate. But what about the previous year he
has
> been in NR. I have only seen about 5 posts? How active is
that....compared to
> Lucius Equitius? Who has posted regularly throughout Nova Roma's entire
> existence! :)

To which I now have this to say:

Sulla's response is ducking my point that he said he had only ever spoken to
M. Marcius Rex once. He admits now that what he said was untrue, and has
gone off on an irrelevant tack about the quantity of a person's posts
mattering more than their quality.

Sulla protested that:

> > >Whereas M. Marcius Rex is in Germania and if a phone call is
> > >needed it would be very expensive for either of us, Lucius Equitius is
> > across
> > >the country. Also, the language barrier might be an issue as well, I
dont
> > know
> > >but it is very possible.

And I observed:

> > Since M. Marcius' elevation to the Senate and his posts to this and
other NR
> > e-lists, it will have become evident to most citizens that Marcus
Marcius
> > Rex has a better command of English than some native English speakers (I
> > don't want to embarrass anybody).

To which the most vocal sponsor of Marcus Marcius Rex' rival for the
Censor's office,
who obviously feels he should be able to pick his future colleague, replies:

> Sulla: I am not referring to emails in that manner. I am speaking of
phone
> conversations. There have been times when C. Marius Merullus and I had to
speak
> on the phone. Our average phone conversation has been about 4 hours! I
am
> worried of the language barrier on voice to voice communication. Which is
and
> can be a very important factor in the Censorship position.

Leaving aside the dubious necessity of telephone calls that last all morning
or afternoon (and the potential expense to the Treasury), let me assure the
Senior Censor that I have spent a whole afternoon (four weeks ago) in the
company of Marcus Marcius Rex, discussing a vast array of topics, including
Roman antiquities, education, macronational government, Nova Roma politics,
beer, families and fish and chips - and I never had to use my German once
(which is as halting as his English is fluent). Any further objections from
Censor Sulla on this score can only be on grounds of nationalist prejudice.

It seems to me. Citizens, that what it all really comes down to is that
Sulla really would prefer to work with another American, even one whose guts
he hated a twelvemonth ago
(and who loathed his reciprocally), than some mere 'foreigner' and novus
homo, without whose generous assistance, incidentally, Sulla might not have
been able to complete his term of office.

Bene cogite,

Vado.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975815404/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Question
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:35:43 -0800

Ave!

I have a question. If a Senator is running for Tribune of the
Plebs......and gets in. Does he still vote as a Senator? Or does he
just act as Tribune of the Plebs?

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975816016/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Endorsement of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:30:43 -0000

I should like to state that I will be voting for Lucius Equitius
Cincinnatus for Censor. This is not because of where he lives, or
because the other Censor has endorsed him. Rather, it is because to my
knowledge he is well endowed with time, dedication and interest in the
job.

Cincinnatus and I have disagreed strongly and sometimes publicly. Yet
he is well versed in the ways of ancient Rome, sincerely wants the job
and will stick with it.

This is not in any way to condemn Marcus Marcius Rex, whom I have
recently come to know as a dignified, articulate and thoughtful Nova
Roman. We are blessed indeed to have two such strong candidates for
such an important job.

Patricia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975817847/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Endorsement of Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:09:42 -0800

> We are blessed indeed to have two such strong candidates for
> such an important job.
>
> Patricia Cassia

Ave,

Let me add a me too! I am very pleased that we have two strong applicants
for the job. I am all the more pleased of this fact givent that it is the
most difficult and time consuming job in Nova Roma!

I just felt compelled to add a me too! :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975818056/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Re: Endorsement of L. Equitius Cincinnatus
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:17:26 -0500

Salvete, Quirites

Lucius Equitius: Firstly, I want to thank all those who have come forward with their support and endorsements. I very much had considered not running this year, but I felt that Nova Roma still need her citizens to commit themselves to serve. So, I too am grateful that more citizens are donning the 'toga candidata', yet there are still magistracies that have no candidates. If any of you are thinking of running, Declare yourself!

I have tried to stay out of this ongoing "debate" between Lucius Cornelius and those with whom he has come into conflict; however, my name has been used too many times for me not to respond, especially since once again someone has taken it upon themselves to state *my* feelings.

Sulla told us:
> > >Lucius Equitius is already my established Nomenclator.
> Lucius Equitius? Who has posted regularly throughout Nova Roma's entire
> existence! :)

Vado inquit:
Leaving aside the dubious necessity of telephone calls that last all morning
or afternoon (and the potential expense to the Treasury),

Lucius Equitius: First of all, Sulla made a statement to the Senate that so far he had spent his own money in the course of carrying out his duties. He at no time asked to be reimbursed. He was not clear, it is true, why he was making that statement at that time and Sulla does have a tendency, at times, to the melodramatic. I believe that, in his own way, Sulla was making a point that *something* needed to be done about those citizens who were carrying the financial burden of the Nova Roma 'infrastructure'.
I plan to carry out my duties, should I be fortunate to be elected, using my own resources as I think was the way things were done in antiquity (since I'm running for Censor I don't think I have a need for a couple of Legions ;-)

Vado inquit:
It seems to me. Citizens, that what it all really comes down to is that Sulla really would prefer to work with another American, even one whose guts he hated a twelvemonth ago (and who loathed his reciprocally)...
Bene cogite, Vado.

Lucius Equitius: This really is the part of the post that bothers me. I have not ever expressed a hate or 'loathing' for anyone and I don't believe that Sulla ever 'hated' me. Truly, we had our differences, but I never heard anything from Sulla that I considered 'personal' or hateful.

I am truly sad to see two people that I admire and count as friends, Vado et Sulla (all-be-it for different reasons :-), as well as others here "go at each other" so spitefully. Please, my friends let us work together.

Yes, I do not post to this list as often as I once did, but I do know how to do so when I wish. If I do have something to say, I will do so and If I Hate someone I will either let them know myself or keep it to myself. Once again, I ask that those who wish to speak for me, ask me First! Please!

Now, I believe that there has been enough ill will spread without bringing others into it. I ask that we all return to our true wish of a nation where Roman virtues guide our actions and thoughts.

Bene omnibus nobis
Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975820420/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Sodalitas Militarium Contact
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:59:24 -0800 (PST)

I would like to join the Sodalitas Militarium. How do
I do that?

L Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975823165/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Sodalitas Egressus Contact
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:05:12 -0800 (PST)

I would like to join the Sodalitas Egressus. Can
someone from that group please contact me.

L Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975823520/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Republic
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:53:58 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

I am preparing a short series of long :-) position papers on various
topics to inform the voters of where I stand and what ideas I have as
a candidate for the position of Praetor Urbanus. I hope by so doing
to more constructively engage with the electorate than by replying to
the tedious ad hominem attacks of Sulla and others. Here is something
constructive. I shall not be able to do all the things proposed here
as one lone Praetor, but I present them as proposals and shall work
in collaboration with any and all who might wish to work for them.
____________________
What should be the relationship between Senate and People in our fair
commonwealth? I go most with the traditional formulation recently
repeated by candidate M. Mucius Scaevola Magister who says:

"I stand for this post in the belief that it is essential to Nova
Roma's future that the Comitia should function properly, in order
that the MIXED constitution (monarchic in the magistrates,
aristocratic in the Senate, democratic in the Comitia and in the veto
powers of the Tribunes, which exist to force matters into the
Comitia), which was characteristic of Roma Antiqua and has been
adopted by Nova Roma, should be effectively defended."
________________
"Monarchic" reflects the idea that the monarch can act decisively,
more decisively than a deliberative body. That is moderated in the
Roman constitution by the principle of collegiality at all levels -
the Romans did not really trust monarchs in their better, Republican
days. And the "monarchs" (magistrates) are elected directly by the
People (certainly not by the Senate!), and for a brief term of one
year at a time to prevent the excessive collection of power into any
one man's hands.

"Aristocratic" reflects the idea that there exists a class who are
in some sense "the best" in that their ancestors were eminent, and
that in a day and political culture in which education in statecraft
was to a considerable extent a family affair, it made sense to give
an important advisory rôle to the scions of the ancient houses who
had the leisure, money and interest to become political
professionals. The Senate was their organ, and it served to give
continuity to government and to serve as a permanent "think tank"
where the political expertise of Rome could be nurtured from
generation to generation.

"Democratic" reflects the notion that the People are the fundamental
and truly sovereign part of the State. They are the ultimate
conferrers of Imperium upon magistrates, and unlike the Senate which
issued "consulta" (advisories), the People made Law (leges). This
they did not through representatives, but in their own persons,
having participated in their own formal political debates (contiones)
on the merits of given proposals. (Shades of Athens!!!)

Because the popular assemblies (Comitia) never attained the absolute
predominance of power which they held in Athens from the time of
Cleisthenes, it was necessary for the People to introduce the
Tribunes of the People (Tribuni Plebis). These sat in the Senate and
had the right of veto (intercessio) over all other acts, something
like a modern ombudsman or court order of injunction. Eventually the
Tribunes became coöpted by the Senate, and their vetoes played off
against one another. They remained important popular leaders,
however, with their own identity and constituency as distinct from
the Sentorial leaders and other magistrates.

If we apply this to creating an ideal for Nova Roma, I think we
naturally must make allowances for the fact that we are in a new age
of the world in which the political ideas from both Greece and Rome,
as well as from the Northern Peoples (e.g. British parliamentary
democracy) have merged and developed and created new norms and
expectations. We must also remember that the socio-economic
underpinnings of Roma Antiqua do not exist for us. Our senators are
not especially rich and most of their fathers were not politicians,
and ordinary citizens in very many cases have university educations,
for example. Also, although some do not like it, we are at the moment
at least an internet-based society.

The Vedian Constitution is in most respects a document that does
what I would wish to do. Most of what I would change takes the form
of fine-tuning in the light of experience and making the institutions
provided for in it work better.

I favour retaining the Senate in approximately its present form, but
with transparency in its discussions and voting records, and perhaps
a limiting of some censorial powers with relation to senators, which
could easily be abused as they now stand. (The Censors presently can
remove any senators they like with notae against them.) I also think
that the Censors should be limited to granting discretionary
senatorships to those approved by the Senate, although I would let
them *propose* their preferences to the Senate too. (Note that these
changes would actually strengthen the Senate.)

We should remember that the Senate is going to gradually grow and
become a big institution. Maybe some day it will become bigger than
the 600 cives in Nova Roma today. With modern electronic
communications that will not be a big problem - but it will probably
mean long before then that we will have to adopt some form of
discussion-limiting mechanism such as the Roman solution of allowing
only certain classes of ex-magistrates to speak in normal
circumstances. A committee system may also become a practical
necessity of internal organisation at some point.

As to magistrates, I believe that the Nova Roman censorate is
practically too powerful. In Roma Antiqua Censors were created once
in five years, did their job, and vanished into highly honourable
relative obscurity. We use them as archivists and secretaries and
give them two-year terms. That has its advantages and was well
thought-out in terms of overlapping terms, but since they hold in
their keeping some of the few real powers anyone has here - the
ability to keep persons out of Nova Roma and to issue notae depriving
persons of senatorship and the right to vote - they must be regulated
more than they are.

We have seen in this past year how one Censor kept a veteran citizen
from returning freely and normally, who had just left temporarily in
protest at the Censor's own policy discriminating against a sexual
minority group, and we have seen as well how easily discriminatory
edicta were issued by just two individuals - mostly by one. This is a
place in our Respublica where one or two individuals can cause real
suffering to others if they are prejudiced, and where they can give a
bad name to all Nova Roma through discriminatory actions.

