Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:19:21 -0500

Salvete omnes:

We are one Republic; we are all Roman citizens. And while each of us have
individual ideas and aspirations it is not too much to hope that we share a
common goal and this shared goal is central to our existence and purpose as
Nova Romans.

To foment the further division of citizens along class lines via the
encouragement of elitist channels of communication with the intent of
dividing rather than unifying us is, as Germanicus observes, most distressing
and cannot serve Nova Roma and her Citizens in any positive respect.

We are all Citizens, on equal footing and common ground. Our public channels
of communication exist to maintain unity, encourage discourse and the
exchange of ideas, and enable us to work together as equals. To lose sight
of this is to abandon the spirit of the Republic and relinquish that which
makes us Roman.

Valete bene,

Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata

novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete;
>
> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>
> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
> >
> >
> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
> >
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
> > junior Tribunus
> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
> > all Plebeian citizens.
> >
> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
> > email list
> > at
> >
> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa
> >
> > On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
> > prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
> > issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
> > effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
> > with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
> > be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
> > to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
> > Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
> > Sentius Bruttius Sura.
> >
> > Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the
> > Forum Romanum
> > (the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
> > PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
> > frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
> > times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
> > Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
> >
> > Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia
> > Plebis chat
> > room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
> > hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
> > Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189
> >
> > Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
> > consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
> > should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
> > all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
> > piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
> > advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
> > Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.
> >
> > Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete
> >
> > Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:59:53 EST

Salve Tribune Piscinus

You start the year off with a bang! I think, unfortunately, that an
appeal to empty legalisms offers us little that is constructive. Try this
one on for size:

Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
construed as approval of his candidacy.

Having run illegally, the votes he received were cast in error. His
candidacy was illegal and therefore his "election" was null and void. He
cannot be "allowed to assume office" because he was not legally elected
to the office.

>From a different point of view:

The ambiguity of the law on the point of when a waiver should be
requested allows for two interpretations which have been dsicussed
previously. One may request the waiver before the election (which is what
S. Apollonius did), in which case if one receives it and runs and is
elected then no-one may prohibit him from assuming office. But if one is
denied the waiver, one cannot run for the office anyway and expect to be
allowed to assume it.

The alternative is that one may run for the office and only request the
waiver if elected. This is NOT what S. Apollonius did in this case,
although the inaction of the Senate and Censores on his waiver request
until after the election was over made it appear that this is what was
done.

The people voted him into the office?

No. The people were misinformed as to the legitimacy of his candidacy. If
I had forwarded the name of my Pekinese to M. Octavius Germanicus and he
mistakenly put her name on the ballot and enough citizens voted for her,
would you then say that "by the will of the people" she was entitled to
assume the role of our plebian aedile?

Sextus Apollonius Draco is clearly a noble young Roman who exhibits more
grace and dignity than have some of his elders (myself included) during
the past year. But the law, which (as Consul Vedius has pointed out)
embodies the will of the people, prohibits him from "assuming the office"
unless he has the required waiver from the Censores and the rest of the
Senate. He did not get that, rightly or wrongly, and so he cannot assume
the office. He has accepted this outcome with impressive grace and
dignity, and you will do him no honor if you press the issue in this
manner.

Your responsibility is to hold another election. He could again request a
waiver to become a legal candidate. Some Senators may well have changed
their opinions of him. New Senators have been appointed - I have the
honor to be one of those. He might well receive his waiver on a second
try.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 3:37 PM Gian G Reali (piscinus@--------) wrote:

> Denuntio Tribunica Ex Domo Tribuni Plebis
>
>Tribunus Plebis Cn Moravius Piscinus SPD Senatoribus et Quiritibus Novae
>Romae:
>
> I have on this day, a.d. VI Id Ian 2753, sent to the Senate the
>following Denuntio Tribunicia:
>
>Tribuni Plebis Cn Moravius Piscinus Senatoribus clarissimi viri SPD:
>
> I have been reading the posts regarding the provisions of the Lex Iunia
>de Magistratum Aetate. More specifically I have been considering the
>situation created by the Senate in the particular matter of Sextus
>Apollonius Draco. Let it be known by the Senate that had I been fully
>installed in office at the time of the Senate's decision I would have
>employed an intercessio for the reasons I shall give below. The incident
>has brought out a legislative gap in our present Constitution which I am
>sure the Consuls will address, as will the Tribuni Plebis. However there
>is a more immediate problem to consider and that is that by your action
>the Senate has left vacant a Plebeian office. To avoid further
>entanglements on this issue I request that the Senate reconsider an
>exemption for Sextus Apollonius Draco so that he may rightfully assume
>the office for which he was duly and legally elected to hold.
>
> The reasons why I would have issued an intercessio are as follows:
>
> The Senate under the Constitution V.A has no other authority than to
>offer the "advise of the Senate." Sections V. B and C do not apply. The
>Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate extended the Senate's authority, in such
>matters as covered by that lex, contrary to Section I. A. It would be
>wrong to further consider that that lex granted an additional
>unconstitutional authority to the Senate to overrule the will of the
>people, in contravention of Section I. B. If the Senate is to exercise
>its authority under the provision of the Lex Iunia, then it must be done
>prior to the election, advising the rogatores on whether or not a
>candidate's name may be placed on the ballot. No Senatus consulta, or
>censorial edicta, can overrule an issue once decided upon by a vote of
>the people in comitia.
>
> Sextus Apollonius Draco was legally placed on the ballot, and was
>legally elected by the vox populi. He is by every legal right the
>elected Aedile Plebis.
>
> Under the provisions of the Lex Iunia, by how I understand the Senate to
>regard the matter, although Sextus Apollonius may be the elected Aedile
>Plebis, he may not "assume" the office for which he was elected. I
>question that provision, but will not challenge what has happened thus
>far. Further, it cannot be said that the Lex Cyrlla de securandis
>magistratus plebis applies, as the provisions it makes are for a
>situation other than what has occurred here. Candidates were declared
>and placed on the ballot in December, and two candidates were legally
>elected. The Senate, by its action, has deprived us of a capable Aedile
>Plebis, and has placed us into a constitutional vacuum.
>
> There are now three issues before us. Required are a new lex to replace
>the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, and a new plebiscitum to broaden and
>clarify the scope of the Lex Cyrlla regarding Plebian offices. I shall
>take under advisement formulating a plebiscitum to be presented to the
>Comitia Plebis Tributa later this year concerning the appointment of
>Plebeian officers. Discussion on the Lex Iunia is already progressing
>towards adopting some proposal to deal with the issue of age limits and
>how to implement such a lex. I trust the Consuls shall duly treat this
>matter.
>
> Meanwhile, there is the third issue. As Sextus Apollonius was legally
>elected you cannot offer to hold a second election, for by doing so you
>would be overruling a decision already made by the Comitia, and thus
>would be acting in violation of Section I. B. Nor can you appoint anyone
>to his office, as there is no provision made to cover the vacancy left
>under the current situation. Therefore the choice is between leaving
>Sextus Apollonius in as elected Aedile Plebis, but not allowed to assume
>office, while carrying out his duties as a scriba to his colleague. Or
>for the Senate to reconsider the exemption for this one individual and
>allow him to hold office as the people have so ruled.
>
> I urge the Senate to take the latter course of action, accept the
>election of Sextus Apollonius as a fait accompli and move on to deal with
>the problems that caused this problem to arise. To deny the assumption
>of office because of indecision on the part of the Senate regarding the
>exemption prior to the election is patently wrong. To now deny
>assumption of office after the election was made could set a dangerous
>precedent. Whereas to continue to deny the assumption of office by this
>one particular individual amounts, in practical terms, to merely a denial
>of his participatory points for a job he will be performing anyway. Such
>a denial is simply too petty for the Senate to consider proper.
>
>Pro Di consentes, quod bonum, felix, faustumque sit.
>
>
>
>
>

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

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:25:39 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LucillaCornelia@-------- [mailto:LucillaCornelia@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:50 PM
>
> I, likewise, object to this.
>
> Lucilla Prima
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia wrote:
> >
> > I object to this.
> >
> > Livia

Not to press you fine ladies on a point which you seem reticent to elaborate
on, but would you care to explain _why_ you object? (The subject at hand
was, I believe, Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus' idea of using the order in which
votes are registered within tribes and centuries to resolve ties; first
candidate to reach their vote total wins the tribe/century.)

Such terse "I object"'s with no elaboration, while certainly within your
prerogative, are hardly conducive to the free and spirited flow of ideas
which we have been enjoying here as of late.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:20:07 EST

Salvete Omnes

I agree with these objections. I did not subscribe to a "plebian list"
when I was a Tribune of the Plebs, not only because I have no more time
and energy to squander on additional mailing lists but also because I see
such a list as divisive. Separate lists for those who want to talk about
wine-making or pilum-throwing or philosophizing are fine because those
are particular interests that we may not all share. But WHAT PARTICULAR
INTEREST IS THERE IN THE LABELS "PLEBIAN" OR "PATRICIAN?"

None! The labels are purely symbolic - relics of the past. There are no
"plebian interests" or "patrician interests" to be served by splitting us
up. We saw in November and December how harmful artificial
factionalization could be, with all sorts of discord and trumped-up
accusations and issues created. Let's not do any more of that, please.

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 6:19 PM LucillaCornelia@--------
(LucillaCornelia@--------) wrote:

>Salvete omnes:
>
>We are one Republic; we are all Roman citizens. And while each of us have
>individual ideas and aspirations it is not too much to hope that we share a
>common goal and this shared goal is central to our existence and purpose as
>Nova Romans.
>
>To foment the further division of citizens along class lines via the
>encouragement of elitist channels of communication with the intent of
>dividing rather than unifying us is, as Germanicus observes, most
>distressing
>and cannot serve Nova Roma and her Citizens in any positive respect.
>
>We are all Citizens, on equal footing and common ground. Our public
>channels
>of communication exist to maintain unity, encourage discourse and the
>exchange of ideas, and enable us to work together as equals. To lose sight
>of this is to abandon the spirit of the Republic and relinquish that which
>makes us Roman.
>
>Valete bene,
>
>Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
>
>novaroma@-------- wrote:
>>
>> Salvete;
>>
>> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
>> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
>> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
>> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
>> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>>
>> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician,
magistrate
>> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace
for
>> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
>> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>>
>> Valete,
>>
>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>> Consul
>>
>> email: germanicus@--------
>> AIM: Flavius Vedius
>> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
>> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
>> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
>> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
>> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>> >
>> >
>> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
>> >
>> > Salvete Quirites
>> >
>> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
>> > junior Tribunus
>> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
>> > all Plebeian citizens.
>> >
>> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
>> > email list
>> > at
>> >
>> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

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

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:52:32 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:26 PM
>
> Well, essentially, we already do that. We start at tribe or century one,
and
> work our way down the list as a matter of procedure. I still don't see
how
> you're eliminating the possibility of ties.

Perhaps an example would serve to make this clearer, since my previous
explanations were obviously lacking. Let's say Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey
are running for Consul. Crassus wins his office handily, but Caesar and
Pompey are tied at 20 centuries each.

Who wins? Under our current system, neither, or both. It is unclear.

Under my proposal, the counting would start with a random century (let us
say #65), and then proceed in numerical order. Century #65 votes for Caesar,
#66 and #67 vote for Pompey, #68 votes for Caesar, and so on, until one or
the other of them reaches the total number of centuries that voted for them.
In this case, whichever of them counts their 20th century first, wins the
office. (Naturally, only one of them can hit their total first, since the
centuries are counted in order.)

The reason for choosing a starting century at random is to make this aspect
of the process fair to everyone. If we adopt the system of sequential
counting, but always start with century #1, that gives the lower-numbered
centuries an unfair advantage. By making the starting place random, no
century or group of centuries has a built-in institutional advantage in this
regard (there are, of course, weightings in terms of the century system
specifically, but the principal extends to the evenly-weighted tribes as
well).

> Now we want
> to impose an unnatural order on the order in which we count the centuries
> (unnatural being anything other than starting from century/tribe no 1)
because
> we think we need to find a fix to a terrible problem with having tied
candidates
> or an office slot left open. Maybe I'm really missing something, but WHAT
does
> this solve?

I must wonder at your use of the term "unnatural". This is a system that was
used in Roma Antiqua, with the randomness introduced in order to afford
equal access (in the long run) to members of all tribes and centuries.

> In my opinion, this last election re the quaestors worked EXACTLY
> the way it should have.

Actually, this proposal is in response to the situation where two people
tied for second place among the Rogatores (leaving us with three when we
only can use two); it has nothing to do with the recent election of the
Quaestores.

> Here's my two cents there: this is where the system
> is broken. Change it so that approval from the senate is not of the
election
> results, but of the ability of the candidate to run in the election.

Already on the docket. Unfortunately, that's a different subject than the
one at hand. (Granted, they're both about the election process, but two very
different aspects thereof.)

> The system isn't broken in regard to the 8 quaestorships. It is working
fine,
> and simply needs to mature again. Leave it alone.

I happen to agree. As mentioned above, this isn't about the Quaestores.

> Here are something things that are broken:
> - As my Rogatorial colleague Dalmaticus mentioned, there was never a clear
point
> of cutoff prior to the beginning of voting when nominations of candidacy
> stopped. In addition, the process of throwing in one's nomination seemed
a bit
> spotty at best. I'd add to that a standardization of time announcements
for
> the elections.

Indeed; I pointed out to him yesterday where that information could be
found. When the vote starts, no more nominations can be accepted.

> There should be notification to the Rogators prior to the
> people, including giving them all the information they need to set up
their
> spreadsheets, etc., PRIOR to the beginning of voting.

Now this is a new notion, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree! It only
makes sense to make sure that the people involved in actually running the
technical aspects of the election are ready and able to do so when required.
I'm leery of turning this into legislation, however, because there could
always be the rare occasion where swift action is required in such things,
and we'd not want to leave our hands tied. But I know that I fully intend to
keep the rogatores and webmaster informed of any intention to call a vote.
(Indeed, I don't see any value in springing such things on the people
either; I think it'll be better to give a little warning about when a vote
is coming and what will be on it.)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	[novaroma] Unsuccessful =?iso-8859-1?Q?Qu=E6stor?= quest...
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:50:00 -0600

Avete Omnes,

I must confess that the discussion of the mechanics of our voting procedures isn't high on my list
of things to study, but I've read all the posts with some interest.

One point I'd like to raise - I don't mind that I lost in a fair and open election.

Our system, imperfect though it may be (as is anything designed and run by humans), worked under its
current strictures.
Our laws, however they need amendment or emendment, are those of a nation barely into its infancy,
no matter the thousands of years of cultural heritage upon which we may draw for ideals, ideas and
examples.

Good work thus far, I think.

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Legatus Provincia Laci Magnus, Dominus Sodalis
My homestead
http://www.geocities.com/piparskegg/index.html
Nova Roma website
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:49:59 -0600 (CST)

Salve Luci Sergi,

> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
> construed as approval of his candidacy.

On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and thereby
force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then Apollonius
would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
exemption needed.

The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law -- the
vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that normally he
would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any attempt
to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt to
refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."

Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?

Vale, O.

M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:58:19 -0800

Ave,

Not only that but there is a check on the power of the Veto in the
Constitution of Nova Roma. As stated, in the Constitution,

"To collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any other
magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus
consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel that the spirit and
letter of this Constitution are being violated thereby."

