| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:14:07 -0800 |
|
>
> > 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.
Ave,
I wanted to add some comments on this as Censor of Nova Roma. Gn. Moravius,
how long have you been a citizen? 6-8 months correct? Not much longer than
that....whereas, M. Cassius, Lucius Equitius, Fl. Vedius and others have
been citizens since NR first began. Back in March 1998, which is a
difference of what...2 to 2 1/2 years? Most of us who are in one person
centuries (including your Paterfamilias) if you did your research before you
posted, you would see we have held political and/or religious offices since
that time. Most of use have held multiple offices.
The Century points are designed to give points for people who have devoted
their time and effort to help build Nova Roma. Assuming you are still in
Nova Roma in 3 years you will have a large number of Century points
too....compared to new citizens who have just been approved.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
*Just to show you how many offices I have served in NR*
Censor et Senator
Consul et Praetor Urbanus et Quaestor
Proconsul of California Provinca
Paterfamilias of the Patrician Gens Cornelia
Lictor
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:20:16 -0600 |
|
Salve Quinte Sertori
> 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.
The senatusconsultum you cited was issued prior to our current
constitution, which states the titles for provincial governors as
follows:
The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
-Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by their normal
title;
-Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul has
expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, shall be
called proconsuls;
-Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as praetor has
expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, as well as
those citizens whom the Senate shall appoint who are not currently
serving as consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Social/political et Lucius Sergius |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:51:16 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Gai Senti,
> 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)
This is incorrect -- it is the first thirty gentes that are patrician.
Tribal allocation is not based on patrician/plebeian status, rather, it
is based on whether a person voted in the previous election.
> have more power than any others and more influence in certain centruies.
Patricians do have a slight edge in the centuries, compensating for the
handicap of being ineligible to serve as Tribune or vote for Tribune.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] More on the Non-Election of Draco |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:53:41 -0000 |
|
Quiritibus salutem
I wrote:
> > Proconsul Audens reverendissime:
> >
> > I do not wish to make a battle of this any more than you do,
Decius Iunius Palladius replied:
> Then don't...
And promptly did so himself. I have considered the option of not replying at
all, or of replying privately, but it really won't do.
I observed:
> > For myself, I would not call Germanicus', Palladius', Maximus' or
> Sulla's
> > comments on their refusal to ratify the electoral vote for Draco,
> > 'reasoning' : their
> > comments look to me much more like one single justification, rather
> than
> > actual reasons.
>
>
> Well, that was an ill-thought out shot, one I would not have expected
> of you. I would never have called into question a vote of yours,
> however seemingly inconsidered, and especially not on the main list.
I am sorry that Palladius fails to perceive the appropriateness of
discussing senators' arguments and votes on the Main List. I personally
believe that senators' votes and arguments on matters before the Senate are
posted to the Main List in order for everyone who wishes to discuss them,
not that they are posted for unquestioning acceptance. If something is said
in the senate which I believe to be incorrect or misleading (as Palladius'
statement about Draco's not seeking prior approval of an age exemption was),
I'll say so.
If I think someone's reputatio is being smeared, I'll say so. I do not
admire the practice of senators tearing strips of each other in the Curia,
only to close ranks afterwards when a vote and supporting statement is made
public. Where is the dignitas in that?
> >I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
> > defence of his pater something akin to maiestas.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, I did not mention his supposed defence of
> his paterfamilias. To be frank I had not been following the little
> battle in the sandbox where this was taking place. The only posts of
> his I read during the period were those where he commented on Nova
> Roman laws.
I never said that Palladius mentioned Draco's defence of Formosanus. There
is no 'supposed' about it. Palladius should not offer comment about what he
admits he did not bother to read. In fact, nobody who accused Draco of
disrespect in the senate vote mentioned the alledged disrespect in any
context whatever, which is a curious thing in iteslf. They had to be
reminded that in one or two cases they themselves had been the authors of a
disrespect they then rather inconsistently affected to deplore in a junior.
> >I would have been >far less
> > surprised
> > if they had said instead that:
> >
> > i) Draco is far too damn clever than anyone has a right to be at
> that age;
>
> I would not have said that since this was not evident. His arguments
> were reasonably well argued but not outstanding. I was not swayed
> either way here.
Next time I make a joke, I shall tell Palladius so that he can see it
coming.
Draco's mature abilities go far beyond his logical discourse. One should
consider his achievements.What people accomplish is rather more important
than what they say.
Rhetoric is cheap in Nova Roma. Achievements for the public good are
precious.