I would see a reduction in the censorial power in these ways:

(1) It should be the default situation that a given applicant for
citizenship, whether on the first application or a subsequent
occasion of return, be granted that citizenship. Denial of a
citizenship application should require the agreement of both Censors.
That will allow keeping out the few really bad apples, while giving
the benefit of the doubt to everyone else. Returning citizens (at
least) should also have a right of appeal to the People in Comitia
assembled if their applications are rejected.

(2) Censorial notae should no longer carry with them expulsion from
the Senate or revocation of civic rights, but should have only moral
force. We will soon have courts to deal with offenders against the
laws, and having a parallel system of "moral crimes" is unnecessary
and problematical. It is too likely to duplicate the criminal justice
system or to try to replace it inadequately.

(3) Legislation that might tend to limit the rights of citizen
applicants, citizen returnees, gentes, or minority groups of any kind
should be reviewed by both the Senate and the Comitia, and any such
provision should also be subject to judicial review in terms of the
Constitution and such other general civil rights legislation as may
be passed.

Passing on to Praetors, I believe that under our new judicial system
to be discussed in a future position paper, the Praetors will have
more to do in terms of hearing cases under definite legal provisions,
as well as in the development of new legislation. The Aediles might
also share to some extent in this.

The Consuls are functioning essentially as I would wish them to.

The Comitia are an area where great development is still necessary
so that they can enable the People to develop and express its will.
Many of the somewhat obscure details of its ancient organisation have
been researched by Piscinus, and stand available to be restored and
adapted for our needs. Electronic communications provide us with
great opportunities for speedy and effective consultation with the
People, as well as for their discussions to take place. The new
Plebeian chat room is one step in the right direction.

The Tribunes are the normal leaders of the People as the People.
They must be expected to hold contiones (as also other magistrates
must!) to keep the People involved in the political process. That
means monthly Comitia's being held, and several contiones in a month
in whatever form it is deemed fairest and most effective to hold
them. A legal provision for the calling of at least one contio a
month should be enacted. If there were nothing to be voted on, this
contio could be used for soliciting initiatives for desirable
legislation from the grass roots.

To prevent the tribunes from being excessively in each other's way
by veto, I suggest that we have three Tribunes rather than two. (Ten
was the norm in Roma Antiqua, but I doubt that we can recruit so many
canddiates.) One Tribune would be allowed to veto one other, but not
both others at once. So, if there were disagreement, whichever
Tribune was the third in a given case would effectively make the
decision. This would prevent one inactive or irresponsible Tribune
from totally negating the tribunician power for a year (as
practically happened in the past year), while at the same time
preventing one over-enthusiastic Tribune from bringing all government
to a halt.

The powers of taxation and appropriation should be vested ultimately
in the Comitia, as it is in the lower house of any modern national
parliament or congress. It might be desirable to establish a joint
committee of senators and commoners to prepare a budgetary proposal
which would have to pass both Comitia and Senate. This is contrary to
ancient practice, but in Roma Antiqua the vast majority of the money
in the aerarium dispensed by the Senate did not normally come from
taxes on citizens. Today it will, and we should not have taxation
without representation. The Senate is not made up of our
representatives, as it is a non-representative body, and we intend to
keep it that way. Therefore, the citizenry must represent itself in
the Comitia to have control over its taxes.

The above is my general analysis of our governmental system and some
of the reforms other than the legal and judicial which I think are
called for today to make it better. As everyone can see, I am not a
proponent of rabid, wild-eyed Athenianism, as some have rather
irresponsibly and without basis accused the Amici Dignitatis of
being. Desiring a transparent Senate and an active, well-organised
set of Comitia is not the same as proposing Athenian Democracy
(although the latter was a truly fine thing in and of itself).

Specifically, I remind everyone that the office of Praetor carries
with it the senatorship. If you, the electorate of Nova Roma, choose
to elect me, I shall in the new (Common Era) millennium be a senator
of Nova Roma, and hardly motivated to destroy the Senate, as some
have intimated against me that I wanted to do.

Let me remind everyone, though, of a further fact: Almost all of our
citizens come from modern, democratic macronations. We share not only
a love of Rome, but the modern assumptions of democracy: One man, one
vote. Citizen equality. The Rule of Law and the Rule of the Majority.
No taxation without representation. Etc. We are mostly very happy to
tolerate certain stretchings and limitations in those things to enjoy
having a "Roman" form of government. After all, we came here to be
Roman! But if it turns out that there is too much deviation from the
fundamental political and ethical values that most of us share, then
those Neo-roman institutions will cease to be viable. We have a real
international organisation here, which must solve all the problems of
real societies in a new century, and which must function legally,
respectably and responsibly in the eyes of our citizens and of the
outside world if it is to be able to sponsor educational work,
religious expressions, cultural events, archaeological digs and so
forth. Ultimately, no constitution will be viable if the citizens do
not perceive that it itself and its concrete functioning enable these
pro-Roman activities.

I wish the Vedian Constitution to work, and that is why I wish to
make small changes to fine-tune it and to flesh out the governmental
form it sketches in more living detail and in a way that will work
and work well and thus enjoy the consensual support of all Nova
Romans.

I mention the above point because there are some among us who speak
of "republicanism, not democracy" as a code expression for a kind of
conservative authoritarianism. They favour a stratified society in
which they are to be at the top of the heap and give orders to the
rest of us. Most of us here in Nova Roma do not want to participate
in the rôle of slaves or slavish plebeians to satisfy those people's
rôle-playing aspirations. Most of us want a decent, responsible
government - a Libera Respublica as Cicero called it. In other words,
Roman Democracy - not a mobocracy, but also not rule by and for the
Few alone. Senatus Populusque Romanus - that is the natural way
forward for us - and both elements must be properly balanced and
given the tasks for which they are best adapted.

Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975826451/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Republic
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:34:42 -0800

Ave,

My question to you Formosanus, is given the fact that I have used your own words
to show that one you cannot be trusted and two how EASILY swayed you are! (NR
Archieves 13138) And your response to my reposting your original post. How can
the People of Nova Roma expect you to stick to what you say?

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:

> M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I am preparing a short series of long :-) position papers on various
> topics to inform the voters of where I stand and what ideas I have as
> a candidate for the position of Praetor Urbanus. I hope by so doing
> to more constructively engage with the electorate than by replying to
> the tedious ad hominem attacks of Sulla and others. Here is something
> constructive. I shall not be able to do all the things proposed here
> as one lone Praetor, but I present them as proposals and shall work
> in collaboration with any and all who might wish to work for them.

<Snip>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975826822/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Final version of Senate agenda
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2000 23:41:43 -0800 (PST)

--- LSergAust@-------- wrote:

> Below is the agenda currently before the Senate,
> which is now in the
> process of voting. It appears clear (to me) at this
> point that the votes
> and associated comments (if any) of the individual
> senators will be
> posted with (or possibly after) the results. That is
> to say, that
> proposal seems to be receiving overwhelming
> approval.

> >Item the Second (Rewritten)
> >It is proposed that Nova Roma enact the following
> policy on
> > financial controls:
> >
> > To safeguard the integrity of Nova Roma's
> Treasury, at least two
> > Quaestors will be appointed by the Senate to
> oversee the administration of
> >its account. The first, the Quaestor Aerarium, will
> have the authority to
> >issue checks for approved purposes and will make
> deposits of monies
> >received. The second, the Quaestor Librum, will
> perform monthly bank
> >reconciliations and make timely reports to the
> Senate and People of amounts
> >received and spent, but will have no authority to
> write checks on the
> >Treasury account.

Is the plan that these two quaestors be selected from
the quaestors to be elected in the current election,
or will new quaestors be solicited for these offices?
I encourage the conscript fathers to select from those
already standing for election.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975829304/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Re: Cursus Honorum
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:41:02 +0100

Salve Australice!

Australicus scripsit:

"What are we to make, Formosanus, of your obstinate determination to
impose your own private will on the republic and its magistrates and
citizens by continually hacking away at the same old topic with the
same tired rhetoric after everyone else on both sides of the matter
has finished with it and moved on? Can you never accept a decision
that goes against your own wishes? Have you no concern for anything
except whether you get your own way?

"You are an eloquent and learned man, Formosanus, and you have much
to offer here. But, mea sententia, the way you operate - wearing
everyone down by endlessly droning on about old issues, gathering a
political faction and pretending it is "nonpartisan," and declaring
your intent to so radically alter the state as to destroy its
essential nature and then offering yourself innocently as a candidate
for office in that targeted state - is very disturbing and smacks of
the worst kind of demagoguery.

"Do you know what memories your behavior has brought to my mind?....

"'FORMOSANUS IST NOVA ROMA, UND NOVA ROMA
FORMOSANUS IST!'

"That's really what your behavior is telling us, isn't it? Only you
have The Truth about what this republic should be, and the rest of us
are going to have to accept it eventually.

"Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Candidate for Tribunus Plebis"

___________________________

RESPONDEO:

Well, I hope that you will admit that I am at least (approximately)
one six-hundredth of Nova Roma. And perhaps that one six-hundredth of
the censorial power used on a fellow citizen in an unfair way is
derived from my citizenship here.

So maybe if I raise my one six-hundredth of the voices in Nova Roma
to cry "STOP!" to what I see as a serious abuse of my six-hundredth
of the censorial power, I might be allowed to do so, without being
accused of thinking that I am six hundred six-hundredths, which would
be very bad arithmetic? :-)

I feel the fact that I am a civis here strongly, and I feel a moral
responsibility when I see an egregious injustice. It is a small
enough country and I feel ashamed when I cannot stop such things from
happening.

No doubt members of the anti-slavery movement and the women's rights
movement many times heard words like yours, and some were thrown into
gaol as well. But in the end - after many decades of struggle in some
places - even we in Nova Roma pay respect to those principles when a
closer adherence to ancient values might have made us defend slavery
to some extent and to exclude women from office.

Sometimes people act from principle and conscience. That is the case
here, whatever evil or egotistical motives you might imagine about
me. In so doing they may appear arrogant to others, and their
persistence in their testimony to truth and right as they see it may
be annoying. However, no one with any insight into persons of this
type would fail to distinguish between a principled testimony driven
by conscience and simple stubbornness.

I have no means other than my voice crying in the wilderness to aid
a fellow citizen who has been misused - by my one six-hundredth of
the power of our State. And if I do not succeed at once, then I still
do not have any other power than to use that little fraction of the
chorus of citizen voices that is my own, and so continue.

Will it be rectified if I still my voice? Perhaps never.

And if I am persistent? Maybe, some day. And in any case I would be
doing my duty. So I use my only method. To call on people and
authorities to treat all sexual minorities decently. To refrain from
telling a citizen what sex he is against his or her own perceptions
and respectfully accept the way he defines himself (or herself) in
his (or her) heart of hearts. It would not hurt Nova Roma to treat
cives of this minority so, but it would make a big difference to
their sense of true acceptance and belongingness here. Why do you
attack me for trying to realise this with patience and persistence?
Why do you not help instead of criticisng me for a good deed?

Now, as to your attack on the Amici, I am afraid you are wrong to
imply that they are my personal creation or hangers on. The Amici
were a joint effort of which I was only a co-founder and not the
leader. Many of us, all essentially independent-minded and principled
individuals, joined together as equals out of a shared conviction
that we need more effective democratic institutions, especially an
orderly and impartial judicial system and more active Comitia.