The Tribunes should ask themselves if the spirit AND letter of the
Constitution is being violated. But, your point, M. Octavius is an
excellent one. To me a veto would kill the process and the result is the
same, Sextus Apollonius would have still been denied to hold the office
since the Lex Iunia's requirement would not have been completed.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <haase@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office

> Salve Luci Sergi,
>
> > Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> > from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
> > Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on
the
> > ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
> > construed as approval of his candidacy.
>
> On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and
thereby
> force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
> intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
> as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
> Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
> been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then
Apollonius
> would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
> exemption needed.
>
> The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law -- the
> vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that normally he
> would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any attempt
> to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt to
> refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."
>
> Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?
>
> Vale, O.
>
>
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:03:19 -0800


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:41:56 -0700

I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either tied or
it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as well
toss a coin in the air and call the election.

Now, I ask you this, how are we suppossed to measure when the votes are cast?
There are two (or more) Rogators. How do we assure the order in which a vote is
received is the same for both Rogators? Come on, Germanicus, you know about
networks....a vote is cast not from a fixed point, but from any point (and as
you know, computers can have differences between them as to their internal
clocks), it flows across the internet....it has multiple destinations.....it
hits my isp and gets a time stamped on it -- time when it left the originating
system?? time when it hit the retreiving system?? hmm, could be either, could
depend on what happens to it along the way (does every packet technology, etc.,
used to transmit data across the multiple networks a data signal has to travel
record time according to the same point? [originating/retrieval point]) -- it
hits Dalmaticus' at a different time, does it reflect a different time to
Dalmaticus than mine.....well, yes, it most likely will.....Now let's reflect on
having TWO votes cast simultaneously.....vote A and vote B.....it's the
internet, all the little packets are doing their thing, and travelling the
network.......well, vote A hits my system first, but vote B hits Dalmaticus'
system first.....BUT they were supposedly "cast" at the same moment......how do
we tell the "order" of vote? How do we ensure that each vote has a time affixed
to it according to being cast over the internet which is FAIR in comparision to
the votes cast "before" and "after" it?

To judge an election, the Rogators have to coordinate whether the votes we
receive are received in the same order. We have to use data that agrees, or
it's not going to yield a valid result. If we can't get the time to agree, we
can't use the time. It's impossible to get the time to agree in an
electronically mediated election.

Livia

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LucillaCornelia@-------- [mailto:LucillaCornelia@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:50 PM
> >
> > I, likewise, object to this.
> >
> > Lucilla Prima
> >
> > Livia Cornelia Aurelia wrote:
> > >
> > > I object to this.
> > >
> > > Livia
>
> Not to press you fine ladies on a point which you seem reticent to elaborate
> on, but would you care to explain _why_ you object? (The subject at hand
> was, I believe, Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus' idea of using the order in which
> votes are registered within tribes and centuries to resolve ties; first
> candidate to reach their vote total wins the tribe/century.)
>
> Such terse "I object"'s with no elaboration, while certainly within your
> prerogative, are hardly conducive to the free and spirited flow of ideas
> which we have been enjoying here as of late.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:38:24 -0600 (CST)

Salve Livia Cornelia,

> I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either tied or
> it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as well
> toss a coin in the air and call the election.

I agree on this point.

> Now, I ask you this, how are we suppossed to measure when the votes are cast?
> There are two (or more) Rogators. How do we assure the order in which a vote is
> received is the same for both Rogators?

They have serial numbers.

> Come on, Germanicus, you know about networks....a vote is cast not from a
> fixed point, but from any point (and as you know, computers can have differences
> between them as to their internal clocks),

Regardless of where the user is, the voting mail is generated in exactly one
place, the server.

> It's impossible to get the time to agree in an electronically mediated election.

But it is possible, if there is one central server that timestamps each vote
as it is case and also issues a serial number. They might arrive out of order on
your mail server, but the number embedded in each one tells what the original
ordering was.

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Interesting website
From:	"esoterix@--------" <ckieffe@comp.uark.edu>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:39:52 -0600

Here is the webpage for the group: http://cavern.uark.edu/studorg/stpa/
There are currently only two of us (besides the advisor) with any interest
in things Roman, so probably not many recruitment possibilities there. I
have however encouraged members both of S.P.A. and our university's Eta
Sigma Phi (classics honor society) -- http://comp.uark.edu/~etasigma/ --
with any interest to look into Nova Roma.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Interesting website

> Salve C. Cordius Symmachus,
>
> Am intrigued by your mention of the Student Pagan Association. Out of
> curiosity,
> how large an organization is it? Are there NR recruitment possibilities
> there?
> Is it a very active association?
>
> Gratiae multi,
> -Oppius
>
> PS: It is a very cool site, especially for those looking for a great
> overview of various
> aspects of the Religio. Thanks for posting it Sulla Felix!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chad [mailto:ckieffe@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:47 AM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Interesting website
>
>
> Salvete!
> I'm taking Ovid's "Fasti" as a Latin graduate elective (for my Comp
> Lit
> M.A.) under the professor who put up this webpage when the U of A
semester
> starts back next Tuesday. He is also teaching a course on "Religion in
> the
> Roman Empire" next semester, and he is the advisor for our campus
Student
> Pagan Association.
>
> Valete,
> C Cordius Symmachus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lucius Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
> To: "NovaRoma" <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:04 AM
> Subject: [novaroma] Interesting website
>
>
> >
http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/cicero/clst%201013%20religion.html
> >
> > Hope you enjoy.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
> Click here to subscribe.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:52:19 -0700

I understand a little better what you're trying to achieve, it's like this:

Candidate A gets 15 tribes, Candidate B and C get 10 each.

Some number gets picked between 1-35. We start counting there. Let's say at
10. So Cand. B gets tribe 12, 14, 15, C get 21, etc.....we keep going until
eventually one or the other hits 10 tribes and is the winner.

No. I don't like it. I oppose it. I'd rather see a reversion to popular vote.

If this was ever an actual practice, I'd like citations on it.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:26 PM
> >
> > Well, essentially, we already do that. We start at tribe or century one,
> and
> > work our way down the list as a matter of procedure. I still don't see
> how
> > you're eliminating the possibility of ties.
>
> Perhaps an example would serve to make this clearer, since my previous
> explanations were obviously lacking. Let's say Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey
> are running for Consul. Crassus wins his office handily, but Caesar and
> Pompey are tied at 20 centuries each.
>
> Who wins? Under our current system, neither, or both. It is unclear.
>
> Under my proposal, the counting would start with a random century (let us
> say #65), and then proceed in numerical order. Century #65 votes for Caesar,
> #66 and #67 vote for Pompey, #68 votes for Caesar, and so on, until one or
> the other of them reaches the total number of centuries that voted for them.
> In this case, whichever of them counts their 20th century first, wins the
> office. (Naturally, only one of them can hit their total first, since the
> centuries are counted in order.)
>
> The reason for choosing a starting century at random is to make this aspect
> of the process fair to everyone. If we adopt the system of sequential
> counting, but always start with century #1, that gives the lower-numbered
> centuries an unfair advantage. By making the starting place random, no
> century or group of centuries has a built-in institutional advantage in this
> regard (there are, of course, weightings in terms of the century system
> specifically, but the principal extends to the evenly-weighted tribes as
> well).
>
> > Now we want
> > to impose an unnatural order on the order in which we count the centuries
> > (unnatural being anything other than starting from century/tribe no 1)
> because
> > we think we need to find a fix to a terrible problem with having tied
> candidates
> > or an office slot left open. Maybe I'm really missing something, but WHAT
> does
> > this solve?
>
> I must wonder at your use of the term "unnatural". This is a system that was
> used in Roma Antiqua, with the randomness introduced in order to afford
> equal access (in the long run) to members of all tribes and centuries.
>
> > In my opinion, this last election re the quaestors worked EXACTLY
> > the way it should have.
>
> Actually, this proposal is in response to the situation where two people
> tied for second place among the Rogatores (leaving us with three when we
> only can use two); it has nothing to do with the recent election of the
> Quaestores.
>
> > Here's my two cents there: this is where the system
> > is broken. Change it so that approval from the senate is not of the
> election
> > results, but of the ability of the candidate to run in the election.
>
> Already on the docket. Unfortunately, that's a different subject than the
> one at hand. (Granted, they're both about the election process, but two very
> different aspects thereof.)
>
> > The system isn't broken in regard to the 8 quaestorships. It is working
> fine,
> > and simply needs to mature again. Leave it alone.
>
> I happen to agree. As mentioned above, this isn't about the Quaestores.
>
> > Here are something things that are broken:
> > - As my Rogatorial colleague Dalmaticus mentioned, there was never a clear
> point
> > of cutoff prior to the beginning of voting when nominations of candidacy
> > stopped. In addition, the process of throwing in one's nomination seemed
> a bit
> > spotty at best. I'd add to that a standardization of time announcements
> for
> > the elections.
>
> Indeed; I pointed out to him yesterday where that information could be
> found. When the vote starts, no more nominations can be accepted.
>
> > There should be notification to the Rogators prior to the
> > people, including giving them all the information they need to set up
> their
> > spreadsheets, etc., PRIOR to the beginning of voting.
>
> Now this is a new notion, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree! It only
> makes sense to make sure that the people involved in actually running the
> technical aspects of the election are ready and able to do so when required.
> I'm leery of turning this into legislation, however, because there could
> always be the rare occasion where swift action is required in such things,
> and we'd not want to leave our hands tied. But I know that I fully intend to
> keep the rogatores and webmaster informed of any intention to call a vote.
> (Indeed, I don't see any value in springing such things on the people
> either; I think it'll be better to give a little warning about when a vote
> is coming and what will be on it.)
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:55:47 -0700

Whose server?? The nova roma server? My isp server? Serial numbers are better, but
by the gods.....the Senate opposes tallying per office but there's actual support for
THIS scheme?

I can't explain further. It's incredibly, intuitively, unfair to me in a way I cannot
put into words further.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve Livia Cornelia,
>
> > I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either tied or
> > it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as well
> > toss a coin in the air and call the election.
>
> I agree on this point.
>
> > Now, I ask you this, how are we suppossed to measure when the votes are cast?
> > There are two (or more) Rogators. How do we assure the order in which a vote is
> > received is the same for both Rogators?
>
> They have serial numbers.
>
> > Come on, Germanicus, you know about networks....a vote is cast not from a
> > fixed point, but from any point (and as you know, computers can have differences
> > between them as to their internal clocks),
>
> Regardless of where the user is, the voting mail is generated in exactly one
> place, the server.
>
> > It's impossible to get the time to agree in an electronically mediated election.
>
> But it is possible, if there is one central server that timestamps each vote
> as it is case and also issues a serial number. They might arrive out of order on
> your mail server, but the number embedded in each one tells what the original
> ordering was.
>
> Vale, O.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:52:27 -0600 (CST)

Salve Livia Cornelia,

> Whose server?? The nova roma server?

Yes. That is where the voting actually takes place, and that one server issues
serial numbers and timestamps the vote. You saw these numbers in the last
election, from 1001 to 1192.

> the Senate opposes tallying per office but there's actual support for THIS scheme?

Not from me. I don't particularly like the idea of having the election depend upon
a random tribe chosen as the starting point; I'd prefer a run-off election between
the tied candidates a few weeks later.

But I do think that if there is clear historical evidence for some method, then we
*should* adopt it. If we were trying to create an ideal and fair system of voting
we'd do away with the idea of tribes altogether -- but that's now why we're here,
we're here to recreate the traditions of Rome, and we should adhere to them
whereever possible.

Vale, O.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was Local Groups)
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:47:10 -0800 (PST)

Salvete!

--- Oppius Flaccus <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:

> +The last point I can comment on relates
> specifically to
> recruitment. For this endeavor, I think that we *do*
> need
> to advertise and recruit at the city (urbes) level.
> It's difficult
> to foresee a more granular division becoming
> necessary for
> quite some time. As a pretense for sparking
> community interest
> in joining Nova Roma, the idea of 'forming a
> chapter' at the
> 'local level' is great, as long as it's applied at
> the city level.
> This will be especially important in areas that are
> widely
> distributed. For some mega-large and diffuse cities
> such as
> Los Angeles, then further subdivisions may be viable
> and beneficial
> at some future point.

I am a recruiting officer for my local SCA group and
have a series of handbills that we distribute. I'll
modify a few of them for NovaRoma and post them at the
egroups site (note that you'll need PowerPoint).
Local groups will still need to add local contact
information.

Here in Germania, as a result of your inspiring
comments, two nascient local groups are being
discussed, one in the "Land" ('state') of Hessen and
one in Baden-Wuerttemberg. We're still in the early
stages and have not sought any kind of formal
recognition.

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! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 02:11:06 EST

Salve

No, I don't think there was anything to veto there. It makes no sense to
propose to prohibit a magistrate from not acting. The intent here seems
to be to use the power of intercessio to force an action to be taken,
i.e., to compel recognition of Draco as an elected magistrate. I don't
think it can be used that way. It was designed to protect people from
actions by magistrates - not to force magistrates to take actions.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 7:49 PM Marcus Octavius Germanicus (haase@--------) wrote:

>Salve Luci Sergi,
>
>> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
>> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
>> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
>> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
>> construed as approval of his candidacy.
>
>On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and thereby
>force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
>intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
>as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
>Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
>been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then Apollonius
>would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
>exemption needed.
>
>The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law -- the
>vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that normally he
>would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any attempt
>to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt to
>refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."
>
>Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?
>
>Vale, O.
>
>
>M. Octavius Germanicus
>Propraetor, Lacus Magni
>Curator Araneae et Senator
>

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Social/political et Lucius Sergius
From:	dougies@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:54:51 -0000

Ave Lucius Sergius, et all,

How can you call these labels symbollic, when clearly they are not?
Plebeians have
seperate offices to Patricians. By the way the voting system is
positioned at the moment,
the first people to join Nova Roma (who, being the first 30 tribes,
are patricians) have
more power than any others and more influence in certain centruies.
Not only this, but
how can this division be "symbollic" when Patricians are given extra
century points?
These
divisions are not symbollic, rather they are physical and plain to
see. Divisions were a key
in the Roman system of social and political order, and while we seek
to create a replica
of
Roma antiqua that is as close as possible, so will it occur here.
Divisions are real in
Roman times, so too are they in Nova Roma. The Plebeian mailing list
is an essentail
need, considering the vast majority of new citizens who will become
plebs, and who are
plebs, and who feel that the Comitia Plebis Tributa is a way of having
their views
represented.

I mean no offense or disrespect from my comments, they are just
tendered as they are:
simple fact.

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

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

Salvete Omnes

I agree with these objections. I did not subscribe to a "plebian
list"
when I was a Tribune of the Plebs, not only because I have no more
time
and energy to squander on additional mailing lists but also because
I see
such a list as divisive. Separate lists for those who want to talk
about
wine-making or pilum-throwing or philosophizing are fine because
those
are particular interests that we may not all share. But WHAT
PARTICULAR
INTEREST IS THERE IN THE LABELS "PLEBIAN" OR "PATRICIAN?"

None! The labels are purely symbolic - relics of the past. There are
no
"plebian interests" or "patrician interests" to be served by
splitting us
up. We saw in November and December how harmful artificial
factionalization could be, with all sorts of discord and trumped-up
accusations and issues created. Let's not do any more of that,
please.