Votes which seem to inhibit such a person's future achievements for the
public good
are hard for me to understand.
> > ii) Draco is a foreigner;
>
> I did not know and do not know (nor do I care) what nationality he
> is. As far as I knew he was an American. I take it that is not the
> case but it is of no consequence.
It would be, for a legate of Gallia to be an American. One must pay
attention to current affairs, especially when they concern a person one is
voting on, and offering comments about.
> I judge people as Nova Romans and
> frankly am insulted that you insinuate I might do otherwise (even if
> you are attempting to be humorous).
I think there are many standards by which we judge Nova Romanitas, all of
them more or less refracted through the national and cultural mindsets in
which we live. We cannot ever entirely escape our own time, place and
culture. We must have some self-critical humility in this respect -
otherwise we delude ourselves. I do confess to a repeated impression that
there are NoviRomani among us who, however, cannot or will not see their own
personal cultural standpoint as being simply that, rather than as the only
valid standard by which to judge another's Romanitas. Palladius of course
has every right to feel insulted if he thinks this cannot apply to him.
> > iii) Draco is a member of gens Apollonia;
>
> Well, I hadn't that of that point, perhaps I should have added it to
> my justification. ;)
To do so would be to enter what Palladius dismisses as a 'battle in the
sandbox'. He cannot have it both ways.
> > Palladius' statement that Draco did not previously apply to the
> Senate for
> > an age exemption is, as you know, patently untrue. It is of course
> perfectly
> > possible that Palladius suffered a memory failure and was so
> (erroneously)
> > sure of his facts that he didn't bother to check them.
>
> Since you read the senate board you already know that I admitted I
> was wrong on this point but I guess nothing feels as good as kicking
> a dead horse?
I repeat: one cannot have it both ways. If Palladius wishes to engage in
certain kinds of dialectic he disparages, he must include himself with those
disparaged by association, in the same breath. If I am kicking a dead horse
in the sandbox, so is he.
>However, my primary point was still valid, that Draco
> is too young to even be a citizen without written parental permission
This was not Palladius' primary point, for if it had been he would have said
so at once. It came as an afterthought. Let's call it a tertiary point,
which would be more accurate.
> and thus in my opinion was way too young for an exemption. I assume
> he has that written permission and it is on file with the censors
> but it still indicates just how far below the age limit for a
> magistracy he is.
Palladius here displays an unfortunate rigidity and inflexibility of
thinking, since the gap between the minimum age for independent citizenship
(civis sui iuris) and the minimum age for holding office as Aedilis, is
three years. Three years is not a long time.
> >Since this is a
> > possibility, it was wrong of Draco to call Palladius a liar, and he
> does owe
> > Palladius an apology for that.
>
> Frankly I do not think he would be so imprudent and stupid as to say
> that publicly, if what you say about his character is right. I have
> checked the records back a little ways and saw no such comment.
Draco was accused of calling Palladius a liar, nonetheless.
> No
> doubt he said as much to you privately but that is another matter. I
> am sure he appreciates you mentioning it on the list. :)
Now Palladius accuses Draco of calling him a liar to me, privately. This is
untrue. It is in any case an unprovable smear. I trust Palladius now regrets
having said this.
> >But Palladius, by making that untrue
> > statement, may have influenced many of his colleagues in the Senate
> to vote
> > 'NEGAT' on Draco's election as well, on the basis of incorrect
> information.
>
> Again, you are wrong, as you well know since you read the senate list
> (perhaps while you are telling me to check my facts you should check
> yours).
I didnot take note of who voted in what order and at what time. At the time
Palladius voted, and accused Draco of not applying for an age exemption as
the primary reason for his voting against such an exemption, several
senators had not yet voted who could have done.
>My vote was dead last, it came just under the wire and
> influenced no one. Also, my vote did not change the outcome, he still
> would not have gotten enough votes and he did not have the vote of
> both censors.
Palladius will perhaps recall that some senatores on the list received my
vote last. Evidently the order in which votes are received by different
e-mail accounts varies. If all who had been entitled to vote had voted,
their votes could arguably have been influenced by Palladius' unfounded
allegation against Draco. I still maintain that a mistaken allegation made
in public against someone requires an apology. Agreed, however, that the
Censorial veto makes a mockery of a senate vote under such circumstances.
> > That, I believe, is worth an apology by Palladius to Draco, and to
> the
> > Senate, and, by extension, to the electorate.