I did not write the Statement, but approved it and signed it with
the others. It is a *very* moderate statement of ordinary democratic
values such as might be found in America, Australia or Italy. If any
part of it offends you, I would like to hear which and why.

The Amici have no enthusiasm for being a party (although there would
be nothing unethical, dishonourable or illegal about being one), and
prefer to think of themselves as a Good Government civic
organisation. I myself think that it functions as a party whether we
want it to or not, since there is a definite group against good
government as we conceive of it and we are in practice opposed
groups. So what? We are trying to make the courts and the Comitia
work and to protect individual rights with good legislation so that
nobody needs fear if a high magistrate dislikes him. Why do you not
consider this on its merits? Instead of dismissing it simply because
I have a particular cause that I mention often? Instead of
complaining because we express our common concerns together?

In fact, many people outside our circle have come to rather similar
conclusions now as to what is needed, and if I am elected I look
forward to working with them too, as I am sure my fellow Amici
Dignitatis feel.

Austalice, could you not be a little less Obstinatus just this once,
refrain from the ad hominem attacks on me and the other Amici, and
judge our Statement and our individual campaign platforms on their
merits? I would appreciate it.

Vale!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975832871/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Fw: [novaroma] Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Republic
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:56:05 +0100

> Salve,
>
> >
> > My question to you Formosanus, is given the fact that I have used your
own
> words
> > to show that one you cannot be trusted and two how EASILY swayed you
are!
> (NR
> > Archieves 13138) And your response to my reposting your original post.
> How can
> > the People of Nova Roma expect you to stick to what you say?
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor

Wait... Isn't this a "tedious ad hominem" attack? Spoken of endlessly
repeating old subjects... !

>
> >
> >
> > "M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
> >
> > > M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > I am preparing a short series of long :-) position papers on
> various
> > > topics to inform the voters of where I stand and what ideas I have as
> > > a candidate for the position of Praetor Urbanus. I hope by so doing
> > > to more constructively engage with the electorate than by replying to
> > > the tedious ad hominem attacks of Sulla and others. Here is something
> > > constructive. I shall not be able to do all the things proposed here
> > > as one lone Praetor, but I present them as proposals and shall work
> > > in collaboration with any and all who might wish to work for them.
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Vale bene!
> Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> << PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
> Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> Procurator Galliae,
> Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
> --**--
> There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
> --**--
> Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
> Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
> Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
> --**--
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975841095/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Republic
From:	ancientrome@--------
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:02:10 -0000

It's a pleasure to be back on the Nova Roma list. Wow, this is my
first election in Nova Roma. I come back after a month in a half and
I see this. Quite honestly I am surprised that you, M. Apollonius
have decided to run for Praetor. I pictured you a prefect Tribune.
J With that aside, I would like to comment on some of your
platform.

M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I am preparing a short series of long :-) position papers on
various topics to inform the voters of where I stand and what ideas I
have as a candidate for the position of Praetor Urbanus. I hope by so
doing to more constructively engage with the electorate than by
replying to the tedious ad hominem attacks of Sulla and others. Here
is something constructive. I shall not be able to do all the things
proposed here as one lone Praetor, but I present them as proposals
and shall work in collaboration with any and all who might wish to
work for them.

Response: Yes, I can see that you definitely mean LONG. However, I
must say, that while I do not agree with everything that Sulla has
posted. I do believe his point has been sufficiently made that you
have played the flip-flop on the issue.

<Cut for brevity>

The Vedian Constitution is in most respects a document that
does
what I would wish to do. Most of what I would change takes the form
of fine-tuning in the light of experience and making the institutions
provided for in it work better.

Response: I am very interested in this "fine tuning."

I favour retaining the Senate in approximately its present
form, but with transparency in its discussions and voting records,
and perhaps a limiting of some censorial powers with relation to
senators, which could easily be abused as they now stand. (The
Censors presently can remove any senators they like with notae
against them.) I also think that the Censors should be limited to
granting discretionary senatorships to those approved by the Senate,
although I would let them *propose* their preferences to the Senate
too. (Note that these changes would actually strengthen the Senate.)

Response: I believe, based on my reading of Ancient Roman texts as
well as modern treatises on the subject that what you want goes far
beyond that of tweaking; instead you take it to the point of actually
rewriting portions of the Constitution of Nova Roma. You just stated
in the paragraph above that you respect the Vedian Constitution. The
powers of the Censor as granted in the Vedian Constitution are
steeped in the original powers of the Censorship. I do not believe
you will be able to legislate this type of change.

We should remember that the Senate is going to gradually grow
and become a big institution. Maybe some day it will become bigger
than the 600 cives in Nova Roma today. With modern electronic
communications that will not be a big problem - but it will probably
mean long before then that we will have to adopt some form of
discussion-limiting mechanism such as the Roman solution of allowing
only certain classes of ex-magistrates to speak in normal
circumstances. A committee system may also become a practical
necessity of internal organisation at some point.

Response: I do not believe this would be in the jurisdiction of the
Praetor either. Maybe one of the Roman experts on this list could
comment on this, because this sounds vaguely to me that you want to
create a committee within the actual Senate? For what purpose?
Plus, don't you agree that this is not exactly necessary currently
for Nova Roma?

As to magistrates, I believe that the Nova Roman censorate is
practically too powerful. In Roma Antiqua Censors were created once
in five years, did their job, and vanished into highly honourable
relative obscurity. We use them as archivists and secretaries and
give them two-year terms. That has its advantages and was well
thought-out in terms of overlapping terms, but since they hold in
their keeping some of the few real powers anyone has here - the
ability to keep persons out of Nova Roma and to issue notae depriving
persons of senatorship and the right to vote - they must be regulated
more than they are.

Response: Could you tell me what powers do Nova Roma's Censors have
that ancient Roman Censors did not. I personally can think of powers
that ancient Roman Censors had that Nova Romans do not. Such has the
coordination and negotiating of state contracts. I do not see the
Nova Roman Censors usurping any additional authority.

We have seen in this past year how one Censor kept a veteran
citizen from returning freely and normally, who had just left
temporarily in protest at the Censor's own policy discriminating
against a sexual minority group, and we have seen as well how easily
discriminatory edicta were issued by just two individuals - mostly by
one. This is a place in our Respublica where one or two individuals
can cause real suffering to others if they are prejudiced, and where
they can give a bad name to all Nova Roma through discriminatory
actions.

Response: I don't think we have seen the abuse you are talking
about. I have gone through the achieves quite thoroughly. Again, I
do not agree with all of Sulla's actions. But, you must give the
Censors due credit. They did correct the original Edictum to the
satisfaction of most citizens. Even your own personal
recommendations were completely implemented in the new Name Change
Edictum. In that aspect, I do very much appreciate Sulla's posting
of your post to Nova Roma and the Senate. I believe you have flip-
flopped on this issue because you have found a perfect vehicle to
campaign. Personally, I think you are wrong on this issue. The
Censors removed the original Edictum and replaced it with a workable
replacement.

I would see a reduction in the censorial power in these ways:
(1) It should be the default situation that a given applicant for
citizenship, whether on the first application or a subsequent
occasion of return, be granted that citizenship. Denial of a
citizenship application should require the agreement of both
Censors. That will allow keeping out the few really bad apples,
while giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone else. Returning
citizens (at least) should also have a right of appeal to the
People in Comitia assembled if their applications are rejected.

Response: I disagree, as one who is NOT a citizen. Who is merely an
observer and occasional commenter I believe that Nova Roma is trying
to do something noble something historic. Trying to restore an
ancient civilization into a modern world that is screaming for reform
and a return to the Virtues. However, your point would cheapen
that. Citizenship is not a right; it's a privilege. When one abuses
a privilege, such as driving a car while they are intoxicated does
their license then get revoked? When one resigns their citizenship
it makes Nova Roma look like a game.

(2) Censorial notae should no longer carry with them expulsion from
the Senate or revocation of civic rights, but should have only
moral force. We will soon have courts to deal with offenders
against the laws, and having a parallel system of "moral crimes" is
unnecessary and problematical. It is too likely to duplicate the
criminal justice system or to try to replace it inadequately.

Response: I believe that this would be dismantling a very sacred
portion of the Mos Maiorum. One of the main job functions of the
Censor is the regulation of morals of citizens and Senators. I would
really like to hear the opinions of the other candidates regarding
this subject.

(3) Legislation that might tend to limit the rights of citizen
applicants, citizen returnees, gentes, or minority groups of any
kind should be reviewed by both the Senate and the Comitia, and any
such provision should also be subject to judicial review in terms
of the Constitution and such other general civil rights legislation
as may be passed.

Response: Question, how can the Comitia review any such provision.
That is outside of its powers granted in the Constitution of Nova
Roma. As for judicial review. I remember this conversation coming
up. Judicial Review is not a Roman Republican governmental theory.
However, article 5 of the Constitution does give the Senate supreme
policy making powers.

Passing on to Praetors, I believe that under our new judicial
system to be discussed in a future position paper, the Praetors will
have more to do in terms of hearing cases under definite legal
provisions, as well as in the development of new legislation. The
Aediles might also share to some extent in this.

Response: This sounds Ok, though there is nothing essentially stated.

<Snip>

The Tribunes are the normal leaders of the People as the
People. They must be expected to hold contiones (as also other
magistrates must!) to keep the People involved in the political
process. That means monthly Comitia's being held, and several
contiones in a month in whatever form it is deemed fairest and most
effective to hold them. A legal provision for the calling of at least
one contio a month should be enacted. If there were nothing to be
voted on, this contio could be used for soliciting initiatives for
desirable legislation from the grass roots.

Response: However, I must point out that what would happen if
Rogators resign and as a result contio's cannot be held. As Tribune
L. Sergius pointed out he was unable to summon any Comitia precisely
due to the fact that there was no one to count any vote. However, I
must point out to everyone that I do not think you have any ability
to implement this type of law.

To prevent the tribunes from being excessively in each
other's way by veto, I suggest that we have three Tribunes rather
than two. (Ten was the norm in Roma Antiqua, but I doubt that we can
recruit so many canddiates.) One Tribune would be allowed to veto one
other, but not both others at once. So, if there were disagreement,
whichever Tribune was the third in a given case would effectively
make the decision. This would prevent one inactive or irresponsible
Tribune from totally negating the tribunician power for a year (as
practically happened in the past year), while at the same time
preventing one over-enthusiastic Tribune from bringing all government
to a halt.

Response: Again, I do not think you have any authority, if elected
Praetor to implement anything listed above. However this sounds very
interesting.

The powers of taxation and appropriation should be vested
ultimately in the Comitia, as it is in the lower house of any modern
national parliament or congress. It might be desirable to establish a
joint committee of senators and commoners to prepare a budgetary
proposal which would have to pass both Comitia and Senate. This is
contrary to ancient practice, but in Roma Antiqua the vast majority
of the money in the aerarium dispensed by the Senate did not normally
come from taxes on citizens. Today it will, and we should not have
taxation without representation. The Senate is not made up of our
representatives, as it is a non-representative body, and we intend to
keep it that way. Therefore, the citizenry must represent itself in
the Comitia to have control over its taxes.