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 6:19 PM LucillaCornelia@--------
(LucillaCornelia@--------) wrote:

>Salvete omnes:
>
>We are one Republic; we are all Roman citizens. And while each of
us have
>individual ideas and aspirations it is not too much to hope that we
share a
>common goal and this shared goal is central to our existence and
purpose as
>Nova Romans.
>
>To foment the further division of citizens along class lines via
the
>encouragement of elitist channels of communication with the intent
of
>dividing rather than unifying us is, as Germanicus observes, most
>distressing
>and cannot serve Nova Roma and her Citizens in any positive
respect.
>
>We are all Citizens, on equal footing and common ground. Our
public
>channels
>of communication exist to maintain unity, encourage discourse and
the
>exchange of ideas, and enable us to work together as equals. To
lose sight
>of this is to abandon the spirit of the Republic and relinquish
that which
>makes us Roman.
>
>Valete bene,
>
>Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
>
>novaroma@-------- wrote:
>>
>> Salvete;
>>
>> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most
distressing. Are
>> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently
from the
>> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms
are
>> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should
we not be
>> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>>
>> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician,
magistrate
>> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the
populace
for
>> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of
communication
>> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>>
>> Valete,
>>
>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>> Consul
>>
>> email: germanicus@--------
>> AIM: Flavius Vedius
>> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
>> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
>> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
>> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
>> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>> >
>> >
>> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
>> >
>> > Salvete Quirites
>> >
>> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
>> > junior Tribunus
>> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself
accessible to
>> > all Plebeian citizens.
>> >
>> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
>> > email list
>> > at
>> >
>> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:19:54 +1030

Ave Oppius,

Forgive the colour of the chat room. Pisci did not choose the colour, nor did he
create the chat room. I created the chat room, and have not been able to devote
the proper time to it that it demands. It is left the way it was created, since
I do not know the codes for colours.

Hope this explains things,

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Oppius Flaccus wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I have to 'me too' on this, at least at this juncture
> in Nova Roma's growth. Speaking as both a plebian and
> an outspoken advocate of community and communication ,
> I'd personally rather see any cives contemplating
> spending time in another chat venue to spend it in
> the Forum or somewhere more public. As it is now,
> the Forum only ever seems to have a handful of cives
> in it at best. I did however subscribe to the mailing
> list as to not miss anything.
>
> (I just visited to see what Piscinus' mail was about,
> the room was a very deep hue of Navy Blue! It needs
> a non-melancholy background :-)..but I digress
>
> That being said, does anyone know of a good multi-zone
> digital clock for Windows that will help me keep track
> of the time in Rome and generic GMT derivatives? As
> everything is based on time in Rome, I don't want to run
> the risk of missing something important.
>
> Vale bene,
> -Oppius
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:11 AM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>
> Salvete;
>
> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>
> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
> >
> >
> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
> >
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
> > junior Tribunus
> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
> > all Plebeian citizens.
> >
> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
> > email list
> > at
> >
> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa
> >
> > On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
> > prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
> > issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
> > effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
> > with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
> > be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
> > to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
> > Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
> > Sentius Bruttius Sura.
> >
> > Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the
> > Forum Romanum
> > (the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
> > PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
> > frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
> > times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
> > Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
> >
> > Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia
> > Plebis chat
> > room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
> > hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
> > Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189
> >
> > Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
> > consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
> > should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
> > all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
> > piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
> > advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
> > Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.
> >
> > Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete
> >
> > Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
> Click here to subscribe.


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 02:37:49 -0800 (PST)

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:

> (As an aside, I would say that I can't express how
> much I appreciate the
> well-thought-out comments from various citizens on
> this and other potential
> pieces of legislation, without rancor and
> bitterness. I do love the idea of
> creating consensus first, then acting. As far as I'm
> concerned, this is
> exactly how the system should be working.)

I'm also impressed with how amicable everyone is
being. I sincerely appreciate those especially who,
after a contentious election, have behaved as befits
their dignitas.

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! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:24:34 -0000

Salvete omnes!

Let me add a few points:

First: I too believe there was nothing to veto here, as this requires
an "action" by one of the magistrates or bodies suceptible to
Tribunician veto. But in the case of the Senate, the Tribune may very
well force an action as he - under the Constitution - also has the
power to call the Senate to order (ie in ym interpretation to force a
vote). If anything, our Tribune's newly planned course of action
could be understood that way, as an enforcement of a new vote on the
same subject, which is still open until a vote has been called in the
Comitia.

Second: The Tribunes have the highest authority apart from the
combined majority of the Comitia Centuriata and a 2/3 majority of the
Senate to interpret the Constitution ie they have not the sole power,
but certainly the most authoritative one.

Third: There is no question that Draco's candidacy was legal. To
imply otherwise would give the wrong impression that Draco did
something (at least morally) wrong and not the Seante (by simply not
reacting) Not the candidacy but the assumption of office is the
crucial deciding point for the Senate and the Censors (at least
according to the now valid lex).

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex
Senator

--- In novaroma@--------, LSergAust@a... wrote:
> Salve
>
> No, I don't think there was anything to veto there. It makes no
sense to
> propose to prohibit a magistrate from not acting. The intent here
seems
> to be to use the power of intercessio to force an action to be
taken,
> i.e., to compel recognition of Draco as an elected magistrate. I
don't
> think it can be used that way. It was designed to protect people
from
> actions by magistrates - not to force magistrates to take actions.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>
> On 1/8/01 7:49 PM Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------(hu----------------) wrote:
>
> >Salve Luci Sergi,
> >
> >> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a
waiver
> >> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of
December.
> >> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent
inclusion on the
> >> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores
cannot be
> >> construed as approval of his candidacy.
> >
> >On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action
(and thereby
> >force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
> >intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the
time... but
> >as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to
enable
> >Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could
have
> >been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then
Apollonius
> >would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain
the
> >exemption needed.
> >
> >The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law --
the
> >vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that
normally he
> >would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any
attempt
> >to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt
to
> >refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."
> >
> >Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?
> >
> >Vale, O.
> >
> >
> >M. Octavius Germanicus
> >Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> >Curator Araneae et Senator
> >
>
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	[novaroma] CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER SEVEN
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:20:12 -0600

CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER SEVEN

APPOINTMENT OF LEGATUS FOR THE REGIO OF COLUMBIA

9 Jan 2000

Salve

I, Quintus Sertorius Praetor Canada Occidentalis, issue the following Edicta
to announce the appointment of Remesa Debrascus as Legatus for the Regio of
Columbia in the Nova Roma Provincia of Canada Occidentalis.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Praetor
Canada Occidentalis


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem VII Idus Ianuarias (January 9th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:57:38 -0000

Salvete omnes

Today is one a "dies nefastus publicus" (NP), a day of special religious
observance when legal business cannot take place.

Today is the Agonalia of Ianuarius, when Ianus must be appeased. The Rex
Sacrorum sacrifices a ram to Ianus at the Regia in Roma.

The month of Ianuarius is sacred to Ianus.

Valete bene in pace deorum
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was Local Groups)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:08:59 -0500

Salvete!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 01:47
>
> I am a recruiting officer for my local SCA group and
> have a series of handbills that we distribute. I'll
> modify a few of them for NovaRoma and post them at the
> egroups site (note that you'll need PowerPoint).
> Local groups will still need to add local contact
> information.

Terrific! If they are suitable (and it definitely sounds like they will be),
perhaps they could be made availailable on the "Literature for Download"
section of the web site.

> Here in Germania, as a result of your inspiring
> comments, two nascient local groups are being
> discussed, one in the "Land" ('state') of Hessen and
> one in Baden-Wuerttemberg. We're still in the early
> stages and have not sought any kind of formal
> recognition.

As it just so happens, I'm working on some specific proposals regarding the
organization and operation of such local groups, based on feedback I've
gotten on the general ideas I posted last week. As soon as they're in a
presentable state, I'll roll them out here for discussion.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:15:54 -0500

Salve;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc [mailto:RexMarcius@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 07:25
>
> First: I too believe there was nothing to veto here, as this requires
> an "action" by one of the magistrates or bodies suceptible to
> Tribunician veto. But in the case of the Senate, the Tribune may very
> well force an action as he - under the Constitution - also has the
> power to call the Senate to order (ie in ym interpretation to force a
> vote). If anything, our Tribune's newly planned course of action
> could be understood that way, as an enforcement of a new vote on the
> same subject, which is still open until a vote has been called in the
> Comitia.

While your other two points are good ones, this is in fact mistaken. While
the Tribunis Plebis may call the Senate to order, only a magistrate with
Imperium may actually present items for debate and voting. This question
actually came up recently in another context.

However, I don't think this is what our good Tribune had in mind, given what
he actually said in his post on this subject (he specifically said he would
have employed intercessio to overturn the decision of the Senate not to
grant the exemption to Draco). I can definitely see the illogic of that
scenario; "I prevent you from not doing this thing".

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	[novaroma] Resignations
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:25:04 -0500

Salvete, Omnes;

I must at this time announce two resignations. The first was received by the
Senate from Quintus Iulius Camillus Caesar, who resigned yesterday as
Rogatorus. He undertook this selfless act in order to ensure a smooth
continuation of our governmental process, which doesn't provide for
resolving ties in elections (yet).

As I intend to propose a lex in the coming weeks increasing the number of
Rogatores from two to four, I hope that Quintus Iulius Camillus Caesar will
see fit to stand again for the position when and if it becomes open, and I
hope that the Cives will put him back in that position. I thank you, Quintus
Iulius Camillus Caesar, for putting the interests of the Republic ahead of
your own.

I must also, with sadness, announce that, coinciding with his assumption of
the office of Censor, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus has resigned as Legatus of
the Greater Washington D.C. Regio, in the Mediatlantica Provincia. To date,
no replacement has been designated, but any Citizen who wishes to serve in
the position should get in touch with me privately. (I should add that
similar Legati for the Greater New York City and Greater Philadelphia Regia
are being sought, as well.)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem VII Idus Ianuarias (January 9th)
From:	razenna@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:46:03 -0000

As usual, thanks go to Graecus for these postings. I wish to say that
his wording in this case brings to my mind an Aztec type situation of
threatening gods demanding blood sacrifice, rather than what I have
gotten in my readings, particularly H.H.Scullard. Today is the day of
Ianus. He is offered sacrfice, as are all the gods on their
particular occaisions. I do not have the time now, once again peeking
in instead of doing morning excercises before goiong to work, but
Scullard also goes into the uncertain roots of the name Ianus [Janus]
and has some interesting theories posited. Mainly Ianus is the "Gate
God", and all sorts of things are "gates". The doors of our houses,
the gates of the cities, the bridge across a river, the beginning of a
new undertaking. Today is also another of those days that might be
said to be a Roman New Year, along with Kal. Martis, 21 April and Kal
Ianuarius.

Now out the door and to work.

Salve Iane Pater, admitte me coram numina lucentia.
Conservis nos.
Ita est.

C.Aelius Ericius.

--- In novaroma@--------, "Antonio Grilo" <amg@c...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> Today is one a "dies nefastus publicus" (NP), a day of special
religious
> observance when legal business cannot take place.
>
> Today is the Agonalia of Ianuarius, when Ianus must be appeased. The
Rex
> Sacrorum sacrifices a ram to Ianus at the Regia in Roma.
>
> The month of Ianuarius is sacred to Ianus.
>
> Valete bene in pace deorum
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:55:43 EST

Salve Consul!

I see your point and you may very well be right! I also know how it was
handled in ancient times. But as this is NOVA Roma let me just point out, how
I arrive at my (maybe erroneous) opinion.

I am not sure that the Senatus Consultum governing the internal procedures
(which you obviously refer to) is constitutional in that it makes a
difference between those Magistrates empowered by the Constitution to convene
the Senate 24 hours before it assembles (Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes) and
those convening it formally (highest ranking official with imperium e.g. a
Curulis Aedilis?? :-))

The Constitution (which has of course been drafted and enacted by you) makes
no difference in its wording regarding the powers of the Consuls, the
Praetors and the Tribunes to call the Senate to order.

Your opinion and the Senatus Consultum de ratione implies that the
Constitution

1)only regulates who may call for an assembly and not who is empowered to
present items for voting (which is by far the more important of the two
powers)
2) delegates the rest of this vital system of power-sharing between the
magistrates and the Senate to the Senate itself which may e.g. by Senatus
Consultum only allow the Senate eldest to conduct the business of voting etc.
while the magistrates may only call for an assembly under 1).

This does not add up in my mind and I believe the letter of the Constituion
gives equal power to the Consuls, the Praetors and the Tribunes (who e.g. are
empowered to present items for voting in the Comitia plebis without any
imperium).

Therefore, my opinion stands.

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem VII Idus Ianuarias (January 9th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:04:01 -0000

Salve amice C. Erici

>As usual, thanks go to Graecus for these postings. I wish to say that
>his wording in this case brings to my mind an Aztec type situation of
>threatening gods demanding blood sacrifice, rather than what I have
>gotten in my readings, particularly H.H.Scullard. Today is the day of
Ianus. He is offered sacrfice, as are all the gods on their
particular occaisions. <snip>
Amice Erici, allow me to say then that you have a slightly wrong idea about
the Roman Gods. The Gods of Rome have indeed to be appeased with sacrifice,
and sometimes those sacrifices took animals as replacements for humans
offered in earlier times. The wording I've employed today based on Ovid
(Fasti, I.318):
"Ianus Agonali luce piandus erit"

The word "piandus" is the Future Passive of verb "pio", which usually means
"to appease", to "expiate", "to cleanse", to "propitiate". The Loeb edition
transates it as "to appease", which is in my opinion suitable for the
occasion.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:24:41 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RexMarcius@-------- [mailto:RexMarcius@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 08:56
>
> Salve Consul!
>
> I see your point and you may very well be right! I also know how it was
> handled in ancient times. But as this is NOVA Roma let me just point out,
how
> I arrive at my (maybe erroneous) opinion.

<snip>

You make an interesting point, and I can see how it could be taken that way.
However, I would see it from a slightly different angle; the definition of
Imperium.

The Constitution spells out explicitly who has Imperium, but never actually
defines it. This is intentional, as the Constitution should not be expected
to foresee every single expedient, nor provide for the minutae of every
action. In such cases, as in all places where the Constitution does not go
into detail, we must turn to the various leges and Senatus Consulta (since
the Senate is explicitly charged with setting its own internal procedures by
Senatus Consultum in paragraph V.F. of the Constitution) that exist to
clarify and specify those elements of the Constitution which are explained
in necessarily broad terms. The definition of Imperium is one of those
things.

The Constitution does spell out a significant different between the
definitions of the Consuls/Praetors/Aediles Curules and the Tribunes.
Imperium. But it lacks specificity regarding what that means. In steps the
Senatus Consultum to fill the void. It is the holding of Imperium which
allows the Senate, once called, to formally debate and vote on specific
matters.

Now, is this the sole definition of Imperium? Does it stop there absolutely
and forevermore? Of course not, and I believe that as the crafting of the
civil law code and procedure proceeds, we will see the definition of
Imperium expanded, honed, and ever-more-sharply defined. But for now, the
only place where it has been seen necessary to employ it in a specific
function, is the internal procedures of the Senate.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:44:59 -0500

Salvete;

M. Octavius Germanicus seems to have adequately answered your technical
questions on the logistics of how the correct order of votes could be
tallied. I did, however, want to just comment on one thing you did say.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 21:42
>
> I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either
tied or
> it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as
well
> toss a coin in the air and call the election.

First off, if you'll recall it was not I who suggested that this method be
used to resolve tied tribes. I merely agreed that the idea had merit.
Personally, I don't think it's as important an issue as putting in place a
mechanism to ensure that ties for magisterial elections are resolved.

(By the way, I'll have those citations you asked for tonight when I get
home. I surely hope you don't think I made all that up out of whole cloth!)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:47:39 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 21:52
>
> No. I don't like it. I oppose it. I'd rather see a reversion
> to popular vote.