>
> Draco, I am sorry that you are not better served by your so-called
> defenders such as Vado. They are intentionally misrepresenting your
> case
Oh dear. Palladius is again indulging in vituperations which he is unable to
substantiate.
I criticised him for making a mistake (giving him the benefit of the doubt).
He reciprocates by calling me a liar.
> and are not helping you build up the goodwill you that you will
> need to be a productive magistrate in the future, as no doubt you
> will be.
True, Draco does not yet have a track record of productivity as a Censor or
editor of the Eagle, like Palladius. But Draco is already a productive
magistrate, in provincia Gallia. He is a legate and the Propraetor's deputy.
The goodwill others have towards him is founded on his achievements, and not
on the words of others.
> If it makes you feel any better, Draco, the primary reason I voted
> against you was your age.
This was not the primary reason given to the senate.
>While I did believe that you had not
> applied ahead of time, if I had known otherwise it would have made
> little difference.
But then Palladius would have had to have changed the centre of gravity of
his argument at the outset, not in retrospect.
>If you had passed your 18th birthday I would
> probably have voted the other way.
Nova Roma is of course a free country, in which citizens are free to believe
whatever they like. Does six months make such an unconditional difference
between a person fitted, and not fitted, for office?
> > However it was meant, the damage is done, and we all have to live
> >with it,of
> > course.
>
> No damage was done since my comments came in the last moments of
> voting, as you well know.
See my comments above. And if anyone had believed Palladius' allegations,
damage would have been done to Draco's reputatio.
> >The Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate is unclear as to whether an
> > underage candidate should seek exemption before (or after)
> declaring his or
> > her candidacy, or before (or after) being elected:
> >
> > "VI. An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the
> approval of
> > both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds
> majority
> > vote."
> >
> > Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an unworkably-
> worded
> > lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority about what it
> ought, in
> > retrospect, to mean.
>
> I'm sorry I wasn't perfect and couldn't anticipate all situations.
The manifest unworkability of the Lex Iunia required no anticipation. The
senate was unclear from the start as to whether a vote should be taken
before or after the election, or before or after announcement of candidacy.
The moment its application was attempted, due time was not allowed for a
pre-election vote to be taken by the senate on an exemption, so we had the
farce of voting on whether to allow an exemption on an individual who had
already been elected, whithout knowing whether the Censors had a right of
prior veto or not.
I do not understand Palladius' sense of personal inuria. If I were to refer
to a lex someone made as a steaming pile of merda (or even a little
undersized piece of merda), it is clear that I am not so referring to the
person. The person who never made a mistake never made anything. But what
shall we say of a person who refuses neither to admit a mistake, nor to
express regret for a mistake?
> No
> doubt you are and would have if the situation were reversed but it
> wasn't. This is a learning process for all of us (pardon, except for
> you) and if a law is deficient, then it can be amended.
I quote (or paraphrase) Germanicus: "Why is it that we never have time to
craft a law properly in the first place, but always seem to have time to
tinker with it afterwards?"
> I am quite surprised by the seemingly personal (even insulting) tone
> of this message--I would have thought it unlike you. Our occasional
> communications in the past have always been cordial, even friendly--
> our previous discussion about Symmachus for example. I am sorry to
> have to respond in even somewhat like fashion.
I accept that Palladius has every right to see himself as a paradigm of
injured innocence.
People can believe whatever they like (and they often do). But if Palladius
had alledged about Symmachus what he alledged about Draco, our
correspondence on that subject would not have been cordial.
I feel it is disingenuous both to pretend to a moral high ground by
criticising another's post, and then to descend to the level of the lowest
possible interpretation of that post, to indulge one's spleen by retaliating
with interest. Palladius was under no obligation to react to my post in this
way. He chose his interpretation, and his reaction. He must accept the
responsibility for any result.
> I have now responded here and had previously commented in the senate.
> I have received no communication from him about my vote and do not
> post on nor read the main list enough to follow every comment he
> might have made, though I looked today for the insult you say he
> leveled, to no success.
I leave it to Draco's detractors to find that post. The onus of proof is on
them as his accusers, not on me - nor indeed on Palladius, if he also finds
the allegation objectionable. If Palladius wishes to disassociate himself
from Draco's detractors in this, I am gratified.
If Palladius wishes to reopen a correspondence on historical fact (relating
to Symmachus or anybody else), I shall be further gratified. I shall be
cordial. I shall be friendly, as to one often of like mind and interest. I
do not enjoy the dialectic of vituperation, but neither will I ignore it.