Response: Question to you M. Apollonius, in the beginning of this
statement you stated the Vedian Constitution works for you. Yet once
again you have shown that you want to make major rewrites. So tell
me? Does the Vedian Constitution work for you or does it not?
Beyond that, I think that if Nova Roma is to achieve its plans and
mission it must have taxes. Your last sentences really sound
inflammatory almost revolutionary. Finally as I stated above, even
if you are elected Praetor, I do not believe that you will have any
authority to implement anything you listed above.

The above is my general analysis of our governmental system
and some of the reforms other than the legal and judicial which I
think are called for today to make it better. As everyone can see, I
am not a proponent of rabid, wild-eyed Athenianism, as some have
rather irresponsibly and without basis accused the Amici Dignitatis
of being. Desiring a transparent Senate and an active, well-organised
set of Comitia is not the same as proposing Athenian Democracy
(although the latter was a truly fine thing in and of itself).

Response: I don't know, M. Apollonius, your last sentence in the
part about taxes really sounds like you are wanting to prefer a Greek
styled Democracy. You did say, "the citizenry must represent
itself" What role then does the Senate play or the Consuls too?
That is not how it was done in ancient Rome. It was a blending of
the three major systems. Are you not doing double talk?

<Snip>

Let me remind everyone, though, of a further fact: Almost all
of our citizens come from modern, democratic macronations. We share
not only a love of Rome, but the modern assumptions of democracy: One
man, one vote. Citizen equality. The Rule of Law and the Rule of the
Majority. No taxation without representation. Etc. We are mostly very
happy to tolerate certain stretchings and limitations in those things
to enjoy having a "Roman" form of government. After all, we came here
to be Roman! But if it turns out that there is too much deviation
from the fundamental political and ethical values that most of us
share, then those Neo-roman institutions will cease to be viable. We
have a real international organisation here, which must solve all the
problems of real societies in a new century, and which must function
legally, respectably and responsibly in the eyes of our citizens and
of the outside world if it is to be able to sponsor educational work,
religious expressions, cultural events, archaeological digs and so
forth. Ultimately, no constitution will be viable if the citizens do
not perceive that it itself and its concrete functioning enable these
pro-Roman activities.

Response: This paragraph concerns me. This paragraph really
concerns me. Tell me if I am incorrect, what you are saying is that
if the system doesn't work, we should scrap it and implement our
modern institutions in its place? Then Nova Roma wont be Nova Roma
anymore don't you agree? If I was a voter, I would be extremely
concerned about this.

I wish the Vedian Constitution to work, and that is why I
wish to make small changes to fine-tune it and to flesh out the
governmental form it sketches in more living detail and in a way that
will work and work well and thus enjoy the consensual support of all
Nova Romans.

Response: Fine-Tuned Changes? Removing the Powers of the Nota from
the Censors? Removing the Right to Tax from the Senate? Drastically
changing the Tribune of the Plebs? You call that fine-tuning. Let
me ask you M. Apollonius, what is a major change to the Constitution
in your opinion?

I mention the above point because there are some among us who
speak of "republicanism, not democracy" as a code expression for a
kind of conservative authoritarianism. They favour a stratified
society in which they are to be at the top of the heap and give
orders to the rest of us. Most of us here in Nova Roma do not want to
participate in the rôle of slaves or slavish plebeians to satisfy
those people's rôle-playing aspirations. Most of us want a decent,
responsible government - a Libera Respublica as Cicero called it. In
other words, Roman Democracy - not a mobocracy, but also not rule by
and for the Few alone. Senatus Populusque Romanus - that is the
natural way forward for us - and both elements must be properly
balanced and given the tasks for which they are best adapted.

Response: I see you are playing the rhetoric field to the hilt. In
my observation in Nova Roma, I must say, I have not seen anyone order
anyone around like a slave. I believe that you insult all the
citizens in Nova Roma by your comparison. Finally, let me say,
doesn't anyone find the term Roman Democracy contradictory? I am
sorry, M. Apollonius, but after reading your first page. I am very
disappointed in your platform to date. I look forward to your other
installments to see what else you have in store.

C. Iulius
*an interested observer*

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975844941/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:11:45 -0200

Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> I have a question. If a Senator is running for Tribune of the
> Plebs......and gets in. Does he still vote as a Senator? Or does he
> just act as Tribune of the Plebs?

A senator is a senator, whatever his other functions are.

M' Verus Limitanus

>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975845520/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] NOT running for office
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:34:42 EST

EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI

Salvete omnes,

Having scrawled a few election posters in support of Rex for Censor and Vado
for Consul I thought I would state why I am NOT standing for any office in
this round of elections. This might stall any 'put up or shut up' jibes (as
if anyone would stoop that low!).

I have decided to commit my time and energy to Nova Roma at the provincial
rather than State level. I would be concerned that taking on too much would
mean that I'd do many jobs badly rather than a few jobs well. In my position
as Praefector Aerarii Britanniae I will have to manage the taxation of the
province, and maybe most of Europe yet. With Britannia's Propraetor, Vado,
having finally received his Senate seat and in anticipation of him becoming a
Consul too, my duties as Procurator Britanniae (deputy governor) will no
doubt increase on day-to-day matters.

Britannia, and for that matter Nova Roma, needs workers 'at the sharp end' of
provincial development. This is where Nova Roma will most benefit at the
moment from my skills.

The only drawback I can see to all this is that I won't get any additional
century points for running for an office.

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975846890/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Endorsement of Vado for Consul
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:34:43 EST

EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI

I won't say much as Vado's actions for Nova Roma speak louder than my words.

Vado has worked tirelessly in development of Provincia Britannia to make it
one of the leading provinces within Nova Roma. The province has stable
government with sound, accountable political institutions. As Propraetor,
Vado has built alliances at a provincial level with our neighbouring
provinces in the Limes Co-operation. He has also received dignitaries
visiting Londinium such as M. Marcius Rex, Propraetor of Germania, and P.
Cassia. With a bit of minor tinkering Britannia will be one of the few
provinces in a position to institute the collection of taxes. It should also
be noted that under his leadership Britannia was one of only two provinces to
actually get their provincial report to the Senate within the time limit set
down by law.

As well as practical government, the spiritual wellbeing of the province has
not been forgotten. It was Vado who petitioned and won endorsement from the
Collegium Pontificum for the Britannalia festival held in honour of the
Genius Terrae Britanniae. A highly successful event which the province
enjoyed. (The floods that had plagued much of Britannia began to subside
after the festival had finished. It would appear the citizens weren't the
only ones happy with the festival.) Vado has also said prayers and made
offerings to dieties of Britannia. Within Nova Roma Vado is the priest to the
Flamen Floralis.

His leadership and work ethic that he has shown in Britannia he now offers to
Nova Roma as a whole. The citizens of our fair micronation would do well to
take up this commitment.

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975846891/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Final version of Senate agenda
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:06:16 -0000

> I encourage the conscript fathers to select from those
> already standing for election.

I believe that if the item passes, this will be the case.

Patricia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975848781/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Introductions
From:	"natasha Aiken" <natashaaiken@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:10:58 -0000

Salvate Nova Romans!!!

Following NOT so closely on the heels of the introduction from my
paterfamilias; Nicolaus Moravius Vado I would like to introduce
myself, Natalia Moravia to the Main Nova Roma list. I live in
Londinium and my major point of interest is religion. I would also
like to say that I am very proud to be a member of Gens Moravia.

I have completed the marathon task of reading the archives of this
list and although it makes me slightly less confused then it did
before I had read them It has a downside, I found myself wanting to
comment on conversations and arguments that are months even years
old!! It has been a good exercise in self control!

I hope to be able to contribute thoughtfully to this list in the
future and of course, improving my (terrible) latin.

Valete Nova Romans!

Natalia Moravia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975849059/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Sodalitas Militarium Contact
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 06:09:29 -0000

Salve Dalmaticus:

I am pleased that you wish to join Militarium! I shall subscribe you within
the next day to our egroups list. Also, the Sodalitas Executive would like
you to give us a short note on your particular interest in the Roman
Military. You may reply to my addie or Militarium@--------

For Militarium,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Sodalitas Militarium Contact
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:59:24 -0800 (PST)
>
>I would like to join the Sodalitas Militarium. How do
>I do that?
>
>L Aetius Dalmaticus
>
>=====
>LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
>HQ USAREUR/7A
>CMR 420, BOX 2839
>APO AE 09063-2839
>
>"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975856205/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Cursus Honorum
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:33:33 -0600 (CST)

> Sometimes people act from principle and conscience. That is the case
> here, whatever evil or egotistical motives you might imagine about
> me. In so doing they may appear arrogant to others, and their
> persistence in their testimony to truth and right as they see it may
> be annoying.

A fair and true statement. Now, consider your opinion of
Lucius Cornelius, Lucius Equitius, and Quintus Fabius, in light of
the above statement. They did what they (and many others) believe
to be right and true, but you have accused them of working "evil".
Can you concede that someone might hold a different opinion from
your own, and still be a good person, with honorable intentions?

I do not consider you evil, Marcus Apollonius, but merely misguided.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975861215/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Introductions
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:07:51 EST

Salve Natalia,

Welcome to Nova Roma, and like you, I'm also trying to improve my latin.

Vale
Aeternia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975863307/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] On the Amici Dignitatis
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 19:09:43 +0100

Caius Flavius Diocletianus, wearing the whitened toga, to the people of
Rome.

Friends, Citizens!

One main topic seems to be the Statement of the Amici Dignitatis, and
the persons who signed it.

This debate is fought with all weapons available: Truth, Half-Truth,
Polemics and much more. So, a really amazing debate. Our ancient
ancestors would be proud to see this battle of words.

A battle, for what? Are the amici dignitatis really the enemies of the
republic, as some politicians suggest us? Are they really "Athenian
Demagoges", people who wants to throw an "atomic bomb" or converting
Nova Roma into Nova Athena, or mobilizing the mob? BTW: Who is the mob?
I haven´t seen a mob here in Nova Roma, only citizens who are able to
think for themselves.

I choosed this words, because they indicate the level of this debate.
Citizens, do you really want to see your candidates and politicians
using arguments such those I mentioned above? This is a level of
political fight achieved at the end ot the republic - only without
daggers! Remember - the time when the emperors raised out of the ashes
of a republic, burnt by civil war.

I for my person refuse to enter a debate on this level. I refuse to
argue with mud and dirt. I became a Nova Roman, because I wanted to LIVE
our roman virtues. This is the way of live I choose.

Candidates, have you all read the Virtues descripted on our Nova Roma
Homepage today?

Now citizens, it´s the time for you to decide: Who argues inflaming? Are
these really the Amici Dignitatis? Make up your own mind and read the
statement. And, please, remember: What´s the meaning of "Dignitas"?

Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Citizen and Patrician
Candidate for Praetor Urbanus
www.diocletian.de/elect/diocletianus/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975867380/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Rep...
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:24:32 EST

EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI

> When one resigns their citizenship
> it makes Nova Roma look like a game.

This reminds me of something that happened not too long ago. Curse this poor
memory of mine.

Ah well, it's in the NR archives for all to see and may help voters base
their opinions on certain judgements of character of a high-ranking official.

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975867882/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Sodalitas Egressus Contact
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:29:57 -0000

Salve Dalmaticus:

Please send an application to join Egressus, stating your full Roman Name
and your provincia to C. Marius Merullus at c_marius_m@--------

Vale!
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Sodalitas Egressus Contact
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:05:12 -0800 (PST)
>
>I would like to join the Sodalitas Egressus. Can
>someone from that group please contact me.
>
>L Aetius Dalmaticus
>
>=====
>LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
>HQ USAREUR/7A
>CMR 420, BOX 2839
>APO AE 09063-2839
>
>"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975868213/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Amici Dignitatis
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:22:12 -0600 (CST)

Salve Cai Flavi Diocletiane,

> One main topic seems to be the Statement of the Amici Dignitatis, and
> the persons who signed it.