I hope you know THAT isn't going to happen. But we need some mechanism to
resolve tied magisterial elections, and the starting of counting by a
randomly-selected tribe or century is historical. If you have another
solution that has a historical basis, I'd love to see it!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	[novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:27:38 -0500

Salvete!

There's been a lot of excellent and productive talk on a number of issues
regarding the election process. Some ideas seem to be moving towards
consensus, others not, but I thought it would be helpful to just give a
recap of the various different issues that have been broached lately. Many
if not most of these will likely be coming up for a vote in the Comitia
sometime soon.

* Increase the number of Rogatores to four. This was first brought up during
the election, and has been mentioned in passing in a few different contexts.
Consensus seems to be that it'd be a good thing.

* Specify when candidates seeking an exemption from the Lex Iunia de
Magistratum Aetate must do so. Consensus seems to be that an exemption must
be sought prior to the election.

* Clarification of the timeline by which elections/votes are run. People
seem to like the idea, but no specific proposals have yet been forthcoming.
(I'm working on such a specific proposal for this myself; I'll probably post
it tonight or tomorrow.)

* Allow candidates running unopposed to forego the election process. Seems
to be a divided issue.

* Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties in magisterial
elections. Seems to be a divided issue.

* Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties within tribes
and centuries. Doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this.

If I've forgotten anything, please feel free to add it on, and naturally
comments on any of these matters is more than welcome; it's expected!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:53:39 -0700

I'd like to add another thing. I think we need a blessing on the effort to
rethink the rogatorial process to INCLUDE, regardless of how we are tabulating
the vote, automation of the vote counting.

In this last election, we received approx. 200 votes out of a populace somewhere
around 600. Now....I don't know what time my colleague put in, but I put in
roughly the equivalent of a solid work week during the span of the elections.
That's to process and ensure data accuracy to MY standards. I think the task is
doable, but increasingly difficult in the face of elections where we have more
and more votes to tally. A vote of 1000?? It would then be a herculean (and
stultifying mindless) task indeed to process the data manually according to my
standards and meet the expected timeframes.

What I have in mind is a program to determine the election, coupled with a way
for the Rogators to monitor and verify the accuracy of the program.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> There's been a lot of excellent and productive talk on a number of issues
> regarding the election process. Some ideas seem to be moving towards
> consensus, others not, but I thought it would be helpful to just give a
> recap of the various different issues that have been broached lately. Many
> if not most of these will likely be coming up for a vote in the Comitia
> sometime soon.
>
> * Increase the number of Rogatores to four. This was first brought up during
> the election, and has been mentioned in passing in a few different contexts.
> Consensus seems to be that it'd be a good thing.
>
> * Specify when candidates seeking an exemption from the Lex Iunia de
> Magistratum Aetate must do so. Consensus seems to be that an exemption must
> be sought prior to the election.
>
> * Clarification of the timeline by which elections/votes are run. People
> seem to like the idea, but no specific proposals have yet been forthcoming.
> (I'm working on such a specific proposal for this myself; I'll probably post
> it tonight or tomorrow.)
>
> * Allow candidates running unopposed to forego the election process. Seems
> to be a divided issue.
>
> * Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties in magisterial
> elections. Seems to be a divided issue.
>
> * Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties within tribes
> and centuries. Doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this.
>
> If I've forgotten anything, please feel free to add it on, and naturally
> comments on any of these matters is more than welcome; it's expected!
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:57:19 -0000

Salvete omnes!

I am sorry, I just noticed, we are not on the NovaRomalaws list
here...but it is becoming ever more interesting for me!

Consul, your arguments about "imperium" and unclear terms that need
to be filled out are basically very sound, but they fail to convince
me 100%.

This for the following reasons:

Of course the Senate may regulate its internal procedure. But it must
not do so against the letter and spirit of the constitution. There at
least a limit is set by the highest legal authority we have.

Now the Constitution does - in its letter - not make any difference
between the Consuls' and the Tribunes' power to call the Senate "to
order". The Praetors are just the vice-Consuls in that respect.

This term "to call to order" is a bit unclear, I agree.

Does it mean that those magistrates have the power to cry "order!"
when Senators start hacking away verbally at each other (which of
course could NEVER happen in such an august body as ours)? This is
what the term "to call to order" (Ordnungsruf) means in my
macronational parliament.

Or does it mean that they shall be the ones giving the Senate a
structured discussion and voting? This is what I believe.

Or does it mean that it gives the power to "call for that the Senate
shall be formally convened by those who the Senate decides are
empowered to do so". This latter meaning seems to be your
interpretation of "calling to order" and the basis for the logic in
the Senatus Consultum. The Senate - according to this - obviously
decided that "imperium" shall be the defining factor.

Now I cannot quite believe that this is not against the Constitution.

Firstly, the Tribunes have the power under the Constitution, and I
quote

"d. To call the Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order"

Does that mean they only have the power to call for the comitia
plebis tributa to be formally convened by those who the Comitia
itself decides shall be the presiding officers? I guess we all
believed so far that this wording entailed that only the Tribunes are
empowered by the Constitution to formally convene the Comitia and
call for a vote there....Without imperium....why should it be
different in the Senate when the wording is absolutely the same.

Secondly. According to the Constitution, Imperium is also invested in
the Curules Aediles. But they have nothing to do with the Senate. So
there is no clear connection between "imperium" and Senate matters in
the Constitution. On the other hand there IS - at least as I see it -
a connection between "to call to order" and the question of
presenting items for discussion and voting, because if it were
otherwise our worthy tribunes would have problems in the Plebeian
assemblies.

I would find it hard to accept that an interpretation as the one
which obviously led to the Senatus Consultum does not infringe upon
the letter and the spirit of our Constitution. Because.....this legal
document - in my perception - only regulates the MOST important and
leaves the day to day questions to lower legal authorities.

Why would the Constitution waste words on the "call for an assembly",
a stage which seems utterly unimportant to me and not worthy of a
constitutional remark? This is what should be dealt with in the
internal procedures.

Therefore, even when seeing it from this angle, I remain unconvinced.

Very respectfully

Marcus Marcius Rex
Senator

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RexM--------us@-------- [m--------o:RexM--------us@--------]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 08:56
> >
> > Salve Consul!
> >
> > I see your point and you may very well be right! I also know how
it was
> > handled in ancient times. But as this is NOVA Roma let me just
point out,
> how
> > I arrive at my (maybe erroneous) opinion.
>
> <snip>
>
> You make an interesting point, and I can see how it could be taken
that way.
> However, I would see it from a slightly different angle; the
definition of
> Imperium.
>
> The Constitution spells out explicitly who has Imperium, but never
actually
> defines it. This is intentional, as the Constitution should not be
expected
> to foresee every single expedient, nor provide for the minutae of
every
> action. In such cases, as in all places where the Constitution does
not go
> into detail, we must turn to the various leges and Senatus Consulta
(since
> the Senate is explicitly charged with setting its own internal
procedures by
> Senatus Consultum in paragraph V.F. of the Constitution) that exist
to
> clarify and specify those elements of the Constitution which are
explained
> in necessarily broad terms. The definition of Imperium is one of
those
> things.
>
> The Constitution does spell out a significant different between the
> definitions of the Consuls/Praetors/Aediles Curules and the
Tribunes.
> Imperium. But it lacks specificity regarding what that means. In
steps the
> Senatus Consultum to fill the void. It is the holding of Imperium
which
> allows the Senate, once called, to formally debate and vote on
specific
> matters.
>
> Now, is this the sole definition of Imperium? Does it stop there
absolutely
> and forevermore? Of course not, and I believe that as the crafting
of the
> civil law code and procedure proceeds, we will see the definition of
> Imperium expanded, honed, and ever-more-sharply defined. But for
now, the
> only place where it has been seen necessary to employ it in a
specific
> function, is the internal procedures of the Senate.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>

> email: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:07:18 -0500

Salvete;

I agree completely! I think this is a terrific idea; I know from personal
experience just how "stultifying" tabulating the votes can be. I know such a
program was in the works, but I'm not sure how far along it has come. Might
our esteemed curator araneae (whom I believe was spearheading the effort)
give us a report on the project?

I also agree that we would still want some sort of oversight by the
rogatores; the final responsibility for the accurate tabulation of the
election results would remain, of course, theirs.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:54
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
>
>
> I'd like to add another thing. I think we need a blessing on the
> effort to
> rethink the rogatorial process to INCLUDE, regardless of how we
> are tabulating
> the vote, automation of the vote counting.
>
> In this last election, we received approx. 200 votes out of a
> populace somewhere
> around 600. Now....I don't know what time my colleague put in,
> but I put in
> roughly the equivalent of a solid work week during the span of
> the elections.
> That's to process and ensure data accuracy to MY standards. I
> think the task is
> doable, but increasingly difficult in the face of elections where
> we have more
> and more votes to tally. A vote of 1000?? It would then be a
> herculean (and
> stultifying mindless) task indeed to process the data manually
> according to my
> standards and meet the expected timeframes.
>
> What I have in mind is a program to determine the election,
> coupled with a way
> for the Rogators to monitor and verify the accuracy of the program.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:20:16 -0600 (CST)

Salve Flavi Vedi,

> I agree completely! I think this is a terrific idea; I know from personal
> experience just how "stultifying" tabulating the votes can be. I know such a
> program was in the works, but I'm not sure how far along it has come. Might
> our esteemed curator araneae (whom I believe was spearheading the effort)
> give us a report on the project?

I wrote a vote-counting program during the last election; it took about
an hour to build. I produced a "machine count" from it and sent it to the
Rogatores, who used it to check the accuracy of their "hand counts",
and submitted the results only after every count produced the same
results.

Each vote is saved to a file with its tribe and century. The vote-counting
program then reads in all of these files, calculates the winner within
each tribe or century for each race, then reports the overall counts
of tribes/centuries for each candidate. This process takes about
ten seconds.

Thus, if the current Rogatores are willing to use this automated
process, vote counting can now be nearly instantaneous.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:24:17 US/Central

Salvete

Livia Cornelia scripsit
> > No. I don't like it. I oppose it. I'd rather see a reversion
> > to popular vote.

Consul Vedius respondet
> I hope you know THAT isn't going to happen. But we need some mechanism to
> resolve tied magisterial elections, and the starting of counting by a
> randomly-selected tribe or century is historical. If you have another
> solution that has a historical basis, I'd love to see it!

Respondeo
Why won't it happen? It's a reasonable solution. If two candidates tie, give
the position to the one who received the most votes. True, it's not
historical, but it's a much better idea than going with which votes were cast
first in a given century or tribe--an equally modern and essentially random
solution.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:28:32 -0000

Salve Consul:

I believe another issue which briefly arose from these discussions is
whether or not new citizens should be admitted during the elections. Other
than that, I see your list as very representative of what was discussed.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:27:38 -0500
>
>Salvete!
>
>There's been a lot of excellent and productive talk on a number of issues
>regarding the election process. Some ideas seem to be moving towards
>consensus, others not, but I thought it would be helpful to just give a
>recap of the various different issues that have been broached lately. Many
>if not most of these will likely be coming up for a vote in the Comitia
>sometime soon.
>
>* Increase the number of Rogatores to four. This was first brought up
>during
>the election, and has been mentioned in passing in a few different
>contexts.
>Consensus seems to be that it'd be a good thing.
>
>* Specify when candidates seeking an exemption from the Lex Iunia de
>Magistratum Aetate must do so. Consensus seems to be that an exemption must
>be sought prior to the election.
>
>* Clarification of the timeline by which elections/votes are run. People
>seem to like the idea, but no specific proposals have yet been forthcoming.
>(I'm working on such a specific proposal for this myself; I'll probably
>post
>it tonight or tomorrow.)
>
>* Allow candidates running unopposed to forego the election process. Seems
>to be a divided issue.
>
>* Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties in
>magisterial
>elections. Seems to be a divided issue.
>
>* Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties within tribes
>and centuries. Doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this.
>
>If I've forgotten anything, please feel free to add it on, and naturally
>comments on any of these matters is more than welcome; it's expected!
>
>Vale,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Consul
>
>email: germanicus@--------
>AIM: Flavius Vedius
>www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:45:09 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 05:24
>
> Why won't it happen? It's a reasonable solution. If two candidates tie,
give
> the position to the one who received the most votes. True, it's not
> historical, but it's a much better idea than going with which votes were
cast
> first in a given century or tribe--an equally modern and essentially
random
> solution.

I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by "going with which votes
were cast first in a given century or tribe"? I was talking about the order
in which the tribes and centuries as a whole were counted, not the count
within each tribe or century. And that is, indeed, a historical solution
from Roma Antiqua, and thus to my mind a preferable one to the modern notion
of "reverting to a popular vote".

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:48:33 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pompeia Cornelia [mailto:scriba_forum@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:29
>
> I believe another issue which briefly arose from these discussions is
> whether or not new citizens should be admitted during the elections.
Other
> than that, I see your list as very representative of what was discussed.

Ah; thanks for reminding me. Personally, I can see the wisdom in temporarily
holding off approving new Citizens during the midst of a vote or election.
If for no other reason, it would prevent the possibility of someone seeing
their support trailing off then "stuffing" the voter rolls with shadow
Cives. And asking a new Citizen wait a week or two while an election is
being conducted doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable request...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Social/political et Lucius Sergius
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:34:24 EST

Salve Gaius Sentius

I must be brief because I'm already going to be late to work!

I don't see any substantial advantage that accrues to being a patrician
in Nova Roma. In Roma Antiqua, being a patrician conferred enormous
advantage in the social, political, military, and legal spheres.
Patricians had much more of a vested interest in the Republic.

In Nova Roma, being a patrician is just a badge of honor - your gens was
among the first few or someone in it has done something notable. I don't
see any substantial advantage that affects anyone's career or interests.
And plebians have more options in terms of offices they may hold.

I just don't see that it matters worth dividing us into conflicting
groups. As one of my clinical supervisors put it, we are all alike in far
more ways than we are different.

Emphasizing differences is a tactic of demagogues, racists, and budding
tyrants.

And no, I am not calling you or Piscinus any of those things - I am
talking about principles here.

Vale,

LSAO

On 1/9/01 3:54 AM dougies@-------- (dougies@--------) wrote:

>Ave Lucius Sergius, et all,
>
>How can you call these labels symbollic, when clearly they are not?
>Plebeians have
>seperate offices to Patricians. By the way the voting system is
>positioned at the moment,
>the first people to join Nova Roma (who, being the first 30 tribes,
>are patricians) have
>more power than any others and more influence in certain centruies.
>Not only this, but
>how can this division be "symbollic" when Patricians are given extra
>century points?
>These
>divisions are not symbollic, rather they are physical and plain to
>see. Divisions were a key
>in the Roman system of social and political order, and while we seek
>to create a replica
>of
>Roma antiqua that is as close as possible, so will it occur here.
>Divisions are real in
>Roman times, so too are they in Nova Roma. The Plebeian mailing list
>is an essentail
>need, considering the vast majority of new citizens who will become
>plebs, and who are
>plebs, and who feel that the Comitia Plebis Tributa is a way of having
>their views
>represented.
>
>I mean no offense or disrespect from my comments, they are just
>tendered as they are:
>simple fact.
>
>Valete bene,
>
>Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
>

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:34:23 EST

Salve Marcus Marcius

You are (of course) correct that the Tribunes have the power to convene
the Senate. I seriously considered taking that step last year. What
caused me to reject that course of action was that having called the
Senate to order, I could have done nothing more than require them to take
a vote. I lacked any power to make them vote for my cause. I anticipated
that by convening them and charging them with voting on a highly
controversial proposal on which they had mostly already expressed
negative opinions, all I would get would be a number of resentful,
indignant statements and a vote that would go against my cause.