N. Moravius Vado.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1164 Election Issues Recap |
| From: |
"John Dobbins" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:03:44 -0000 |
|
snip
>
> * 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'.
>
snip
>
> Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus, Censor
Salve,
I'm new to this group and Nova Roma (Citizenship applied for).
If my memory is correct, There was a drawing for the first century to
vote, however this was limited to the junior centuries of the first
class. After this Century voted, the remainder voted in order
starting
the the highest, and voting continued until the election was decided.
This would have meant that the counting would have taken place after
each Century voted, prior to the next Century's vote.
I attempted to find a reference to this so I could post it, and I may
have found something. The site is in English but most of the
citations are in Latin or Russian, so I not sure. A Google search for
voting order centuriate assembly turned up this page.
http://koptev.newmail.ru/biearly.htm
which is a biblography for for the site, and contains this citation.
L.J.Grieve, Proci patricii: a question of voting order in the
centuriate assembly. - 302-317.
For those who are fortunate enough to understand Latin, This site
looks like an excellent source for Roman Law.
http://koptev.newmail.ru/
Vale
John Dobbins
(Lucius Sicinius Drusus, if approved by the Censors)
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:45:40 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:52 PM
>
> 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.
>
> If this was ever an actual practice, I'd like citations on it.
Ask and ye shall receive.
"The lot played a vital role in the electral process. It was used to pick
the tribe (designated as the principium) or the century (centuria
praerogativa) which voted first and provided a lead for the other voters.
The lot also determined the order of voting by the tribes or the order in
which the votes were announced. This was important, because the first
candidates to achieve a simple majority of the groups were declared elected
up to the number of posts available, even though they might not have polled
the largest number of votes, if all the votes of all the groups had been
counted." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 516)
Now, granted we must adapt the ancient form to the necessities of our modern
life (no one is proposing that we hold our votes on a single day in a
prescribed order), but we can at least get the same end result by counting
the vote in such a manner as I described. (Deciding ties based on age is an
intriguing idea, but I've yet to see any mention of such a practice in Roma
Antiqua.) It's not perfect, but nothing will be until we're all standing
together in a physical Forum dropping our wax tablets in a real cista. For
now, compromise we must, but let us at least compromise in the direction of
Roma Antiqua.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:10:43 -0600 |
|
T Labienus L Cornelio omnibusque SPD
> 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.
As a censor, you are still bound to abide by the laws (by laws, I refer
to dictatorial edicta, consular edicta under a senatus consultum
ultimum, leges, plebiscita, decreta, senatusconsulta, and edicta) of the
Respublica. If a praetor issues an edictum in order to administer the
law, you are bound by that edictum. And, if you take any action that
violates an edictum issued by a aedile, praetor, or consul, I will veto
you.
Valete
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:16:15 -0800 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fortunatus" <labienus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action
> T Labienus L Cornelio omnibusque SPD
>
> > 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.
>
> As a censor, you are still bound to abide by the laws (by laws, I refer
> to dictatorial edicta, consular edicta under a senatus consultum
> ultimum, leges, plebiscita, decreta, senatusconsulta, and edicta) of the
> Respublica. If a praetor issues an edictum in order to administer the
> law, you are bound by that edictum. And, if you take any action that
> violates an edictum issued by a aedile, praetor, or consul, I will veto
> you.
I never stated that the Censors do not have to obey the law (Dictatorial
Edicta, Consular Edicta under a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Leges,
Plebiscita, decreta, senatus consulta) But edicts are different which was
my point. Under article 4, it lists magistrates in level of importance.
Censors are listed first. Higher than the Praetors, and Aediles. That was
my point, gotten directly from the Constitution of Nova Roma.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:10:03 -0600 |
|
9 Jan 2001
Salve Senator
Thank you I understand now.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fortunatus" <labienus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
> Salve Quinte Sertori
>
> > 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.
>
> The senatusconsultum you cited was issued prior to our current
> constitution, which states the titles for provincial governors as
> follows:
>
> The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
> -Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by their normal
> title;
> -Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, shall be
> called proconsuls;
> -Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as praetor has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, as well as
> those citizens whom the Senate shall appoint who are not currently
> serving as consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:30:05 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
A conceptual question has come up as I and some others were discussing the
possibility of local chapters (which I'm calling Civitae for now). Just what
sort of relationship would (or should) the provincial governors and legati
have with such local chapters? I would think that concerning the scheduling
of events and local recruiting the Civitae would be relatively autonomous,
with the Provincial government perhaps serving in an advisory and
coordinating capacity. Provincial governors would probably be in charge of
issuing the charters for new Civitae, and making sure they adhere to
whatever standards are set (a minimum number of meetings per year, minimum
population, etc.).