Actually, the statement itself has not attracted much attention. The
posting of Marcus Apollonius that followed it has received much more
criticism, for it was much more inflammatory than your statement.

> A battle, for what? Are the amici dignitatis really the enemies of the
> republic, as some politicians suggest us?

No one really knows. We do not know how much of Apollonius' manifesto
is supported by the rest of the Amici, nor what plans you have made
among yourselves to act as a unified group. All that we do know is
that the signitories of that document have been acting much like a
political party.

Your intentions are a mystery. It would help if each of the Amici
would state whether they supported Apollonius' goals to "remove"
Lucius Cornelius and Quintus Fabius from office, and to defeat any
tax proposal that comes from the Senate.

> Now citizens, it´s the time for you to decide: Who argues
> inflaming? Are these really the Amici Dignitatis?

It was one of the Amici who first called the actions of our
magistrates "evil". It was one of the Amici who linked the Censors'
edict on names to the Nazi Holocaust. It was one of the Amici who
stated an intent to "remove" Censor Sulla from office. Before the
campaign season even started, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus had
set the tone for its debate.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975871333/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Endorsement for Consul, Quaestor and Aedilis Plebis positions
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@-------->
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:37:53 +0100

Salvete Omnes,

I would like to support the candidacy of the following citizens for the charges they've chosen to compete for.

I endorse the candidacy of N. Moravius Vado for the position of Consul. Vado has been very active and have made wonderful work within Provincia Brittania. He also supported actively the creation of Gallia Provincia and has providing me unvaluable advice when I was elected Propraetor Galliae by the Senate.
He is utterly faithful to Nova Roma, and will proove a most valuable Consul.

I also endorse the candidacy of Patricia Cassia for the position of Quaestor. I've never been in direct contact with Patricia Cassia but I several times had the opportunity to see her work and devotion to NR. She seams very motivated and will undoubtly be efficient and integer as a Quaestor.

I would also like to support my colleage S. Apollonius Draco, Legatus Galliae, for the position of Aedilis Plebis.
He is not only co-founder of Provincia Gallia, but a very eficient person, who has already done a great job for the admnistration of the Provincia Gallia, in a very short time.
He is most valuable for NR as testify his numerous involment within our Republic. Unless his young age, he is a very mature person who truly deserve to acceed to this position.
I would like to encourage every Gallus Cives to endorse his candidacy.

Valete Omnes
Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975872546/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Republic
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:02:19 EST

Salve Marcus Apollonius

Much of this sounds just fine and duckey, but it is different from the
things that are said in your Amici Dignitatis list, and even more
different from the things you personally have said in reference to your
"convocatores." You seem to show one face there on your own list and a
different face here in the Forum. Although I initially was drawn to you,
this disturbs me, as I suspect it does many others here.

Where are the declarations, which you make on your own list, that the
actions of our government are comparable to the Nazi Holocaust?

Where are your statements that the citizens who presently serve the
Republic are "morally degenerate" and "evil" and not necessarily ever to
be forgiven?

Where is your real platform, Marcus Apollonius? You reveal it to your
friends and co-conspirators, but you present a somewhat cleaned-up
version here. Why is that?

Where is your insistence, stated on your list, that we keep open the
private business of Lucius Marius and use it to continually flog the
elected magistrates - oh, I'm sorry, the moral degenerates - of our
Republic?

And for that matter, where is Lucius Marius? Has he given you permission
to drag his private business out again and again as a justification for
your vengefulness? Has he volunteered to serve as your martyr?

And BTW, since it is cited as part of the reason for your proposed
revolution, his case was not taken to the Comitia because in consultation
with me as Tribunus Plebis HE ELECTED NOT TO TAKE IT THERE, which is his
own right, regardless of what you think should have been done. I
respected his decision and his privacy, which you apparently do not.
Again, who gave you the right to use him as your martyr?

More comments are below:

On 12/3/00 12:53 AM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:

>M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I am preparing a short series of long :-) position papers on various
>topics to inform the voters of where I stand and what ideas I have as
>a candidate for the position of Praetor Urbanus. I hope by so doing
>to more constructively engage with the electorate than by replying to
>the tedious ad hominem attacks of Sulla and others. Here is something
>constructive. I shall not be able to do all the things proposed here
>as one lone Praetor, but I present them as proposals and shall work
>in collaboration with any and all who might wish to work for them.
>____________________
>What should be the relationship between Senate and People in our fair
>commonwealth? I go most with the traditional formulation recently
>repeated by candidate M. Mucius Scaevola Magister who says:
>
>"I stand for this post in the belief that it is essential to Nova
>Roma's future that the Comitia should function properly, in order
>that the MIXED constitution (monarchic in the magistrates,
>aristocratic in the Senate, democratic in the Comitia and in the veto
>powers of the Tribunes, which exist to force matters into the
>Comitia), which was characteristic of Roma Antiqua and has been
>adopted by Nova Roma, should be effectively defended."
>________________
[snipped your explication of M. Mucius Scaevola Magister's post]
>
> If we apply this to creating an ideal for Nova Roma, I think we
>naturally must make allowances for the fact that we are in a new age
>of the world in which the political ideas from both Greece and Rome,
>as well as from the Northern Peoples (e.g. British parliamentary
>democracy) have merged and developed and created new norms and
>expectations. We must also remember that the socio-economic
>underpinnings of Roma Antiqua do not exist for us. Our senators are
>not especially rich and most of their fathers were not politicians,
>and ordinary citizens in very many cases have university educations,
>for example. Also, although some do not like it, we are at the moment
>at least an internet-based society.
>
> The Vedian Constitution is in most respects a document that does
>what I would wish to do. Most of what I would change takes the form
>of fine-tuning in the light of experience and making the institutions
>provided for in it work better.
LSAO: I'll defer on this to C. Iulius, our "interested observer" whose
comments I can only agree with.

> I favour retaining the Senate in approximately its present form, but
>with transparency in its discussions and voting records, and perhaps
>a limiting of some censorial powers with relation to senators, which
>could easily be abused as they now stand. (The Censors presently can
>remove any senators they like with notae against them.) I also think
>that the Censors should be limited to granting discretionary
>senatorships to those approved by the Senate, although I would let
>them *propose* their preferences to the Senate too. (Note that these
>changes would actually strengthen the Senate.)
LSAO: See C. Iulius' post.
>
> We should remember that the Senate is going to gradually grow and
>become a big institution. Maybe some day it will become bigger than
>the 600 cives in Nova Roma today. With modern electronic
>communications that will not be a big problem - but it will probably
>mean long before then that we will have to adopt some form of
>discussion-limiting mechanism such as the Roman solution of allowing
>only certain classes of ex-magistrates to speak in normal
>circumstances. A committee system may also become a practical
>necessity of internal organisation at some point.
LSAO: Roma Antiqva eventually set a limit to the number of senators. We
will obviously have to do the same. We're a good long way from having to
deal with that problem.
>
> As to magistrates, I believe that the Nova Roman censorate is
>practically too powerful. In Roma Antiqua Censors were created once
>in five years, did their job, and vanished into highly honourable
>relative obscurity. We use them as archivists and secretaries and
>give them two-year terms. That has its advantages and was well
>thought-out in terms of overlapping terms, but since they hold in
>their keeping some of the few real powers anyone has here - the
>ability to keep persons out of Nova Roma and to issue notae depriving
>persons of senatorship and the right to vote - they must be regulated
>more than they are.
>
> We have seen in this past year how one Censor kept a veteran citizen
>from returning freely and normally, who had just left temporarily in
>protest at the Censor's own policy discriminating against a sexual
>minority group, and we have seen as well how easily discriminatory
>edicta were issued by just two individuals - mostly by one. This is a
>place in our Respublica where one or two individuals can cause real
>suffering to others if they are prejudiced, and where they can give a
>bad name to all Nova Roma through discriminatory actions.
>
> I would see a reduction in the censorial power in these ways:
>
>(1) It should be the default situation that a given applicant for
>citizenship, whether on the first application or a subsequent
>occasion of return, be granted that citizenship. Denial of a
>citizenship application should require the agreement of both Censors.
>That will allow keeping out the few really bad apples, while giving
>the benefit of the doubt to everyone else. Returning citizens (at
>least) should also have a right of appeal to the People in Comitia
>assembled if their applications are rejected.
>
>(2) Censorial notae should no longer carry with them expulsion from
>the Senate or revocation of civic rights, but should have only moral
>force. We will soon have courts to deal with offenders against the
>laws, and having a parallel system of "moral crimes" is unnecessary
>and problematical. It is too likely to duplicate the criminal justice
>system or to try to replace it inadequately.
>
>(3) Legislation that might tend to limit the rights of citizen
>applicants, citizen returnees, gentes, or minority groups of any kind
>should be reviewed by both the Senate and the Comitia, and any such
>provision should also be subject to judicial review in terms of the
>Constitution and such other general civil rights legislation as may
>be passed.
>
> Passing on to Praetors, I believe that under our new judicial system
>to be discussed in a future position paper, the Praetors will have
>more to do in terms of hearing cases under definite legal provisions,
>as well as in the development of new legislation. The Aediles might
>also share to some extent in this.
>
> The Consuls are functioning essentially as I would wish them to.
LSAO: How fortunate for them! ;-)
>
> The Comitia are an area where great development is still necessary
>so that they can enable the People to develop and express its will.
>Many of the somewhat obscure details of its ancient organisation have
>been researched by Piscinus, and stand available to be restored and
>adapted for our needs. Electronic communications provide us with
>great opportunities for speedy and effective consultation with the
>People, as well as for their discussions to take place. The new
>Plebeian chat room is one step in the right direction.
>
> The Tribunes are the normal leaders of the People as the People.
>They must be expected to hold contiones (as also other magistrates
>must!) to keep the People involved in the political process. That
>means monthly Comitia's being held, and several contiones in a month
>in whatever form it is deemed fairest and most effective to hold
>them. A legal provision for the calling of at least one contio a
>month should be enacted. If there were nothing to be voted on, this
>contio could be used for soliciting initiatives for desirable
>legislation from the grass roots.
LSAO: The Tribunes are not elected to lead the people but to serve them,
directly - as protectors against misuse of magisterial authority, and
indirectly - as advocates and guardians of the Constitution.
>
> To prevent the tribunes from being excessively in each other's way
>by veto, I suggest that we have three Tribunes rather than two. (Ten
>was the norm in Roma Antiqua, but I doubt that we can recruit so many
>canddiates.) One Tribune would be allowed to veto one other, but not
>both others at once. So, if there were disagreement, whichever
>Tribune was the third in a given case would effectively make the
>decision. This would prevent one inactive or irresponsible Tribune
>from totally negating the tribunician power for a year (as
>practically happened in the past year), while at the same time
>preventing one over-enthusiastic Tribune from bringing all government
>to a halt.
LSAO: I think we would do better to replicate the original system in
which Tribunes could exercise their power of intercessio as individuals.
We have not had an irresponsible Tribune this year. Some might say we
have had an over-enthusiastic one: I'll defer that one to the judgement
of those I serve.
I think Flavius Vedius modified it as he did out of fear that one bad
Tribune could cause a lot of trouble. I think there should be other ways
of guarding against that, and then again, maybe, as in Roma, it is not
necessary to guard against that. The departures of rogators did far more
damage this year than a rogue Tribune could ever have done. A Tribune
could only block the specific action of a magistrate: our unfaithful
Rogators blocked the participation of the whole citizenry in making laws
or passing judgements.
>
> The powers of taxation and appropriation should be vested ultimately
>in the Comitia, as it is in the lower house of any modern national
>parliament or congress. It might be desirable to establish a joint
>committee of senators and commoners to prepare a budgetary proposal
>which would have to pass both Comitia and Senate. This is contrary to
>ancient practice, but in Roma Antiqua the vast majority of the money
>in the aerarium dispensed by the Senate did not normally come from
>taxes on citizens. Today it will, and we should not have taxation
>without representation. The Senate is not made up of our
>representatives, as it is a non-representative body, and we intend to
>keep it that way. Therefore, the citizenry must represent itself in
>the Comitia to have control over its taxes.
>
> The above is my general analysis of our governmental system and some
>of the reforms other than the legal and judicial which I think are
>called for today to make it better. As everyone can see, I am not a
>proponent of rabid, wild-eyed Athenianism, as some have rather
>irresponsibly and without basis accused the Amici Dignitatis of
>being. Desiring a transparent Senate and an active, well-organised
>set of Comitia is not the same as proposing Athenian Democracy
>(although the latter was a truly fine thing in and of itself).
>
> Specifically, I remind everyone that the office of Praetor carries
>with it the senatorship. If you, the electorate of Nova Roma, choose
>to elect me, I shall in the new (Common Era) millennium be a senator
>of Nova Roma, and hardly motivated to destroy the Senate, as some
>have intimated against me that I wanted to do.
>
> Let me remind everyone, though, of a further fact: Almost all of our
>citizens come from modern, democratic macronations. We share not only
>a love of Rome, but the modern assumptions of democracy: One man, one
>vote. Citizen equality. The Rule of Law and the Rule of the Majority.
>No taxation without representation. Etc. We are mostly very happy to
>tolerate certain stretchings and limitations in those things to enjoy
>having a "Roman" form of government. After all, we came here to be
>Roman! But if it turns out that there is too much deviation from the
>fundamental political and ethical values that most of us share, then
>those Neo-roman institutions will cease to be viable. We have a real
>international organisation here, which must solve all the problems of
>real societies in a new century, and which must function legally,
>respectably and responsibly in the eyes of our citizens and of the
>outside world if it is to be able to sponsor educational work,
>religious expressions, cultural events, archaeological digs and so
>forth. Ultimately, no constitution will be viable if the citizens do
>not perceive that it itself and its concrete functioning enable these
>pro-Roman activities.
>
> I wish the Vedian Constitution to work, and that is why I wish to
>make small changes to fine-tune it and to flesh out the governmental
>form it sketches in more living detail and in a way that will work
>and work well and thus enjoy the consensual support of all Nova
>Romans.
>
> I mention the above point because there are some among us who speak
>of "republicanism, not democracy" as a code expression for a kind of
>conservative authoritarianism. They favour a stratified society in
>which they are to be at the top of the heap and give orders to the
>rest of us. Most of us here in Nova Roma do not want to participate
>in the role of slaves or slavish plebeians to satisfy those people's
>role-playing aspirations. Most of us want a decent, responsible
>government - a Libera Respublica as Cicero called it. In other words,
>Roman Democracy - not a mobocracy, but also not rule by and for the
>Few alone. Senatus Populusque Romanus - that is the natural way
>forward for us - and both elements must be properly balanced and
>given the tasks for which they are best adapted.
LSAO: Since most of us are citizens (or captives?) of "modern, democratic
macronations," why on earth would we want to recreate another one of
those here????
Have you not been paying attention, Formosanus? This is a recreation of
the Roman Republic! Not a recreation of a "modern, democratic"
government, most of which have proven their moral bankruptcy and their
general ineffectiveness and destructiveness of citizens' rights and
interests during the past 200 or so years.
If you do not want to participate in a Roman Republic, then WHY ARE YOU
EVEN HERE?
>
>Valete!
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
>Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
LSAO: I note that neither the "Amici Dignitatis" nor the "Convocatores"
are listed here - why is that, Marcus Apollonius?