I think that is pretty much what Tribune Piscinus would accomplish if he
were to call the Senate and force a re-vote on this issue at this time.
There is no new evidence or new argument to justify revisiting the same
issue.

A new election preceded by a new waiver request seem to me to be the
effective way to go.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/9/01 6:24 AM Marc (RexMarcius@--------) wrote:

>Salvete omnes!
>
>Let me add a few points:
>
>First: I too believe there was nothing to veto here, as this requires
>an "action" by one of the magistrates or bodies suceptible to
>Tribunician veto. But in the case of the Senate, the Tribune may very
>well force an action as he - under the Constitution - also has the
>power to call the Senate to order (ie in ym interpretation to force a
>vote). If anything, our Tribune's newly planned course of action
>could be understood that way, as an enforcement of a new vote on the
>same subject, which is still open until a vote has been called in the
>Comitia.
>
>Second: The Tribunes have the highest authority apart from the
>combined majority of the Comitia Centuriata and a 2/3 majority of the
>Senate to interpret the Constitution ie they have not the sole power,
>but certainly the most authoritative one.
>
>Third: There is no question that Draco's candidacy was legal. To
>imply otherwise would give the wrong impression that Draco did
>something (at least morally) wrong and not the Seante (by simply not
>reacting) Not the candidacy but the assumption of office is the
>crucial deciding point for the Senate and the Censors (at least
>according to the now valid lex).
>
>Ave et Vale
>
>Marcus Marcius Rex
>Senator
>

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

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:37:00 -0800

Salvete,
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:49 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pompeia Cornelia [mailto:scriba_forum@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:29
>
> I believe another issue which briefly arose from these discussions is
> whether or not new citizens should be admitted during the elections.
Other
> than that, I see your list as very representative of what was discussed.

Ah; thanks for reminding me. Personally, I can see the wisdom in temporarily
holding off approving new Citizens during the midst of a vote or election.
If for no other reason, it would prevent the possibility of someone seeing
their support trailing off then "stuffing" the voter rolls with shadow
Cives. And asking a new Citizen wait a week or two while an election is
being conducted doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable request...

OFS: I have to disagree with this idea, at least in its
currently generalized form.

In my particular case, I had been following NR for a while
prior to my citizenship approval. The approval was formally
granted on 11/28/00. The upcoming elections were posted and
it was important to me that I was able to vote if at all possible,
especially given that it was such a major election.
This situation may have been somewhat unique in my case, as
I had been following the list for a quite a while and also
had been in regular touch with the Censores regarding the
status of my application, and felt that I had
enough information to make informed decisions.

That being said, if we were to be very specific, limit a specified
range of days (or a week or two) and post it clearly on
the website to say something like: Due to pending elections,
we will be temporarily unable to approve citizenship applications
between the dates of ..... and .....We thank you for your
patience and look forward to your contributions to NR...
(or something to that effect) To me, it would seem like
limiting our active application process here would be more
of a safeguard to ensure that the Censores; who must be
extremely busy at election time have adequate enough
time to fully review citizenship apps in conjunction with
their other duties. It's hard for me to imagine the
Censorial office 'stuffing ballots' with shadow
cives.

Even so, I'm still a bit leery of any limitation of potentially
active cives that may be gung-ho and have energy, time and
expertise to contribute. Per above, if we can specifically
define the date span which fully constitutes a given
election period then it might seem more viable.
Anyways, my .02.

Valete,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

eGroups Sponsor


Subject:	[novaroma] Oath of Curule Aedile... Better late than never
From:	Odysseus49@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:19:34 -0000

Salvete,

I, Titus Sertorius Albinus (Marcus Brown), do hereby solemnly swear
to uphold the
honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the
people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Titus Sertorius Albinus (Marcus
Brown) , swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public
dealings, and to
pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Titus Sertorius Albinus (Marcus Brown), swear to uphold and defend
the Religio
Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a
way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, Titus Sertorius Albinus (Marcus Brown), swear to protect and
defend the
Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Titus Sertorius Albinus (Marcus Brown), further swear to fulfill
the obligations
and responsibilities of the office of Curule Aedile to the best of my
abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods
and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I
accept the position of Curule Aedile and all the rights, privileges,
obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

Bene vale,
Titus Sertorius Albinus.


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:20:37 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oppius Flaccus [mailto:oppiusflaccus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:37
>
> In my particular case, I had been following NR for a while
> prior to my citizenship approval. The approval was formally
> granted on 11/28/00. The upcoming elections were posted and
> it was important to me that I was able to vote if at all possible,
> especially given that it was such a major election.

To my mind, that speaks more to the need for the Censores to process new
Citizenship applications with alacrity. That your application was processed
so close to the start of the election process seems to me an accident of
timing.

> That being said, if we were to be very specific, limit a specified
> range of days (or a week or two) and post it clearly on
> the website to say something like: Due to pending elections,
> we will be temporarily unable to approve citizenship applications
> between the dates of ..... and .....We thank you for your
> patience and look forward to your contributions to NR...
> (or something to that effect)

Actually, I thought that's what was being talked about... I know that way
back in the mists of time, that's the way we handled the situation.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was Local Groups)
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:14:49 -0800

Salve Dalmaticus!

Am so glad to see that there's some strong interest
and that groups are being formed! Am looking forward
to getting that going here as well. I do have PowerPoint
and would love to have a copy of your materials when
you have a chance. A plain attachment sent to my
private e-mail address should be fine and not be
affected by the e-groups attachment stripping.

Vale bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:47 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was
Local Groups)

Salvete!

--- Oppius Flaccus <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:

> +The last point I can comment on relates
> specifically to
> recruitment. For this endeavor, I think that we *do*
> need
> to advertise and recruit at the city (urbes) level.
> It's difficult
> to foresee a more granular division becoming
> necessary for
> quite some time. As a pretense for sparking
> community interest
> in joining Nova Roma, the idea of 'forming a
> chapter' at the
> 'local level' is great, as long as it's applied at
> the city level.
> This will be especially important in areas that are
> widely
> distributed. For some mega-large and diffuse cities
> such as
> Los Angeles, then further subdivisions may be viable
> and beneficial
> at some future point.

I am a recruiting officer for my local SCA group and
have a series of handbills that we distribute. I'll
modify a few of them for NovaRoma and post them at the
egroups site (note that you'll need PowerPoint).
Local groups will still need to add local contact
information.

Here in Germania, as a result of your inspiring
comments, two nascient local groups are being
discussed, one in the "Land" ('state') of Hessen and
one in Baden-Wuerttemberg. We're still in the early
stages and have not sought any kind of formal
recognition.

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! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

eGroups Sponsor

Click here for Business information


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:20:37 -0500


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Army events in SoCal
From:	"Sheridan/Hibernicus " <legioix@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:22:13 -0000

Avete

Everyone is welcome to join us at the following events :

February 16-17 Scottish Highland Festival, Queen Mary, Long Beach CA
June 16-17 Irish Fair historical timeline, Woodley Park Festival Fields, Encino CA
July 7-8 Old Ft MAcArthur Days, military reenactor timeline, Rome-WWII, San Pedro CA

Come as you are, come for a few hours, spend the day, spend the weekend, visit, participate, meet and greet, in period clothes if you
got'em.

For more info please write...

legioix@--------

Salvete,
Gaius Valerius Tacitus Hibernicus
centurio Legio IX Hispana


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:34:17 -0000

>From: "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
>Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:37:00 -0800
>
>Salvete,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:49 AM
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
>
>
>Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pompeia Cornelia [mailto:scriba_forum@--------]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:29
> >
> > I believe another issue which briefly arose from these discussions is
> > whether or not new citizens should be admitted during the elections.
>Other
> > than that, I see your list as very representative of what was discussed.
>
>Ah; thanks for reminding me. Personally, I can see the wisdom in
>temporarily
>holding off approving new Citizens during the midst of a vote or election.
>If for no other reason, it would prevent the possibility of someone seeing
>their support trailing off then "stuffing" the voter rolls with shadow
>Cives. And asking a new Citizen wait a week or two while an election is
>being conducted doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable request...
>
>OFS: I have to disagree with this idea, at least in its
>currently generalized form.

Salvete Oppius et alii:

Pompeia*******My statement was meant to remind the Consul of an item which
had been discussed. I in no way meant it as a comprehensive proposal
regarding this issue. Just a few more thoughts, see below :)******
>
>In my particular case, I had been following NR for a while
>prior to my citizenship approval. The approval was formally
>granted on 11/28/00. The upcoming elections were posted and
>it was important to me that I was able to vote if at all possible,
>especially given that it was such a major election.
>This situation may have been somewhat unique in my case, as
>I had been following the list for a quite a while and also
>had been in regular touch with the Censores regarding the
>status of my application, and felt that I had
>enough information to make informed decisions.

Pompeia******From what I know of you Oppius, I am sure that you would be the
type of person to make an informed vote, and that you had followed the list
and the events, debates while awaiting citizenship. I don't think we can
assume that of everyone, however. Some people may get involved, keep
informed only after receiving citizenship. ****
>
>That being said, if we were to be very specific, limit a specified
>range of days (or a week or two) and post it clearly on
>the website to say something like: Due to pending elections,
>we will be temporarily unable to approve citizenship applications
>between the dates of ..... and .....We thank you for your
>patience and look forward to your contributions to NR...
>(or something to that effect) To me, it would seem like
>limiting our active application process here would be more
>of a safeguard to ensure that the Censores; who must be
>extremely busy at election time have adequate enough
>time to fully review citizenship apps in conjunction with
>their other duties.

Pompeia*****This, is actually what happened last year, when I applied for
citizenship in December; there was a note at the website saying something to
the effect that citizenship applications were not being entertained because
Nova Roma was holding elections. Personally, I had no problem with that,
because I had not subbed to the list and I knew my vote would be an
uninformed one. But it was only for a two week period or so, as you suggest
above. I applied the first week in January.******

It's hard for me to imagine the
>Censorial office 'stuffing ballots' with shadow
>cives.
>
>Even so, I'm still a bit leery of any limitation of potentially
>active cives that may be gung-ho and have energy, time and
>expertise to contribute. Per above, if we can specifically
>define the date span which fully constitutes a given
>election period then it might seem more viable.
>Anyways, my .02.

*******Pompeia: of course. We do not want to discourage potentially active
civites, but I don't think it would hurt to ask someone to wait a couple of
weeks. If a potential civie is really serious, I think he/she will
understand the delay. I have belonged to other groups who do not admit new
members during their time of election.*****
>
>Valete,
>-Oppius Flaccus Severus
>
>Valete,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Consul
>
>email: germanicus@--------
>AIM: Flavius Vedius
>www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>eGroups Sponsor
>

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:38:02 -0300

Salvete;

labienus wrote:
>Respondeo
>Why won't it happen? It's a reasonable solution. If two candidates tie, give
>the position to the one who received the most votes. True, it's not
>historical, but it's a much better idea than going with which votes were cast
>first in a given century or tribe--an equally modern and essentially random
>solution.
>
>Valete
>T Labienus Fortunatus

Reading a book about how the elections were made in Roma Antiqua, i realized that the electors were grouped in the Campus Martius, crosses a little bridge (separatin him from the others), and cast their vote in the cista.
When the candidate reaches the necessary votes, the election ends, even if there are more votes to be cast. But there are nothing about a tie, or what happens to solve it
Does anyone heard if there was a tie between tribes or centuries in Roma Antiqua?

By the way, here in Brasil, if there are a draw between two candidates, the older wins.
But, in NR, if two candidates receives the same number of votes, both are equally qualified to the magistrature, and whatever sistem is valid. I prefer the tradition, and the proposal of the Consul Vedius seems good.

Thanks
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis

Get FREE Email/Voicemail with 15MB at Lycos Communications at http://comm.lycos.com


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:29:20 -0300

Salvete;

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>Salvete;
>
>I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
>there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
>Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
>necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
>striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?

However, the constitution says that there will be patricians and plebeians. The relations between them are better than ever, but there are (very small) differences. And we can choose between being a patrician or plebeian!

But there are laws and offices exclusively plebeian, and we can materialize the constitution building our own plebeian chat-forum, list and page (yes, im planning a plebeian page). However, the patricians will have free access to all those features. we want to have the pleasure to make NR grow, too! :)

>I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
>and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
>no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
>which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.

And, if there are something of impact in NR, we can post in the main list, the message board, and so one. We want to preserve the unity of Nova Roma.

>Valete,
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Consul

By the way, i have a feeling that the participation in Nova Roma is higher between the patricians than the plebeians. Perhaps a action to tie the plebs toghether will be better for Nova Roma

Salve
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Propraetor Brasilia

Get FREE Email/Voicemail with 15MB at Lycos Communications at http://comm.lycos.com


Subject:	[novaroma] Tie in elections
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:39:11 -0300


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:40:49 US/Central

Salvete

> I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by "going with which votes
> were cast first in a given century or tribe"? I was talking about the order
> in which the tribes and centuries as a whole were counted, not the count
> within each tribe or century. And that is, indeed, a historical solution
> from Roma Antiqua, and thus to my mind a preferable one to the modern notion
> of "reverting to a popular vote".

One of the possible solutions put forth to remove ties was the idea of
resolving ties within a given century or tribe by reverting to the order in
which those votes were cast. Like Livia Cornelia and others, I do not like
this idea at all.

Your suggested solution of counting from a given century is not historical,
according to my understanding of the ancient practice, though it is an attempt
to approximate the historic practice given our constraints.

Perhaps it would be best for us to have some definitive explanation of the
ancients' actual practice, and then proceed from a common, and better informed,
basis.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:05:27 -0600

9 Jan 2001

Salve All

I have a question, are Provincia Praetors Magistrates according to the Constitution?

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Preator
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

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


Subject:	[novaroma] NOVA ROMA: capita V, VI et VII
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:59:44 +0100

Salvete Quirites!

Here are installments V, VI and VII of the NR Mars novel. Thanks for the
corrections on linguistic errors to my paterfamilias!

V. De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
---------------------------------------------------------

Every time he signed a letter, e-mail or edict with his name, Lucius
Cornelius Sulla Felix asked himself whether he was 'felix' or not; and to
his satisfaction, he usually was. He had his fair reasons to be, too. The
gens Cornelia was one of the most illustrous gentes of Mars, and he was
paterfamilias of it; plus he occupied the most honourable seat of the
empire, namely that of Censor, after having worked hard and going through
the full cursus honorum. It was the deserved crown on his work. However,
today he was not so happy. Yesterday one of the great men of the Roman
republic had been buried in the red sands of the planet outside the city
walls, and the case remained unsolved. Octavius' initial clue hadn't brought
any breakthroughs. The only man on Mars named Eugenias had a perfect alibi
and seemed somewhat a simple man, too. Sulla's own suspicions rested upon
the martianalists. For years they had been obstructing the terraformatio,
and claimed to be environmentalists even though there wasn't any environment
to protect!
The Censor shook his head, and peered out of the window of his office down
on the city. Mars was still a popular planet among emigrants, and the fact
that the migration numbers had kept rising since he had taken office were a
sufficient proof for him he was doing his job well. But it didn't make him
happy. The terraformatio had been delivered a new blow yesterday night, when
a group of martianalists had destroyed a bio-factory somewhere in the south,
on the other side of the Tharsis plateau. By the time the legions of Mons
Olympus had arrived the factory was already in ruins. Cassius had always
been a proponent of the earthening programme of Mars, and was very prudent
in proceeding with these plans, usually, as he realized that developing a
new eco-system was not an easy task. Obviously the martianalists didn't seem
to realize this. Nor did the Praetores, who didn't believe the martianalists
were capable of committing such a horrendous crime. That's why he needed
some sort of private detective, a person he could rely on, but also a person
who would do the job well. And the third quality was the most important: if
something went wrong, that few people would notice. He was waiting for that
person to come right now, and she was late already.