But so far the model leaves the Provincial Governors (and their legati) with
little to do vis-a-vis the Civitae (and indeed leaves the Civitae doing many
of the things-- events and recruiting-- that were originally envisioned as
being done by the Governors and Legati). Should there be areas where the
Governor would have authority rather than the Civitas (perhaps in the realm
of finances)? Should the Governor have veto power over the actions of the
Civitas? Should he appoint local magistrates, or vett their appointment, or
would the Civitas be completely self-sufficient in terms of its own internal
administration? All these things were done at various times and in various
types of settlement in Roma Antiqua, so we have a broad spectrum of models
to choose from.
Any thoughts?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:37:26 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Luci Corneli,
> I never stated that the Censors do not have to obey the law (Dictatorial
> Edicta, Consular Edicta under a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Leges,
> Plebiscita, decreta, senatus consulta) But edicts are different which was
> my point. Under article 4, it lists magistrates in level of importance.
> Censors are listed first. Higher than the Praetors, and Aediles. That was
> my point, gotten directly from the Constitution of Nova Roma.
Nevertheless, you're required to comply with the edict unless it is
superceded by a law or an edict of higher authority. Merely ignoring
it is not an option, unless it can be demonstrated that the original
edict was unlawful (i.e., outside of the issuing magistrate's
jurisdiction). If you want to violate an edict, you'll need to issue
an edict of your own authorizing that activity.
Vale, O.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:47:50 -0600 |
|
T Labienus Quinto Sertorio omnibusque SPD
> 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?
It seems at first that we have run across another ambiguity in the
constitution. That extremely broad definition includes anyone who holds
a government post. However, the apparitores are explicitly excluded
from the list of magistrates, and Senatores are explicitly defined in a
separate section than magistrates, though they easily fit the broad
definition you quoted.
The fact that the magistrates are specifically defined under their own
section in the constitution also implies that those officials described
elsewhere are not necessarily magistrates. Are the pontifices
magistrates? They are, after all, "responsible for the maintenance...of
the affairs of state."
Still, to be fair, it does seem that should one attempt to define a
propraetor, one would be forced to agree that they fulfill a role an
important and administrative function in much the same way as, say, the
praetores.
> 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,
Actually, they are certainly not ordinarii, as the constitution
explicitly states, "The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are
as follow," and lists only censores, consules, praetores, aediles
curules, aediles plebis, quaestores, tribuni plebis, the
vigintisexviri, and apparitores (who are defined as not being
magistrates).
Indeed, the constitution says, "There are two categories of magistrates:
ordinarii (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii (those
who are only occasionally appointed or elected)." Propraetores are
"only occasionally appointed" by the Senate, and would therefore fall
under the extraordinarii. However, the constitution also explicitly
defines the extraordinarii as either a dictator or an interrex.
Only the loose definition you cited would allow a propraetor to be
counted as a magistrate (at least in specific constitutional terms, as
opposed to informal conversation), but the section of the constitution
that defines the magistrates only ambiguously allow for magistrates
other than those defined in section IV.
> 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!
This is not true. Section V also states, "Should a magistrate's office
become vacant during the course of his term, the Senate may appoint a
replacement to serve out the remainder of the term should there be less
than three months remaining therein." This is clearly an exception to
the section you cite, and clearly involves those positions explicitly
defined as the ordinarii.
It seems to me that magistrates, as defined by the constitution, should
be taken to include only those "elected and appointed officials
responsible for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state" who
are also members of the central government, and whose actions can
directly affect the whole populace. Provincial governors only have
authority within their provinciae, and serve through the will of the
Senate, as opposed to the will of the people. (Yes, the argument could
be made that the extraordinarii also serve in this capacity. I admit
the point, but would argue that they are a special case.)
Valete
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:45:45 -0800 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <haase@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action
> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> > I never stated that the Censors do not have to obey the law (Dictatorial
> > Edicta, Consular Edicta under a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Leges,
> > Plebiscita, decreta, senatus consulta) But edicts are different which
was
> > my point. Under article 4, it lists magistrates in level of importance.
> > Censors are listed first. Higher than the Praetors, and Aediles. That
was
> > my point, gotten directly from the Constitution of Nova Roma.