Finis, and I don't think there's an ad hominem in there anywhere! I
didn't call you "evil" or a Nazi or any of the other terms you have used
against others.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Candidate for Praetor

si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

(If it ain't broke, don't fix it.)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975873748/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Cursus Honorum
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:02:24 EST

On 12/3/00 2:41 AM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:

>Salve Australice!
>
>Australicus scripsit:
>
>"What are we to make, Formosanus, of your obstinate determination to
>impose your own private will on the republic and its magistrates and
>citizens by continually hacking away at the same old topic with the
>same tired rhetoric after everyone else on both sides of the matter
>has finished with it and moved on? Can you never accept a decision
>that goes against your own wishes? Have you no concern for anything
>except whether you get your own way?
LSAO: Why do you clip this out of context? - I know you have no aversion
to long posts. :-)
This was in direct response to an accusation you made of Sulla, yet your
words don't appear here, and thus it appears that I am just attacking you
rather than turning your own question back at you, which is really the
case.
>
>"You are an eloquent and learned man, Formosanus, and you have much
>to offer here. But, mea sententia, the way you operate - wearing
>everyone down by endlessly droning on about old issues, gathering a
>political faction and pretending it is "nonpartisan," and declaring
>your intent to so radically alter the state as to destroy its
>essential nature and then offering yourself innocently as a candidate
>for office in that targeted state - is very disturbing and smacks of
>the worst kind of demagoguery.
>
>"Do you know what memories your behavior has brought to my mind?....
>
>"'FORMOSANUS IST NOVA ROMA, UND NOVA ROMA
>FORMOSANUS IST!'
>
>"That's really what your behavior is telling us, isn't it? Only you
>have The Truth about what this republic should be, and the rest of us
>are going to have to accept it eventually.
>
>
>"Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
>Candidate for Tribunus Plebis"
And of course that was a typo - it should say "Candidate for Praetor."
>___________________________
>
>RESPONDEO:
>
> Well, I hope that you will admit that I am at least (approximately)
>one six-hundredth of Nova Roma. And perhaps that one six-hundredth of
>the censorial power used on a fellow citizen in an unfair way is
>derived from my citizenship here.
>
> So maybe if I raise my one six-hundredth of the voices in Nova Roma
>to cry "STOP!" to what I see as a serious abuse of my six-hundredth
>of the censorial power, I might be allowed to do so, without being
>accused of thinking that I am six hundred six-hundredths, which would
>be very bad arithmetic? :-)
LSAO: You are an excellent orator, Marcus Apollonius. ;-)

> I feel the fact that I am a civis here strongly, and I feel a moral
>responsibility when I see an egregious injustice. It is a small
>enough country and I feel ashamed when I cannot stop such things from
>happening.
LSAO: But when even the principals of the issue consider it over and done
with, why do you insist on carrying on the animosity and using it (and
them) to further your own political ends?

> No doubt members of the anti-slavery movement and the women's rights
>movement many times heard words like yours, and some were thrown into
>gaol as well. But in the end - after many decades of struggle in some
>places - even we in Nova Roma pay respect to those principles when a
>closer adherence to ancient values might have made us defend slavery
>to some extent and to exclude women from office.
LSAO: So now I'm compared to slavers and anti-feminists? Would it
interest you to know that I'm the only "blond-haired, blue-eyed brother"
in a dark-skinned Mississippi family, and that I just two weeks ago
celebrated the 18th birthday of my foster son whom you would no doubt
call "black" and that a former wife and I were founding members of the
women's movement at our university during the early 70's? Perhaps it
would serve you better to go back to talking about Nazis.

> Sometimes people act from principle and conscience. That is the case
>here, whatever evil or egotistical motives you might imagine about
>me. In so doing they may appear arrogant to others, and their
>persistence in their testimony to truth and right as they see it may
>be annoying. However, no one with any insight into persons of this
>type would fail to distinguish between a principled testimony driven
>by conscience and simple stubbornness.
>
> I have no means other than my voice crying in the wilderness to aid
>a fellow citizen who has been misused - by my one six-hundredth of
>the power of our State. And if I do not succeed at once, then I still
>do not have any other power than to use that little fraction of the
>chorus of citizen voices that is my own, and so continue.
LSAO: Aha, so you are now playing St. John the Baptist against the evil
degerates of the magistrates in power? Cicero himself would bow his head
in deference to your oratory, Marcus Apollonius. ;-)

> Will it be rectified if I still my voice? Perhaps never.
LSAO: So you are the sole voice of goodness and reason, and without you,
nothing?

> And if I am persistent? Maybe, some day. And in any case I would be
>doing my duty. So I use my only method. To call on people and
>authorities to treat all sexual minorities decently. To refrain from
>telling a citizen what sex he is against his or her own perceptions
>and respectfully accept the way he defines himself (or herself) in
>his (or her) heart of hearts. It would not hurt Nova Roma to treat
>cives of this minority so, but it would make a big difference to
>their sense of true acceptance and belongingness here. Why do you
>attack me for trying to realise this with patience and persistence?
>Why do you not help instead of criticisng me for a good deed?
LSAO: Where is a "sexual minority" wronged here? I think you are
confusing sex with gender, and trying to make a wider issue out of one
person's situation.

> Now, as to your attack on the Amici, I am afraid you are wrong to
>imply that they are my personal creation or hangers on. The Amici
>were a joint effort of which I was only a co-founder and not the
>leader. Many of us, all essentially independent-minded and principled
>individuals, joined together as equals out of a shared conviction
>that we need more effective democratic institutions, especially an
>orderly and impartial judicial system and more active Comitia.
LSAO: We don't even have a judicial system, since without the Comitiae
there can be no such system. And I'm sure no-one here disagrees that the
Comitiae must be made to function.

> I did not write the Statement, but approved it and signed it with
>the others. It is a *very* moderate statement of ordinary democratic
>values such as might be found in America, Australia or Italy. If any
>part of it offends you, I would like to hear which and why.
LSAO: To which statement do you refer, Marcus Apollonius? To the "cleaned
up" one posted here a while back, or to the one quoted here by Graecus,
or to the various statements you have made as an individual on the AD
list?

> The Amici have no enthusiasm for being a party (although there would
>be nothing unethical, dishonourable or illegal about being one), and
>prefer to think of themselves as a Good Government civic
>organisation. I myself think that it functions as a party whether we
>want it to or not, since there is a definite group against good
>government as we conceive of it and we are in practice opposed
>groups.
LSAO: Whoa! Where is this "definite group against good government?" Once
again you slip into the "black and white, good vs. evil" rhetoric. Who
made you the good guy and the other side bad? Can you not present your
candidacy and your proposals without all this talk about good and evil,
and moral degeneracy, and Nazis, and slavery, etc., ad nauseam?

>So what? We are trying to make the courts and the Comitia work and to
>protect individual rights with good legislation so that nobody needs
>fear if a high magistrate dislikes him. Why do you not consider this
>on its merits? Instead of dismissing it simply because I have a
>particular cause that I mention often? Instead of complaining because
>we express our common concerns together?
LSAO: I think that most of us see that we do not need to fear our
Republic. Sometimes it does what we want and other times not - most of us
learned as small children that such is life. What we need to fear is one
who cannot accept that basic fact of life, and offers instead to
*destroy* our Republic in the guise of "fine tuning" or "tweaking" it.