Suddenly his musings ended when he heard the beep of the intercom on his
wooden desk, an announcement from one of his many scribae, in this case
Formosanus. They had a mutual dislike for each other, but at least they were
able to deal with each other on a professional level without fighting or
arguing much.
"Let her enter," spoke Sulla through the speaker, and sat down in his chair.
The replica of the ancient Roman door shoved open soundlessly, and his agent
entered.
"Salve, Censor Sulla," she said eloquently, and took herself a seat in front
of the man.
"Ave," he said distractedly, managing some papers that always seemed to fly
around his desk at an inconvenient time. Now was perhaps not the time to
tidy his desk, though, so he quickly focused on the core of the matter.
"You know why I have sent for you," he said, looking her in the eye.
"Yes," she nodded.
"Bene. I'll personally provide you with a device here, so we can keep in
touch. If anything goes wrong, or if you have found something interesting,
call me with it. And accept no orders, either direct or over a communication
line, from anyone else but me. This is a discrete operation, as you're well
aware."
"Yes, sir," she said with a sly grin. Sulla realized he was being too
militaristic, so he eased off a bit.
"Sorry. But this is a serious matter. It's certainly no exaggeration to say
that the planet's future is at stake. We're running with one Consul right
now, and soon we'll have to announce new elections. The martianalists might
have a candidate of their own - that would be a terrifying prospect. I
really don't want to live under this glass bulb forever."
"Me neither," his agent said, "but do you really think that the
martianalists will have a candidate? They're separate groups, aren't they?"
"That's what the official informations say. But who knows them really well?"
She just shrugged, and Sulla went on.
"Anyway, what we do know is that there is a rather large community in a cave
complex not very far from the Valles Marineris -"
"Which part?" she interrupted.
"You'll get a map," he answered, "but anyway, as I was saying, it's not very
far from the Valles Marineris, and they probably live in underground systems
that follow the dried rivers in the area. It shouldn't be too hard to find.
Most likely, they will find you first instead."
A silence fell.
"Well then," Sulla finally said, rising to his feet again, handing her the
device, "everything's in here. If you need to know something contact me.
You're scheduled to leave the city tomorrow. Payment is included on the
device already, so you don't need to worry about that, either."
"Gratias ago," she said, taking the small metal thing. They both shook hands
firmly.
"Bona Fortuna," the Censor spoke. She just nodded, and left the office.
Sulla watched her leave thoughtlessly for a few seconds, and then turned
back to his window. He sincerely hoped that Aeternia Iulia Caesaria Scorpina
Draconia would accomplish her mission.
Mars was not to stay red forever.

VI. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
------------------------------------------------

"First day at the Legio?" a young legionnaire asked Draco, who sat in the
hallway of the Military Academy, built on the high Mons Olympus. He had been
the only person in the hallway until now, even though he knew there were
other applicants, too. They were currently processing his application after
all the necessary procedures had been carried out.
"Yes. I guess newcomers are pretty recognisible," Draco answered somewhat
distractedly.
"Quite, yes," the other replied, "what's your name?"
"Sextus Apollonius Draco."
"Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus, nice to meet you," the youth said,
extending his hand. They shook hands. Draco recognized the same old British
accent he had always noticed when Vado was speaking, even though it had a
more Martian twist to it.
"What Legio are you in?" Draco asked the legionnaire.
"Legio X. There's not much to do right now, but the decemvir ordered me to
do some odd jobs. It's typical for the army - when they don't have anything
for you to do, they'll make up something twice as hard as your usual job.
Anyway, I should be going, I suppose we'll see each other again sometime
around here. Vale!"
"Vale bene," Draco replied, and Curio left through the elevator up the
Academy tower. After a while his name was called from the corner of the
large reception desk, that had the air of something plastic and pompous
around it. He rose from the stone bench and went over to the lady that had
called his name.
"Here are your instructions," she said flatly, handing him a pile of papers,
"you are to meet with the new recruits of your legion on the Mars square
just outside the temple at fourteen hours sharp."
"Which temple?" he asked rather stupidly.
"The temple to Mars of course."

It was hard getting used to a city like Mons Olympus. From every point in
this rectangular city, everything seemed to go downhill, because it was
seated on top of the dead volcano with the same name as the city. This
volcano itself resided on the Tharsis plateau, also one of the largest
features on Mars (and in the solar system). The Olympus was twenty-six
kilometres high, and its base was five hundred kilometres wide. Mars'
tectonics had used to be as violent as Earth's, but today they had stopped,
and they had lain dead or dormant for millennia already. However, all that
concerned Draco right now was to find his way through the small military
city. It wasn't all too difficult, actually, as there wasn't much traffic at
this time of the day, and everything was well indicated in an orderly array.
Most houses were of a typical Roman style, with white walls and red roofs,
although many of them also had large windows, which was a modern feature -
unlike ancient Italia, it wasn't necessary here to keep the sun out, or to
have a compluvium. Thus, most casae and villae were more based on a
Gallo-Roman type of housing, or were just plainly modern with some Roman
influences.
Draco arrived at the square half an hour early, and of course no one was
there yet. So he seated himself on the edge of a fountain from which sprang
forth warm water, and read the documentation he had received earlier, while
the sun was at its zenith now. Its icy rays penetrated the glass shield of
the Mons Olympus, and gave the water of the fountain a certain clarity. It
also made the gold standards outside the temple shine with a brilliance, as
though the God of War himself resided in it. The temple itself was of a
simple but pleasant looking design, with a few columns, and a small version
of a golden chariot on the rooftop, which made the building stand out
between its neighbouring houses. The stairways weren't all that high, and
the closed door gave the impression that there was no one inside. Meanwhile,
the documentation was being processed by Draco's brain. It gave some useful
information on both ancient and modern history of Roma, and some practical
bits on meals, discipline and basic ethical guidelines, but most of it was
propaganda, of course. But until now, nothing suspicious. He had actually
felt bad all day, as soon as he had bought his ticket from Ruber to Mons
Olympus for the monorail. Although he blamed Piscinus a little for talking
him into this affair, on the other hand he had done it for his own political
ambition. Plus, he had actually been looking for a a serious job, too, and
at least the army paid a bit.
After a while, the other recruits started arriving, too, young men and women
like himself, some clad in fine togas, others in casual togas, and some
others in a quasi-military outfit with fancy armour that glittered in the
sun. Nothing of that sort would probably impress their future decemvir, who
arrived right on time. Draco rose from the edge of the fountain, and joined
the larger group, that had already started talking. Most of the newbies
didn't seem to know each other. Their decemvir and instructor was a man that
seemed to be entering his mid-ages and had a tough yet concerned look on his
face. He was dressed in his full military outfit, which meant the regular
alloy armour, based on a Roman model, loose limb protections that covered a
thick white tunica and a second, red tunica, plus a weapons belt and a red
cloak that hung over the man's shoulders right now. For what seemed like a
small eternity in the noon sun of the Mons Olympus town square, he didn't
speak a word, and looked sternly at his new recruits, one by one. Draco
thought he always did that, but said nothing just as well. Finally, he
spoke. A neutral yet commanding voice.
"Good afternoon, new soldiers of Legio XXI. My name is Quintus Sertorius,
and I will be the alpha and omega of your lives for the coming weeks." He
said it without any threatening or overly dramatic gestures, but his calm
was just the extra effect that made the recruits silent, some even afraid.
The decemvir paused as a Roman anti-gravity truck passed through the large,
chalky street that was connected to the square.
"I have chosen this place to gather because of its location, with the
temple. For me, it symbolizes everything Roma should stand for, and
ultimately what you all will be standing for: Mars." During his little
speech Sertorius had moved a little, so all recruits were now facing the
entrance of Mars' temple.
"I'm not expecting you to come and pray here every day, but paying a little
respect to our boss wouldn't hurt from time to time. After all, we are on
his territory."
Yes, Draco thought, we are on his land. And he is fighting us with his
violent winds, eruptions of sand from rocks, and other elements. Mars does
not say welcome or hello.

An initial warming-up march followed, from the large, rectangular town
square back to the military headquarters. As the troop approached the
building, Draco could see now that it had actually been built on a large
rock, litterally the top of the top of the Mons Olympus. The tower was
pretty impressive, and probably touched the transparent glass shield of the
city with the golden eagle that resided on top of it. Next to the tower
itself was a large complex, doubly walled and with its own gate to the
outside. When they had reached the base, Sertorius ordered his fresh
recruits to rest for an hour or two, get settled in and eat something. As
Draco had expected, there wasn't much privacy. Nearly all common
legionnaires slept in large dormitoria, and Draco had the ill luck of
sleeping in a small billet named XLVIII, which was smack in the middle of
the dormitorium. There was a tiny closet to hide his luggage in, a mirror
with scratches on it, and in front of it lay a booklet with verses and hymns
from the Religio Romana. He sat down on the couch - of which the springs
squeaked, of course - and took the booklet in his hand. He pressed the cover
button and the front page appeared on the display of it: war hymns, as
collected by A. Gryllus Graecus, L. Equitius Cincinnatus and M. Cassius
Iulianus. A grim ironic smile appeared on Draco's face, and he turned the
booklet off. It was lunch time, his stomach announced. Through the complex
maze of military indications, he surprised himself by finding the taverna
rather quickly. It was one of the only parts of the fort that was also
accessible for outsiders. Many of the recruits of Legio XXI were present
there, eating a bit or just drinking and talking. Furthermore there were a
few senior officers, who watched the new legionnaires with a mixture of
mockery, sympathy and inimicity. The atmosphere was filled with smoke.
Suddenly, he saw a familiar face at the bar itself. It was Curio, the
legionnaire from Legio X whom he had met earlier on the day. He went sitting
on the stool next to him.
"Ah, Draco," he said, "how was your day?"
"The day isn't really over yet, of course, but it was ok."
"Who's your decemvir?" Curio asked with a grin.
"One Sertorius, I believe. He seems rather stern."
"Oh, that's not so bad. I've had worse, trust me. Are you drinking
something?"
"Is alcohol allowed for younger legionnaires?" Draco wanted to know.
"No, but I can arrange a few things," Curio answered, his grin reappearing.
He whispered a few things to the bartender, a middle-age woman with a sad
expression that seemed to be somewhat dreamy. Meanwhile Draco's eyes drifted
off through the windows of the taverna, and the passing traffic, mainly
military AGs (anti-gravs). Now and then city gates opened with their
familiar hissing sound and the sound of the alarm bells.
"Hello," he suddenly heard Curio say, as though his voice came from
somewhere far away.
"Uh, sorry. I was dreaming," Draco apologized. Then he saw a cup standing in
front of him, containing a darkish substance. He sipped from it, and then
took a larger swallow.
"Hmm, not bad at all. Gratias."
"Yeah, it's pretty good stuff - for the army. We usually get those
industrially produced amphorae, or other ersatz shit, but we don't see Earth
wine often. The problem is, usually, that. oh, blast. You see that guy
entering?"
Draco followed the direction in which Curio's eyes looked. A broad and
fierce looking man had just entered. The word 'drill instructor' was written
all over him, even though he moved rather easily.
"Who is that?"
"It's Lucius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus, my former decemvir. They
recently made him centurio, although he's much more into army economy. The
man has an obsession for cheese, and is famous for his belches. It has been
said that he's able to belch the whole alphabet in one breath."
Draco wanted to laugh, but he heard in Curio's tone that he was deadly
serious. He quickly fell silent anyway when Bicurratus came occupying the
stool next to Draco and ordered something grumblingly. The bartender seemed
to understand what he wanted though. He was given a large iron cup of wine,
and a plate of yellow cheese that looked rather distasteful, even though
Draco enjoyed a good bit of cheese from time to time.
"What're y'looking at?" Bicurratus bit towards Draco, moving only his eyes
towards him.
"You're in for a long day," Curio whispered in Draco's ear.

VII. Cave canem!
----------------------

Aeternia Draconia was alone on the barren plateau that occupied a large part
of southern Mars. She had been alone for three days now, travelling with a
large bigfoot on rough terrain. The car, which seemed like a large black
monster, had been lent to her by Sulla's connections, and was officially
stolen. After all, this was a covert operation. She enjoyed the gravity that
was so much lighter than usual, because most cities and towns had gravity
generators that simulated Earth's gravity. It was very expensive, but it was
the only way to prevent forms of muscular atrophy, and to make sure that
Martians wouldn't have any trouble visiting Earth. Right now, it was
morning, and the sun was slowly rising above the horizon in the east, and
cast long, deep shadows over the rocks and hills, which were covered in a
thin layer of morning frost. Aeternia's map indicated that the presumed
location of a martianalist cave complex wasn't very far off. The caves were
more than likely natural caves, and the result of ice erosion, which was a
very common thing on the southern hemisphere. Scientists hadn't found an
explanation yet as to why it didn't occur as much on the northern
hemisphere. But that was of no concern to Aeternia.
Through the thin, black protection suit that covered her body she could feel
some of the cold outside, although it was probably four times warmer in the
suit than outside of it, and she could hear her boots, which made the frozen
soil underneath crumble. Other than that, there was nothing to listen to.
She was no spy by nature, actually. She loved the arts, and was a member of
both major and minor cultural associations, although she also enjoyed being
a spectator of the ongoing political battles and philosophical debates that
were held in the Forum Romanum from time to time. But she also liked
adventure, and this sure was one.
Suddenly her musings were interrupted by a scraping sound, as though knives
were being whetted. According to her instincts it came from the left, but
the monitors on her wrists didn't indicate anything. She felt her heart beat
in her chest, and ancient rumors raced through her head. Rumors of old,
alien civilizations that once landed on Mars and had abandoned it, although
their guardians were still here. Or aliens reclaiming what they thought was
rightfully theirs. Usually she laughed at such stories, but right now, in
this vast solitude on a cold morning, anything could have been real. The
scraping sound grew louder, and suddenly stopped. She sucked in a breath and
looked around her. There was nothing. But when she started walking again,
this time slower and much more cautiously, the sound returned, and this time
it became clear what it was; the sound of a mono-engine. With trembling
fingers she shoved an infra-red sensor over her oxygen veil, and noticed the
thing that headed towards her. It was probably a man or woman with a jetpack
that was following her. So much for an unnoticed entrance, she thought. But
at least it proved that Sulla's map had been right. Aeternia stood still and
waited for the figure to arrive. The rocketeer landed in front of her, and
walked towards her in a strange yet elegant manner, which made her realize
how awkward her own movements were in this lighter gravity environment. It
seemed to be a man.
"Who are you, traveller?" he asked, when he stood at an arm's length
distance. His voice came out rather peculiar due to the oxygen veil.
"I am Prima Celeria Vesta," she lied. It sounded smoothly, but she had the
feeling that the man in front of her saw right through her.
"What brings you here?" he continued inquiring.
"I. I ran away from home. I seek adoption with the martianalists." A
plausible explanation, she thought. Of course this had been rehearsed.
"I am Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, and you are not Prima Celeria Vesta," the
man said, even though he didn't speak in a threatening voice. But Aeternia
was caught red-handed. She said nothing, bit her lower lip and bowed her
head. A light wind began to blow over the rocky plains. She felt that
Quintilianus was still looking at her. The man placed a gloved hand on her
shoulder in a fatherly way.
"Follow me."
And they disappeared.

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

.... look for Caput VIII, where the Senate decides over the election of a
new Consul
.... look for Caput IX, where an enigmatic Gaul stranger travels through the
town of Mons Olympus

coming soon!

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

Valete bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
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
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:04:42 +0100

Salve Senator Australice,

>
> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
> construed as approval of his candidacy.
>
> Having run illegally, the votes he received were cast in error. His
> candidacy was illegal and therefore his "election" was null and void. He
> cannot be "allowed to assume office" because he was not legally elected
> to the office.

This isn't true, as M Marcius Rex has been so kind to point out. The Senate
simply did not reply. Qui tacet, consentit, is often said!

Vale bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
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
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:53:27 US/Central

Salve Quinte Sertori

> I have a question, are Provincia Praetors Magistrates according to the
> Constitution?

No. Provincial governors (properly called propraetores or, in the case of
consulars, proconsules) are not listed in section V of the constitution, which
details magistrates.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Choosing a Roman Name
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:54:26 -0500 (EST)

Salve, Siegneur Funk;

You may well listen carefully to my Senatorial Colleague Nicholas
Moravius Vado. He is conversant with the Latin and is well-versed in
the Roman Culture. His recommendations are worthy of careful
consideration.

Perhaps however, you may also wish to consider a very humble idea of
mine, which is to take your name from an actual past Roman of antiquity
and honor him and his family as you may. That was my approach to the
situation. I did not, however, choose a famous man, but one who had
humble beginnings, a humble name and a humble life. I have, as he did,
begun at he bottom in Nova Roma, and giving his name and his
accomplishments full honor, and in respecting the Gods of Rome and those
of his particular / probable personal worship have attempted to do him
some small additional honor. How well I have succeeded is a tale for
another to tell, but the effort has been memorable and rewarding, and in
retrospect. most satisfying to myself, and I hope to the shade of he
whom I have adopted as Paterfamilas.

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Resignations
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:38:24 -0800 (PST)

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:

> I must at this time announce two resignations. The
> first was received by the
> Senate from Quintus Iulius Camillus Caesar, who
> resigned yesterday as
> Rogatorus. He undertook this selfless act in order
> to ensure a smooth
> continuation of our governmental process, which
> doesn't provide for
> resolving ties in elections (yet).

This was exceptionally noble of him, and speaks well
of his family, his education, and himself. I, too,
hope he will stand again for office.

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! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:04:48 -0800 (PST)

--- labienus@-------- wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by
> "going with which votes
> > were cast first in a given century or tribe"? I
> was talking about the order
> > in which the tribes and centuries as a whole were
> counted, not the count
> > within each tribe or century. And that is, indeed,
> a historical solution
> > from Roma Antiqua, and thus to my mind a
> preferable one to the modern notion
> > of "reverting to a popular vote".
>
> One of the possible solutions put forth to remove
> ties was the idea of
> resolving ties within a given century or tribe by
> reverting to the order in
> which those votes were cast. Like Livia Cornelia
> and others, I do not like
> this idea at all.

Salve,

This was my suggestion, not Consul Germanicus's.
Throw your stones this way, please! ;)

I intended it as an extension of HIS idea of breaking
ties between centuries and tribes by starting with a
random unit. (In other words, I extrapolated his
inter-tribe idea into an intra-tribal idea.)

> Perhaps it would be best for us to have some
> definitive explanation of the
> ancients' actual practice, and then proceed from a
> common, and better informed,
> basis.

Good advice. We all seem to get getting wrapped up in
this and getting nowhere. A resort to ancient texts
and the wisdom of our fathers will, I hope, provide a
solution.

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! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:06:28 -0800 (PST)

Salvete!

--- Marcos Boehme <m_arminius@--------> wrote:

> By the way, here in Brasil, if there are a draw
> between two candidates, the older wins.

Now there's an idea -- I like this one! (But then,
I'm approaching geezerdom.)

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! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:15:57 -0800

Salvete consul Vedi et omnes Quirites:

Vedius scripsit:
"I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing.
Are
there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
necessary?"

Respondeo:

And I must say I find your reaction rather amusing, considering that as
Dictator you wrote the Vedian Constitution by which these divisions were
established. You who are so quick then to accuse others of divisiveness,
perhaps you should explain why you felt the need to institutionalize a
division between Plebeians and Patricians in the first place; a division
I may point out that is totally artificial, and totally your
responsibility in the creating.

Tell me, Vedi, how does being a Patrician warrant an extra 10
participation points? What great service does one do for our res publica
by simply being a member of a Patrician gens? Why should that be
construed as participation beyond being a member of a Plebeian gens? How
is it that in your electorial system so many Patricians have the "One Man
One Vote" principle apply, while the Plebeians are disproportionately
placed in large centuries where their votes are diluted? I must wonder,
had the election been conducted under the strict guidance for
apportionment procedures as delineated under the Lex Iunia Centuriata,
would you have been elected consul?

The CPT list was established by our previous tribune, Tarquinius Caesar.
Did our consul see CPT list as being divisive then? Is it not the same
way with the Senate established by the Vedian Constitution, the Collegium
Pontificum, the Collegium Augurum, and the Comitia Curitata? Each has
their own private list. Did our consul so bemoan our Pontifex Maximus'
recent effort of calling the attention of all the lictores to the
separate email list established for the Comitia Curiata? Does our good
consul now ask that all Senate proceedings be conducted on the main list
as well?

The Comitia Plebis Tributa was established under the Vedian Constitution
also as a court . Consul Vedius wrote that into our Constitution.
Does the consul propose that court proceedings be conducted on our main
list? Should then all court proceedings, all tribunals, even Senate
hearings on reprimands now be conducted on the main list too? Where was
our good consul a couple months ago?

In public consul Vedius asks for unity, asks that we all come together.
What he is realing doing is only posturing in the same manner he did
during the elections. Grandstanding for the benefit of partisanship.
Attempting divisive political tactics once more. If he was really
serious about working together then he would communicate directly with
all segments of our body politic, rather than making inflamitory,
demagoguic political speaches.

Vedius, I shall continue to perform the duties of the office for which I
was elected. In the future you may keep your private expletive emails to
yourself. I am neither impressed by your childish posturing nor by your
foul language. Neither will deter me from performing the rightful duties
of a Tribunus Plebis.

Valete

Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] On election of Sextus Apollonius
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:34:38 -0800

Salvete Quirites

Sergius Australicus scripsit:

> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.

> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on
the
> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be

> construed as approval of his candidacy.

Respondeo:

The point made by our former Tribunus Plebis Australicus being?

There is a difference between a candidacy and an assumption of office.
The Lex Iunia addresses only the latter. The Senate may disapprove of a
candidacy all it wants. Lex Iunia however only gives the Senate a power
to prevent an elected official from "assuming" office. Senate
disapproval of any candidate could not prevent any cives from running for
office.

If there was an error on the ballot and Australicus was aware that a
candidate's inclusion on the ballot was made in error, why did he not
take action to remove the name of the candidate from the ballot? Was
not Australicus, as Tribunus Plebis, himself responsible for the
elections held before the Comitia Plebis Tributa? Was he not responsible
for writing the ballot? In addition to the candidate Sextus Apollonius
for Aedile Plebis, Australicus' former colleague Tarquinius Caesar was
also underage for the office he sought. At the time Australicus did not
take exception to either candidacies. I do not believe anyone can truly
deny that Sextus Apollonius was elected. Australicus' argument to that
effect is perhaps the flimsiest argument of all. Were anything he has
to say here true then he would himself have to be held responsible for
the errors he claims took place. And if such were errors, then why
should they apply to one candidate and not to the other?

Please note that in my previous denuntio that I only made a request that
the Senate reconsider their decision. I did not offer an intercessio, as
surely I could not. I did not order any action to be halted. I did not
order any action to be made. I made a simple request. I think for the
sake of fair play that the Senate should put aside the partisanship that
was shown in the first vote on this matter. What consul Vedius,
Australicus, and their minority faction has presented to all of us is an
alternative where I and my colleague would organize and conduct a second
election. In all likelihood Sextus Apollonius will be allowed to run as
a candidate again. Should he then win reelection the Senate would once
again have to consider allowing him to assume his office. If they again
disallow his assumption, then we may or may not have a situation where
the Tribuni Plebis would be asked to review the situation. I have
already declared my interpretation as to who holds the ultimate decision
in this matter. But should the decision of the Senatus consultum be
upheld by either Tribuni Plebis, we would be subjected to a third
election.

Personally I find that all a bit unnecessary. As I said in my previous
post, in practical terms all that Vedius and his little faction are doing
is trying to deny this young man 10 participation points for a job he is
going to perform anyway. Such an effort on the part of Vedius is nothing
but petty politics. Didn't we see enough of this last year? Was not Nova
Roma subjected to the politics of personal vindictiveness in the past? I
should think that the Senate as a repository of experience and wisdom
would be able to tell the difference between blatant political
manuevering for the purpose of conducting a personal vengence and an
effort to reason a constructive solution on a very different issue. Is
all the disruption that this matter is going to cause us for the next
several weeks worth a meagre 10 participation points?

Valete

Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] CPT list FAQ
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:11:39 -0800

Salvete Quirites:

Who established the Comitia Plebis Tributa list?

The CPT list was established by the previous tribune, Tarquinius Caesar.

Why was a separate list created for the Comitia Plebis Tributa?

Under the Constitution either Tribuni Plebis may call the CPT to order
(Section III.C). Then the CPT alone may "pass laws governing the rules
by which it shall operate internally." In the past our Constitution was
dictated by one individual acting alone. Recently we saw how a previous
Consul attempted to place leges before the Comitia Centuriata without
first posting them for discussion. Some may believe all our laws should
be dictated or perhaps passed by some chicanery. I prefer that in the
CPT at least that our Quirites have an opportunity to read and discuss
proposals before they are asked to vote on them. That was the intent of
our previous Tribunus Plebis when he established the list. That is how
he employed the list.

The first order of business for the CPT will be to discuss procedural
matters of just how the comitia should operate. ALL Plebeian citizens
are members of the CPT. ALL Plebeians have a right to discuss and decide
for themselves how their institutions shall be run. Such procedures will
not be dictated. I again urge all Quirites of the Plebeian order to
subscribe to the CPT's list so that they will have full opportunity to
participate in the proceedings of the comitia.

http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

What functions do the CPT serve that it would require its own separate
list?

The Comitia Plebis Tributa has three basic functions. The CPT is one of
the legislative bodies of Nova Roma. The CPT is like a house of
Parliament, with every Plebeian acting as a MP. Just as the Senate has
its own separate email list to discuss issues brought before it, the CPT
uses its list to discuss matter brought before the comitia.

The first major function of the CPT is to consider and vote upon
plebiscita that has the force of law. The CPT list is then for the
Tribuni Plebis to post their proposed legislation, and allow all
Plebeians to discuss such proposals before any vote is made upon them.
Further, since the CPT is a legislative body, and all its members are
equally entrusted with its duties and responsibilities, then every
Quirites of the Plebeian order may post their own proposals for
plebiscita to the list.

A second major function of the CPT is that it acts as a court (Section
III.C.3) Either Tribune may call the comitia to order. In doing so,
where the comitia is called to act as a court, the Tribune would be
responsible for posting any charges that were to be made. In this way
the Tribuni Plebis employ their power of coercito, as held by them in
Roma Antiqua. Further, the Tribuni Plebis would be responsible for
presenting evidence to the comitia as a prosecuting officer, and would
also be responsible for seeing that the defense would have the same
opportunity to present their evidence. Perhaps one Tribune would act as
advocate, the other as prosecutor. The judicial procedures for the
comitia has still to be worked out by plebiscita. A separate list for
the CPT is thus required for when it sits in session as a court. The CPT
judicial proceedings would be open, however such proceedings do not
belong on the NR main list.

The third function of the CPT is to elect the Tribuni Plebis and the
Aediles Plebis. By plebiscita the CPT could establish additional
Plebeian officers, honores, viatores and curatores as the comitia may
decide is required. The CPT could then also function to elect such
internal officers.

If any Quirites of the Plebeian order wishes to discuss these functions
of their CPT then you should subscribe to the list at :

http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

Nova Roma Libera semper vivat.
Valete

Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] Veto of a non-action
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:49:19 -0800

Salvete Octavi et omnes Quirites

An interesting point you have brought out, Octavi. Like so many points
of law, there are often conflicting interprestations. Let's have a look:

Marcus Octavius scripsit:

"On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and
thereby
force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then
Apollonius
would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
exemption needed."

Respondeo:

A Tribunus Plebis cannot veto anything. But he can intercede in any
matter he may "feel that the spirit or the letter of this Constitution
are being violated," such as any Senatus consulta (IV.A.7.a). The vote
on a candidate exemption under the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate,
whether in the affirmative or negative, is nonetheless a Senatus
consulta, therefore an action, and therefore it is under the perview of
the Tribuni Plebis to issue an intercessio. The only proviso is that
they should feel such a Senatus consultum violates the Constitution.
Further, in the sequence as it took place in this particular incident,
the Senate's vote amounted to an action, not a non-action, as it was used
to prevent the elected official from assuming the office to which he was
elected. One of the problems in this whole affair is that the Lex Iunia
speaks to an elected official "assuming" office. There is a difference
from standing for office, being placed on a ballot, being elected, and
then being installed in order to then assume an office. Inaction on the
part of the Senate would have meant that the elected official would have
been installed, and then could have assumed his office. In order to
break that sequence the Senate had to have taken action. Therefore the
Tribuni Plebis could have issued the intercessio to prevent application
of the Senatus consultum, and the natural chain of events would have
proceeded from the candidate's election to his installation, and
therefore allowed the assumption of office. If then any official would
attempt to prevent acceptance of the elected official in assuming their
duties, be they a magistrate failing to enter the official's name onto
the webpage as an elected official, or failing to update the censorial
Album as to the participatory points of the elected official, or as a
lictor failing to invest the official, they would be in violation of the
Constitution, and be proscribed from inaction by the Tribuni Plebis
intercessio. They would by ancient custom be held sacer.

As you point out, an intercessio may not be issued on a non-action, and
an intercessio in itself cannot compel compliance with the law. But
subject to interpretation, even an inaction may be regarded as a form of
action under certain circumstances, and therefore subject to an
intercessio. As Section IV.7.a gives interpretive powers to the Tribuni
Plebis, and no where else are such powers given by the Constitution to
any other magistrate, then only the the Tribuni Plebis have the power of
constitutional review. The stipulation of the Constitution that
Praetores, Aediles Plebis and Curule Aediles may issue edicta "to
administer the law" only allows them to execute the law, not to interpret
the law. Their edicta are themselves subject to tribunician review.
However in the case of a magistrate refusing to perform a duty with which
he is charged, a Praetorian edictum would propably be a necessary next
step.

If a magistrate would for example request information from the censors,
necessary for the performance of his duties, and the censors did not
comply, then the magistrate should first go to a Praetor to have issued
an edictum that is "binding" on the censors. If the censors did not
comply to the Praetor's edictum then they would be in violation of the
Constitution. Since censors do not have a power of intercessio, they
cannot overturn the Praetor's decision. Were the censors to then refuse,
or should they ignore a Praetor's order, then other action might be
necessary to compel the censors to fulfill their duties mandated by the
Constitution. In the meantime anything they would attempt to do,
including the approval of any and all individual applications for
citizenship, would be illegal since they by abrogating their vows to
abide by the Constitution they would then be held sacer and nolonger held
constitutionally authorized to perform any duty. Every action made by
the censors, and every inaction they would allow, would then become
unconstitutional, and thereby subject to intercessio by the Tribunus
Plebis as a way to defend the Constitution. No new citizens could be
added, no apportionment could be made by the censors, thus no elections
could be held, and so forth until the entire governmental system would
break down. Obviuously not an ideal situation, but then neither is
nationalizing the Guard and ordering them in when a US governor refuses
to comply with federal law.