> In fact, many people outside our circle have come to rather similar
>conclusions now as to what is needed, and if I am elected I look
>forward to working with them too, as I am sure my fellow Amici
>Dignitatis feel.
>
> Austalice, could you not be a little less Obstinatus just this once,
>refrain from the ad hominem attacks on me and the other Amici, and
>judge our Statement and our individual campaign platforms on their
>merits? I would appreciate it.
LSAO: Who have I attacked ad hominem, Marcus Apollonius? I know you are
scholar enough to know the meaning of that term. It means attacking the
speaker as a person rather than debating their ideas and arguments on
their merits. I don't think I have attacked you as a person: unlike you,
I have not characterized anyone as morally degenerate or evil or a Nazi
or a slaver or an antifeminist.

Now the allusion to Hitler, above, might come close to an ad hominem
attack, but it was in response to learning that you have been
characterizing your opposition as Nazis on the AD list, and it was an
attack directed at the demagogic tone of your rhetoric and not at you as
a person. If you felt it personally, then I apologize for that, here and
now.

Now if you could refrain from trying to represent your candidacy as a
crusade of the White Knights against a bunch of dirty, evil trolls, then
perhaps the appearance of ad hominem arguments could be avoided?

>Vale!
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
>Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius
What? Still no mention of the Amici Dignitatis or the Convocatores?
That's an interesting omission.

I wish you well, Marcus Apollonius, but if you are determined to
undermine the recreation of the Roman Republic, then I wish you out of
its public offices. There is nothing ad hominem in that.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus (if a little less so just this once)
Candidate for Praetor

cum ballistae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti ballistas habebunt.

(When ballistas are outlawed, only outlaws will have ballistas.)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975873775/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] falling silent for a while
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:02:27 EST

Salvete omnes

I am going to have to tear myself away from the give-and-take of the
election for a while. I have a lot of "real world" work to do.
Additionally, all of the votes and comments of the Senate have to be
compiled into some kind of simple document for posting here since, as I
alluded to earlier, that proposed procedure appears to be passing. That's
going to be a time-consuming task (and a long or multiple post).

If for the next few days I don't appear as active here as I have been,
don't take it as a sign that I have skipped out. I just may not be saying
much.

Valete,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis and Candidate for Praetor

How do you say in Latin, "Some of us have work to do?" ;-)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975873778/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Piscinus and the Roman Republic
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:53:56 EST

Salve S. Apollonius

I almost neglected to respond to this.

On 12/2/00 8:15 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:

>Salve Australice,
>
>> I do not agree that the faction you call the "Amici" is being demonized.
>> I think what is happening is that this group, by virtue of having chosen
>> to be members of the "Amici," is being tarred with the brush of your
>> paterfamilias' rather radical posted manifesto for the group. This is an
>> occupational hazard of those who choose to run in packs - any member of
>> the pack is liable to be shot as a wolf because of actions by other
>> members.
>>
>> If, as you have argued, the "Amici" are not a faction but just a group of
>> concerned civies who chose to go off and talk among themselves rather
>> than in the Forum, then I suggest they would do well for themselves as
>> individuals and for the good name of this group/faction/wolf
>> pack/whatever to now openly declare, before the citizens in this Forum,
>> how each of them stands with respect to the Manifesto of Apollonius
>> Formosanus. Titus Labienus Fortunatus has already done so, and I respect
>> him the more for that.
>>
>> This is a time when some of the members of this group/faction/wolf
>> pack/whatever are standing for important offices in our government. Those
>> candidates who, having aligned themselves with him by joining the
>> "Amici," will not declare whether they do or do not follow Formosanus'
>> revolutionary Manifesto, will only leave the citizens of Nova Roma uneasy
>> and distrustful of why they will not say publically where they stand.
>>
>
>You are making four mistakes here; namely:
>
>1. The statement is not written by my pater, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
>but was mainly drafted by Gnaeus Moravius Piscinus. Direct your criticism to
>him instead.
LSAO: I could swear I've seen these words over your pater's name
somewhere, but if I'm mistaken in that it means little, since Marcus
Apollonius has expressed all of these same views at one time or another.
In that regard, I wonder why he didn't correct me on this point?

>2. If I sign a Statement, it means I agree. Period. Everyone here in NR
>seems to be making a mistake of going ad hominem. It's about ideas in the
>first place, not about the people that present them. Once you mix those up
>you've got a problem.
LSAO: Then if your pater has signed on to Piscinus' statement, he has
indicated agreement with the proposals therein, right? So then to
criticize his advocacy of those proposals is legitimate. But here, again,
it's not clear which statement we are talking about. There have been
several: the original manifesto advertised here with respect to the Amici
Dignitatis, the less public one talked about on the Amici Dignitatis
list, and the one quoted here by Graecus within the past few days. It is
understandable that we might get mixed up about what the real platform of
that party is, is it not?

>3. You find it justifyable that because we agree on a statement a
>controversial citizen of this state also agrees with, we just need to bare
>with the chance of being shot as well. This is nonsense, as far as I'm
>concerned. Reputation is again nothing much to fight over - it's theideology!
LSAO: Indeed, this is nonsense! I use a metaphor suggesting that people
may be held to account for the views of the group they choose to be a
part of, and you're going to turn it into a concrete threat to shoot
people? Come on, Draco! I don't think you're a dummy - don't make me out
to be one.

>Say, have you ever carefully read the Statement? Are you a member
>of the Forum? Stop confusing people with their ideals, please.
LSAO: Are you suggesting that we should vote for people only on the basis
of the ideals they profess, rather than on an estimate of whether they
are people who really hold those ideals? People should be consistent with
the ideals they espouse: that's what is called "integrity." How can
someone accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being an evil, morally
degenerate fascist, and then turn around and complain of "ad hominem"
attacks by his victims?

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis
Candidate for Praetor
>
>Vale!
>Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
><< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
>Legatus Galliae Borealis,
>Procurator Galliae,
>Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
>--**--
>There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
>--**--
>Novaromain? Parlez-vous francais? Cliquez ici!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
>Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
>Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
>--**--

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975876844/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] "and one more thing..."
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:53:52 EST

Salvete,

Some of you are routinely sending me blind copies of your posts, for
reasons I don't often understand. I am subscribed to both the Nova Roma
list and the Senate list, so if you post to either of those, I receive
your post as well.

Because of the way my addresses are set up, I already receive two copies
of everything that goes to the main list, so please don't send me any
extra copies!

Thanks,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis and Candidate for Praetor

in ullam rem ne properemus.

(Let's not rush into anything.)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/975876850/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Number of candidates
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:51:43 -0300

Salvete, Quirites

Just to see if my list of candidates is complete:
There are 2 candidates for the office of censor, and only one place in this election (2/1)
3 for consul, and 2 places (3/2)
Pretor, (5/2)
Aedile Curule, nobody (0/2) :-(
Quaestor (7/8)
Tribunus Plebis (4/2)
Aedile Plebis (2/2)
Curator Araenae (1/1)
Curator Differum (0/1)
Curator Sermonem (1/1)
Rogator (3/2)

That is, we still need 2 candidates for Aedile Curule, one for Quaestor, and one for Curator Differum, if im not wrong.

Perhaps, in the next election, someone (maybe the rogatores) can post in the NR site a official list of candidates. (Yes, i know that Tarquinius and Diocletianus posted their lists, but we need something absolutely impartial ... im not insinuating something!)

Im with a doubt... if someone are the only candidate (say, to Curator Differum), and nobody votes on him, even if there isn4t another candidate, he will be declared the winner? (im just curious about this).

Another question... if someone of age lesser than 21 candidate for Plebeian Aedile (the age limit for this magistrature), and the Senate doesnt grant the 2/3 exeption, what happens?
My interpretation, learning the Constitution, is that he can candidate, can be elected, but can4t exercise their magistrate powers, until he reaches the age of 21. Is my interpretation correct?

By the way, i have 29 years, but it seems that there are candidates have less than the minimum necessary. I ask the Senate to concede the exeption to whom haves the interest and energy to serve Nova Roma.

Valete,

Marcus Arminius Maior
Candidate for Plebeian Aedile
Provincia Brasilia

Great Gift Idea! FREE cell phone, internet ready at Lycos Marketplace
http://www.inphonic.lycos.com/redirect.asp?referringpage=www.lycosd1

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975880322/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate Position Paper 1: The Structure of the Roman Republic
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:21:12 EST

In a message dated 12/2/00 10:54:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, bvm3@--------
writes:

<< M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

I am preparing a short series of long :-) position papers on various
topics to inform the voters of where I stand and what ideas I have as
a candidate for the position of Praetor Urbanus. I hope by so doing
to more constructively engage with the electorate than by replying to
the tedious ad hominem attacks of Sulla and others. Here is something
constructive. I shall not be able to do all the things proposed here
as one lone Praetor, but I present them as proposals and shall work
in collaboration with any and all who might wish to work for them.

Aeternia:: Ave Formosanus et alli. I for one, and will only speak for myself
in this,
am glad you are explaining the goals you have planned out as future Praetor
Urbanus.
Yet, I have read all e-mail concerning this election, and am collecting all
words to
understand where each canidate is coming from. I have a few questions to ask
you
Formosanus and I hope you won't be offended, I am a concerned citizen who is
curious. I'm still learning when it comes to politics so everyone bear with
me.
____________________
What should be the relationship between Senate and People in our fair
commonwealth? I go most with the traditional formulation recently
repeated by candidate M. Mucius Scaevola Magister who says:

"I stand for this post in the belief that it is essential to Nova
Roma's future that the Comitia should function properly, in order
that the MIXED constitution (monarchic in the magistrates,
aristocratic in the Senate, democratic in the Comitia and in the veto
powers of the Tribunes, which exist to force matters into the
Comitia), which was characteristic of Roma Antiqua and has been
adopted by Nova Roma, should be effectively defended."

Aeternia:: From what I studied in high school and college, the Senate in
Ancient Rome was created for the People, since monarchy's in Rome
were exspelled and practically forbidden. Could I be wrong? Wasn't Julius
Caesar assinated by his fellow Senators, because they thought he would
change the government to monarchy?
________________
"Monarchic" reflects the idea that the monarch can act decisively,
more decisively than a deliberative body. That is moderated in the
Roman constitution by the principle of collegiality at all levels -
the Romans did not really trust monarchs in their better, Republican
days. And the "monarchs" (magistrates) are elected directly by the
People (certainly not by the Senate!), and for a brief term of one
year at a time to prevent the excessive collection of power into any
one man's hands.

Aeternia:: The Senate is a group of magistrates correct? And a Monarchy
is usually one ruler? Formosanus could you explain a bit more?

"Aristocratic" reflects the idea that there exists a class who are
in some sense "the best" in that their ancestors were eminent, and
that in a day and political culture in which education in statecraft
was to a considerable extent a family affair, it made sense to give
an important advisory rôle to the scions of the ancient houses who
had the leisure, money and interest to become political
professionals. The Senate was their organ, and it served to give
continuity to government and to serve as a permanent "think tank"
where the political expertise of Rome could be nurtured from
generation to generation.

"Democratic" reflects the notion that the People are the fundamental
and truly sovereign part of the State. They are the ultimate
conferrers of Imperium upon magistrates, and unlike the Senate which
issued "consulta" (advisories), the People made Law (leges). This
they did not through representatives, but in their own persons,
having participated in their own formal political debates (contiones)
on the merits of given proposals. (Shades of Athens!!!)