To prevent that situation from further undermining the Constitution,
then either Tribunus Plebis could call the Senate to deal with the
matter, or he could call the CPT and attempt to apply coercito. Although
the Constitution does say (III.D.3) the CPT shall "try legal cases solely
involving members of the Plebeian order" that too could be subject to an
interpretation where the actions of even Patrician magistrates could be
brought before the comitia, where the performance of the duties, or lack
thereof, are considered "solely" as to the way their actions impact upon
memebrs of the Plebeian order. Such an interpretation of the tribunicia
potestates of coercito was applied in Roma Antiqua, 449 bce/259 AUC, and
was formally recognized in the Valeria Horatia leges of that same year.

Scripsisti:

"Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?"

Respondeo:

And who, under the provisions of the Constitution, has sole authority to
interpret the Constitution? Not the Senate, which after all is only the
"supreme policy-making authority" and neither a judiciary nor a
legislative body. They may of course offer their advise, but such would
have no constitutional authorty. The comitia are the legislative bodies
and may rewrite the law, but even in that leges and plebiscita are
subject to review and interpretation. Among the magistrates censors have
no imperium, no powers of intercessio or coercito, and certainly no
authority for reviewing or administering the law. The consuls likewise
are primarily adminstrative officials, overseeing and operating through
their accensi. Praetors are given no authority beyond what is also
provided by the constitution to the Aediles Plebis and the Curules
Aediles, "to issue those edicta necessary ...to administer the law."
Only the Tribuni Plebis are given a power of intercessio over the actions
and edicts of all other magistrates, and over leges and Senatus consulta,
and in a manner stipulated where "they feel that the spirit and letter of
this Constitution are being violated." Therefore, as the Constitution is
currently written, only the Tribuni Plebis have a power of judicial
review, rudimentary as it is. As the senior censor has mentioned, the
only check to the Tribunicia potestates at present is the provision that
an intercessio be made collegially. Therefore the Tribuni Plebis sit as
a board of (currently) two for the purpose of judicial review.

Like so many other aspects of our current Constitution, a problem has
arisen due to the ambiguities caused by inconsistencies in the way leges
and the Constitution have been written. All of this leads to varied
interpretations. An even greater problem arises when such
interpretations are based more on politics than on principles of law. I
am perfectly aware that some might try to accuse me of exactly the same
thing. That is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. I made
only a request of the Senate to reconsider a situation after it was
revealed that some Senators had voted without consideration of all the
facts. Some others voted in that decision based solely on a basis of
partisanship. I have made a plea to put aside our political differences
so that we might address the real problems. The real problem we have
here needs to be dealt with in a constructive manner. That cannot be
accomplished by trying to stack the deck in favor of one side or the
other. Let all sides come together to correct the constitutional
ambiguities and the problems they give rise to. Meanwhile it seems
prudent to me that we bury the political issue that leads to
divisiveness and inhibits everyone from conducting our necessary work.

Valete

Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:07:39 -0600

9 Jan 2001

Salve Senator

Thank for the clarification, but now another point confuses me. It is about
the proper titles for first time Governors. According to the following
Senatus Consultum, I believe all first time Governors are to be titled
Praetor! I saw many new Governors calling themselves Propraetors but decided
to say nothing till I received your post.

Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates
(Proposed by Flavius Vedius Germanicus 8/4/98. No voting deadline. Approved
without dissenting votes 8/7/98.)

In keeping with the authority granted to the Senate by Article III,
Paragraph 3, of the Constitution, I would like to propose that the Senate
change the titles of the governors of our provinciae according to the
following guidelines. Please note that this is a change only to their title,
and has no impact on their duties, powers, and functions.

Currently-serving Consuls governing provinciae shall be titled Consul.
Former Consuls who are continuing to govern a province after their term as
Consul ends shall be titled Proconsul.
Magistrates appointed by the Senate to govern a particular province for the
first time shall be titled Praetor.
Praetors who continue to govern a province after their first term of office
ends shall be titled Propraetor.
Magistrates appointed by governors to assist in the administration of their
province shall be titled Legate.
As far as I have been able to determine, these titles are consistent with
the usage in the mid-late Republic, and
therefore, in my opinion, are quite appropriate for our purpose. I ask that
the Senate approve this system as the regular
nomenclature of Nova Roma.

>
> No. Provincial governors (properly called propraetores or, in the case of
> consulars, proconsules) are not listed in section V of the constitution,
which
> details magistrates.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>

Vale

Qunitus Sertorius
Praetor
Canada Occidentalis


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:25:24 -0800

Salvete Consul Germanicus et Omnes,
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:21 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Election Issues Recap

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oppius Flaccus [mailto:oppiusflaccus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:37
>
> In my particular case, I had been following NR for a while
> prior to my citizenship approval. The approval was formally
> granted on 11/28/00. The upcoming elections were posted and
> it was important to me that I was able to vote if at all possible,
> especially given that it was such a major election.

To my mind, that speaks more to the need for the Censores to process new
Citizenship applications with alacrity. That your application was processed
so close to the start of the election process seems to me an accident of
timing.

OFS: Actually, it largely due to my continual communication
with the Censores and not so much a timing issue. I had a wish
to be active, and having the chance to be part of the election
was of major import to me. I was *extremely* persistent in my
application process.

> That being said, if we were to be very specific, limit a specified
> range of days (or a week or two) and post it clearly on
> the website to say something like: Due to pending elections,
> we will be temporarily unable to approve citizenship applications
> between the dates of ..... and .....We thank you for your
> patience and look forward to your contributions to NR...
> (or something to that effect)

Actually, I thought that's what was being talked about... I know that way
back in the mists of time, that's the way we handled the situation.

OFS: My apologies if I missed the specifics of date posting.
Shows my lack of understanding of past Censorial procedures.
It sounds like there is already a precedent and if it was effective
and produced the desirable results, then so be it. I still can't
help but come back to the fact that only 1/3 of NR's supposed
population actually voted. The application process in and of
itself close to election time would not seem to alter that fact
significantly, which my point was only intended as a specific redress
of the 'shadow cive' issue. I also believe you (or someone else;
my apologies for not remembering specifically) stated that
the election turn out this time was a record!

While my situation may have indeed been unique in some respects,
would also like to think that there may also be some unique
cives out there in a similar situation. It *certainly* couldn't
get worse then the effectively 400 'shadow cives' already
on the books. Getting back to the key points, this seems to
really be an issue for the Censors and what they feel they
can process or not during election season. At the end of my long
diatribe, I only further say: if we can process quality cives
at *any* time it would be great. If it is agreed that we *can't,*
then by all means let's restrict the timing on the process.

Vale bene,
-Oppius

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

eGroups Sponsor


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:38:44 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 16:08
>
> Thank for the clarification, but now another point confuses me. It is
about
> the proper titles for first time Governors. According to the following
> Senatus Consultum, I believe all first time Governors are to be titled
> Praetor! I saw many new Governors calling themselves Propraetors but
decided
> to say nothing till I received your post.
>
> Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates
> (Proposed by Flavius Vedius Germanicus 8/4/98. No voting deadline.
Approved
> without dissenting votes 8/7/98.)

<snip>

That Senatus Consultum was overridden by paragraph V.C.2. of the new
Constitution. Governors who do not happen to be currently-serving Consuls or
Praetors are indeed titled Propraetors.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Choosing a Roman Name
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:45:07 -0500

Well said Senator Audens,

a name does not make a cive great, their actions do. So take a plain name
and make it great!!!

ATR

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

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

All Hail Dominus Caesar!!!

www.geocities.com/legio_vi

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:40:51 -0800

Ave,

I just needed to comment on part of Tribune Piscinus's statement for what I feel are
inaccuracies.

<SNIP>

>
> If a magistrate would for example request information from the censors,
> necessary for the performance of his duties, and the censors did not
> comply, then the magistrate should first go to a Praetor to have issued
> an edictum that is "binding" on the censors. If the censors did not
> comply to the Praetor's edictum then they would be in violation of the
> Constitution. Since censors do not have a power of intercessio, they
> cannot overturn the Praetor's decision. Were the censors to then refuse,
> or should they ignore a Praetor's order, then other action might be
> necessary to compel the censors to fulfill their duties mandated by the
> Constitution. In the meantime anything they would attempt to do,
> including the approval of any and all individual applications for
> citizenship, would be illegal since they by abrogating their vows to
> abide by the Constitution they would then be held sacer and nolonger held
> constitutionally authorized to perform any duty. Every action made by
> the censors, and every inaction they would allow, would then become
> unconstitutional, and thereby subject to intercessio by the Tribunus
> Plebis as a way to defend the Constitution. No new citizens could be
> added, no apportionment could be made by the censors, thus no elections
> could be held, and so forth until the entire governmental system would
> break down. Obviuously not an ideal situation, but then neither is
> nationalizing the Guard and ordering them in when a US governor refuses
> to comply with federal law.
>

Sulla: Actually no, I do not think that the Praetor's edict would be binding on the
Censor. You forget a KEY point Tribune Piscinus. According to 4.A it states, that
the Ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority are as follows. Thus the Censors
are listed higher than the Praetors. This is how the Vedian Constitution works.
The Praetors are lower in the hierarchy than the Censors.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:04:53 -0600 (CST)

Salve Gnae Moravi,

> Tell me, Vedi, how does being a Patrician warrant an extra 10
> participation points?

Those few extra century points are compensation for patricians
being unable to vote for tribune or plebeian aedile.

> What great service does one do for our res publica
> by simply being a member of a Patrician gens?

No more or less than one does for our respublica than by simply being
a member of a Plebeian gens. Yet plebians are entitled to vote for
a powerful political office from which patricians are excluded.

Clearly, Plebeians got the better part of this particular distribution
of priviliges.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:27:44 -0600 (CST)

Salvete Gnae Moravi et Quirites,

> perhaps you should explain why you felt the need to institutionalize a
> division between Plebeians and Patricians in the first place; a division
> I may point out that is totally artificial, and totally your
> responsibility in the creating.

Because our purpose here is to recreate the institutions of Rome, and the
office of the Tribune of the Plebs was a very important part of the Roman
political system. The patrician/plebeian distinction is necessary only
to justify the existance of the Tribunes.

> How is it that in your electorial system so many Patricians have the
> "One Man One Vote" principle apply, while the Plebeians are
> disproportionately placed in large centuries where their votes are
> diluted?

The division into centuries is a function of century points, with those
who have accumulated more century points entitled to be placed in a
smaller century. Membership in the Patrician or Plebeian order accounts
for a mere ten points - others are given for length of time as a citizen
and for offices held, as of course you are aware. Persons who have
held several positions over the years, such as L. Equitius and L. Cornelius,
have accumulated a very large number of century points, fairly and legally.
Merely being patrician is not enough to get anyone into a private
century.

> I must wonder,
> had the election been conducted under the strict guidance for
> apportionment procedures as delineated under the Lex Iunia Centuriata,
> would you have been elected consul?

Are you accusing the Censores of violating the Lex Iunia? If so, please
provide evidence that this has happened. They are required to recalculate
the centuries only once each year, and this was done early in 2000. Was
this apportionment done incorrectly?

> Does our good consul now ask that all Senate proceedings be conducted
> on the main list as well?

The representatives of the People, the Tribunes, are entitled to report
on Senate proceedings to the main list. The Senate does not conduct
its debates shrouded in secrecy. Will you allow any patricians to
join your list and report on the discussions there to other patricians?
Or do you assert a right to debate in secret?

> Attempting divisive political tactics once more.

It is you who are divisive, driving wedges between patrician and
plebeian with your secret debates on your private mailing list.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	[novaroma] Digest Number 1164 Election Issues Recap
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:04:24 -0500

Salvete, Quirites

* Increase the number of Rogatores to four. This was first brought up during
the election, and has been mentioned in passing in a few different contexts.
Consensus seems to be that it'd be a good thing.

Lucius Equitius: Please excuse me for being seemingly flippant, but I don't
think we need to have more Rogatores. We just need to have people not quit
on us. The two that just worked the latest election did a great job! Too
many cooks....

* Specify when candidates seeking an exemption from the Lex Iunia de
Magistratum Aetate must do so. Consensus seems to be that an exemption must
be sought prior to the election.

Lucius Equitius: I would say specifically that an applicant for an exemption
of the Lex Iunia de
Magistratum Aetate, should have it *approved before the end of the period of
candidates announcing themselves.

* Clarification of the timeline by which elections/votes are run. People
seem to like the idea, but no specific proposals have yet been forthcoming.
(I'm working on such a specific proposal for this myself; I'll probably post
it tonight or tomorrow.)

Lucius Equitius: I would like to suggest that a period of 2 November
( ante diem IV Nonas November) to 30 November (pridie Kalendas December)
candidates announce themselves and campaign.
Then voting occuring from 2 December (ante diem IV Nonas December) to
15 December (ante diem XIX Kalendas January)

NB- The Cista be closed on days
dies nefasti (N) [1st The Festival of Neptune];
(NP) [11th The Agonium];
and endotercisus (EN)[12th The Septimonium] {the morning, Roma time}and that
the beginnings not be on the Kalends

* Allow candidates running unopposed to forego the election process. Seems
to be a divided issue.

Lucius Equitius: I think they should be endorsed by the Comitia. They ought
to be elected.

* Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties in magisterial
elections. Seems to be a divided issue.

Lucius Equitius: I'm waiting for citation; however, I recall reading that
the centuries began voting with the first century and continued until the
issue was decided. I do not recall anything like a lottery, they would have
gone from the most prestigious first, down to the 'capita cense'.

* Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties within tribes
and centuries. Doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this.

Lucius Equitius: Nope, I don't like it either. If there is a tie let's have
a run off, or have the oldest take office. Whatever we do let's make it Law.

If I've forgotten anything, please feel free to add it on, and naturally
comments on any of these matters is more than welcome; it's expected!
Vale, Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Consul

Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus, Censor


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:04:48 -0600

9 Jan 2001

Salve Senator T Labienus Fortunatus

I believe Provincia Governors are Magistrates for the following reasons; In
the constitution in Section IV it states:"Magistrates are the elected and
appointed officials responsible for the maintenance and conduct of the
affairs of state. " Why does this not include Governors? Also stated is,
"There are two categories of magistrates: ordinarii (those who are
ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii (those who are only occasionally
appointed or elected)." After a closer look I feel that the position of
Governor falls under the area of ordinarii, and this position has been
explained in a different section of the Constitution because of the
following, also from Section IV, "Elections of the ordinarii shall take
place no later than December 15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume
their offices on January 1st. (Exceptions to these provisions regarding
elections may be found in section V of this Constitution.)" Italics are
mine... Section V has to therefore also include ordinarii! And all ordinarii
ARE Magistrates. The only exceptions to these provisions regarding elections
in Section V deal with Provincia Governors so they have to be Magistrates!

Comments?

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Praetor
Canada Occidentalis

----- Original Message -----
From: <labienus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?

> Salve Quinte Sertori
>
> > I have a question, are Provincia Praetors Magistrates according to the
> > Constitution?
>
> No. Provincial governors (properly called propraetores or, in the case of
> consulars, proconsules) are not listed in section V of the constitution,
which
> details magistrates.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
>
>
>
>
>