Aeternia:: I understand everything, with the exception of the (Shades of
Athens!!!)?
This may sound rude, yet I have no intention of trying to be rude. But, what
does
Athens and it's shades have to with the Senate in Rome?

Because the popular assemblies (Comitia) never attained the absolute
predominance of power which they held in Athens from the time of
Cleisthenes, it was necessary for the People to introduce the
Tribunes of the People (Tribuni Plebis). These sat in the Senate and
had the right of veto (intercessio) over all other acts, something
like a modern ombudsman or court order of injunction. Eventually the
Tribunes became coöpted by the Senate, and their vetoes played off
against one another. They remained important popular leaders,
however, with their own identity and constituency as distinct from
the Sentorial leaders and other magistrates.

Aeternia:: I understand everything, Cleisthenes and the Tribunes of the
People,
in Athens. I thought Greece was one of the remaining constituional monarchies
still left in the world? Did the Ancient Greeks have a similar polictical
system to
Rome?

If we apply this to creating an ideal for Nova Roma, I think we
naturally must make allowances for the fact that we are in a new age
of the world in which the political ideas from both Greece and Rome,
as well as from the Northern Peoples (e.g. British parliamentary
democracy) have merged and developed and created new norms and
expectations. We must also remember that the socio-economic
underpinnings of Roma Antiqua do not exist for us. Our senators are
not especially rich and most of their fathers were not politicians,
and ordinary citizens in very many cases have university educations,
for example. Also, although some do not like it, we are at the moment
at least an internet-based society.

Aeternia:: That is very true, and I would agree with you for the most part.

The Vedian Constitution is in most respects a document that does
what I would wish to do. Most of what I would change takes the form
of fine-tuning in the light of experience and making the institutions
provided for in it work better.

I favour retaining the Senate in approximately its present form, but
with transparency in its discussions and voting records, and perhaps
a limiting of some censorial powers with relation to senators, which
could easily be abused as they now stand. (The Censors presently can
remove any senators they like with notae against them.) I also think
that the Censors should be limited to granting discretionary
senatorships to those approved by the Senate, although I would let
them *propose* their preferences to the Senate too. (Note that these
changes would actually strengthen the Senate.)

Aeternia:: Could you explain this a bit more in detail?

We should remember that the Senate is going to gradually grow and
become a big institution. Maybe some day it will become bigger than
the 600 cives in Nova Roma today. With modern electronic
communications that will not be a big problem - but it will probably
mean long before then that we will have to adopt some form of
discussion-limiting mechanism such as the Roman solution of allowing
only certain classes of ex-magistrates to speak in normal
circumstances. A committee system may also become a practical
necessity of internal organisation at some point.

Aeternia:: Everything else, I understood. Only the discussion-limiting
mechanisms
I was confused on. When you say discussion-limiting mechanisms? Do you mean
for ex-magistrates only? Or present magistrates? And if so, why do you feel
magistrates
need limits on discussions?

As to magistrates, I believe that the Nova Roman censorate is
practically too powerful. In Roma Antiqua Censors were created once
in five years, did their job, and vanished into highly honourable
relative obscurity. We use them as archivists and secretaries and
give them two-year terms. That has its advantages and was well
thought-out in terms of overlapping terms, but since they hold in
their keeping some of the few real powers anyone has here - the
ability to keep persons out of Nova Roma and to issue notae depriving
persons of senatorship and the right to vote - they must be regulated
more than they are.

Aeternia:: Censors being regulated? In what way?

We have seen in this past year how one Censor kept a veteran citizen
from returning freely and normally, who had just left temporarily in
protest at the Censor's own policy discriminating against a sexual
minority group, and we have seen as well how easily discriminatory
edicta were issued by just two individuals - mostly by one. This is a
place in our Respublica where one or two individuals can cause real
suffering to others if they are prejudiced, and where they can give a
bad name to all Nova Roma through discriminatory actions.

Aeternia:: Oh yes, what happened to our friend Marius. I feel that could've
been handled in a better way definitely. I could be really wrong about this,
but I thought the Censors couldn't do any removal of another's office without
Senate approval, I also thought Edicts couldn't be published without at least
another magistrate's approval. I could be really wrong, if so let me know.

I would see a reduction in the censorial power in these ways:

(1) It should be the default situation that a given applicant for
citizenship, whether on the first application or a subsequent
occasion of return, be granted that citizenship. Denial of a
citizenship application should require the agreement of both Censors.
That will allow keeping out the few really bad apples, while giving
the benefit of the doubt to everyone else. Returning citizens (at
least) should also have a right of appeal to the People in Comitia
assembled if their applications are rejected.

Aeternia:: Sounds reasonable, exception. Would a special Comitia
be formed to do this?

(2) Censorial notae should no longer carry with them expulsion from
the Senate or revocation of civic rights, but should have only moral
force. We will soon have courts to deal with offenders against the
laws, and having a parallel system of "moral crimes" is unnecessary
and problematical. It is too likely to duplicate the criminal justice
system or to try to replace it inadequately.

Aeternia:: Did you say courts?

(3) Legislation that might tend to limit the rights of citizen
applicants, citizen returnees, gentes, or minority groups of any kind
should be reviewed by both the Senate and the Comitia, and any such
provision should also be subject to judicial review in terms of the
Constitution and such other general civil rights legislation as may
be passed.

Aeternia:: Would that be the same Comitia, you mentioned earlier?

Passing on to Praetors, I believe that under our new judicial system
to be discussed in a future position paper, the Praetors will have
more to do in terms of hearing cases under definite legal provisions,
as well as in the development of new legislation. The Aediles might
also share to some extent in this.

Aeternia:: I can definitely say, I look forward to your next paper.
Are these your first drafts by the way? (I don't mean that in a rude
tone at all, so no one take offense.)

The Consuls are functioning essentially as I would wish them to.

Aeternia:: As you would wish them to? No offense Formosanus, that
sounds a bit disturbing, or maybe I am taking it in the wrong tone.

The Comitia are an area where great development is still necessary
so that they can enable the People to develop and express its will.
Many of the somewhat obscure details of its ancient organisation have
been researched by Piscinus, and stand available to be restored and
adapted for our needs. Electronic communications provide us with
great opportunities for speedy and effective consultation with the
People, as well as for their discussions to take place. The new
Plebeian chat room is one step in the right direction.

Aeternia:: The Comitia, are these three different Comitia's or just one
big one? And I would definitely agree about the plebian chatroom.

The Tribunes are the normal leaders of the People as the People.
They must be expected to hold contiones (as also other magistrates
must!) to keep the People involved in the political process. That
means monthly Comitia's being held, and several contiones in a month
in whatever form it is deemed fairest and most effective to hold
them. A legal provision for the calling of at least one contio a
month should be enacted. If there were nothing to be voted on, this
contio could be used for soliciting initiatives for desirable
legislation from the grass roots.

Aeternia:: Errrrr, this worries me Formosanus. If and only saying if, you want
the Senate to hold disscussion limit mechanisms would you also want the
Comitia
to do the same? Wouldn't be fair,equal, and more democratic that both, and
just
speaking hypothetically, have the same time allowance to discuss things
concerning
our state?

To prevent the tribunes from being excessively in each other's way
by veto, I suggest that we have three Tribunes rather than two. (Ten
was the norm in Roma Antiqua, but I doubt that we can recruit so many
canddiates.) One Tribune would be allowed to veto one other, but not
both others at once. So, if there were disagreement, whichever
Tribune was the third in a given case would effectively make the
decision. This would prevent one inactive or irresponsible Tribune
from totally negating the tribunician power for a year (as
practically happened in the past year), while at the same time
preventing one over-enthusiastic Tribune from bringing all government
to a halt.

The powers of taxation and appropriation should be vested ultimately
in the Comitia, as it is in the lower house of any modern national
parliament or congress. It might be desirable to establish a joint
committee of senators and commoners to prepare a budgetary proposal
which would have to pass both Comitia and Senate. This is contrary to
ancient practice, but in Roma Antiqua the vast majority of the money
in the aerarium dispensed by the Senate did not normally come from
taxes on citizens. Today it will, and we should not have taxation
without representation. The Senate is not made up of our
representatives, as it is a non-representative body, and we intend to
keep it that way. Therefore, the citizenry must represent itself in
the Comitia to have control over its taxes.

The above is my general analysis of our governmental system and some
of the reforms other than the legal and judicial which I think are
called for today to make it better. As everyone can see, I am not a
proponent of rabid, wild-eyed Athenianism, as some have rather
irresponsibly and without basis accused the Amici Dignitatis of
being. Desiring a transparent Senate and an active, well-organised
set of Comitia is not the same as proposing Athenian Democracy
(although the latter was a truly fine thing in and of itself).

Specifically, I remind everyone that the office of Praetor carries
with it the senatorship. If you, the electorate of Nova Roma, choose
to elect me, I shall in the new (Common Era) millennium be a senator
of Nova Roma, and hardly motivated to destroy the Senate, as some
have intimated against me that I wanted to do.

Aeternia:: Thank you for reminding me that the office of Praetor carries
a Senatorship, because I don't remember reading that in the Nova Roma
constitution. It's been over a year since I've read it, maybe there was an
update.

Let me remind everyone, though, of a further fact: Almost all of our
citizens come from modern, democratic macronations. We share not only
a love of Rome, but the modern assumptions of democracy: One man, one
vote. Citizen equality. The Rule of Law and the Rule of the Majority.
No taxation without representation. Etc. We are mostly very happy to
tolerate certain stretchings and limitations in those things to enjoy
having a "Roman" form of government. After all, we came here to be
Roman! But if it turns out that there is too much deviation from the
fundamental political and ethical values that most of us share, then
those Neo-roman institutions will cease to be viable. We have a real
international organisation here, which must solve all the problems of
real societies in a new century, and which must function legally,
respectably and responsibly in the eyes of our citizens and of the
outside world if it is to be able to sponsor educational work,
religious expressions, cultural events, archaeological digs and so
forth. Ultimately, no constitution will be viable if the citizens do
not perceive that it itself and its concrete functioning enable these
pro-Roman activities.

Aeternia:: Well stated.

I wish the Vedian Constitution to work, and that is why I wish to
make small changes to fine-tune it and to flesh out the governmental
form it sketches in more living detail and in a way that will work
and work well and thus enjoy the consensual support of all Nova
Romans.

Aeternia:: I wouldn't say these are small changes you are wishing to make.
Nor would I say these are way dramatical either, somewhere in between. Just
my opinion.

I mention the above point because there are some among us who speak
of "republicanism, not democracy" as a code expression for a kind of
conservative authoritarianism. They favour a stratified society in
which they are to be at the top of the heap and give orders to the
rest of us. Most of us here in Nova Roma do not want to participate
in the rôle of slaves or slavish plebeians to satisfy those people's
rôle-playing aspirations. Most of us want a decent, responsible
government - a Libera Respublica as Cicero called it. In other words,
Roman Democracy - not a mobocracy, but also not rule by and for the
Few alone. Senatus Populusque Romanus - that is the natural way
forward for us - and both elements must be properly balanced and
given the tasks for which they are best adapted.

Aeternia:: I understand this part, I may not agree, but I do understand.
Formosanus or anyone else don't take offense to this, I was asking questions,
because I am concerned.

Valete
Aeternia Iulia Caesaria
>>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/975885710/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->