>
> Nevertheless, you're required to comply with the edict unless it is
> superceded by a law or an edict of higher authority. Merely ignoring
> it is not an option, unless it can be demonstrated that the original
> edict was unlawful (i.e., outside of the issuing magistrate's
> jurisdiction). If you want to violate an edict, you'll need to issue
> an edict of your own authorizing that activity.
Ave
Thank you for your comment on this Senator M. Octavius, yes...I can see
exactly. If I publish an edict authorizing the activity, based on article
4, a Censor's edict would supersecede a the lower magistrates edict. Thank
you for that, I didnt think of that solution. Hopefully a situation would
not come up that would warrant this action.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:07:53 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Gnae Moravi,
> 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.
If that happened, the candidate would not be able to assume office. The
_Lex Iunia_ states that "no person may assume the office", for each
of the offices that are listed there. Section VI of this lex states:
"An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the approval
of both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two
thirds majority vote."
If the terms of section VI are not fulfilled by an exception being granted
by the Senate; if the Senate votes against the exemption or fails to vote
at all, then an exemption has not been granted and the candidate
may not assume office.
The language is clear and unambiguous. Without a specific action
performed by the Senate, "no person may assume the office" until
reaching the required age.
> 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.
It was a declaration that the requested action not be performed. If
vetoed by a tribune, that declaration by the Senate would have no
effect -- but section VI would not be satisfied, for an exemption
was not granted, and the Lex Iunia forbids that candidate from
assuming 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.
I strongly disagree. The law requires that an "exemption" be "granted".
A silence on the part of the Senate does not constitute an exemption.
> 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 words "interpret" and "review" do not occur in Section IV.7, or
anywhere else in the magistrates' section. Interpreting the Constitution
is a fundamental part of every magistrate's duty. IV.7 merely grants
to Tribunes the right of intercessio when they feel the constitution is
being violated.
> 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.
It is logically impossible to execute a law without interpreting the law.
> 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.
On this point, I agree.
> "Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?"
> And who, under the provisions of the Constitution, has sole authority to
> interpret the Constitution?
Every magistrate with Imperium. Section III.A.1 (concerning Lictors):
1.To invest elected and appointed magistrates with Imperium (which is
necessary to employ coercitio (the power to compel obedience to his
edicts), interpret and execute law, and possess the honor of being
preceeded by lictors as a symbol of office), without right of
refusal individually or as a body;
Here, "interpret and execute law" is listed as a function of Imperium.
Thus, all magistrates with Imperium may interpret the law.
> The consuls likewise are primarily adminstrative officials,
> overseeing and operating through their accensi.
Consuls posess imperium and the power of coercitio. They can interpret
and execute the law and compel obedience to their edicts.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Ancient Practice (was Re: Age-Laws Change) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:12:25 -0600 |
|
Salvete
> Ask and ye shall receive.
Thank you, Consul Vedius. This is exactly the kind of information we
need to begin to tackle this problem reasonably. Now, of course, I have
some questions about the ancient practice.
> "The lot played a vital role in the electral process. It was used to
> pick the tribe (designated as the principium) or the century (centuria
> praerogativa) which voted first and provided a lead for the other
> voters.
> The lot also determined the order of voting by the tribes or the order
> in which the votes were announced. This was important, because the first
> candidates to achieve a simple majority of the groups were declared
> elected up to the number of posts available, even though they might not
> have polled the largest number of votes, if all the votes of all the
> groups had been counted." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 516)
Okay, there are 35 tribes. Any candidate who wins 18 tribes will have
the majority described above. Now, let's say we're electing 8
quaestores and only 8 people are running. It's more than likely that no
one candidate will carry the necessary 18, so voting will not stop until
all tribes are counted, and we have exactly the same situation we have
now.
Now, let's also look at the centuries. No candidate in any of our
elections has managed to carry 97 centuries. Therefore, voting would,
in every case we've had so far, continue through all centuries and leave
us with the situation we have now.
How does this net us anything? Would we only employ this 'first come,
first elected' system in the case of ties, after counting the vote as we
currently do? This is not the historical method, as I have stated
before.
Is there any source that explains the ancient situation in enough detail
to really be of use to us? If not, any solution we come up with will be
modern, and we'll just be arguing fairness vs. historical 'flavor' all
over again.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] RE: Are Provincia Propraetores Magistrates? |
| From: |
Razenna <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:11:42 -0800 |
|
Propraetors hold and exercise Imperium. That makes them "magistrates". Of course
NR provincial propraetors are similar to NR Tribunes of the People and Censors, they
ain't what they used to be -- in Roma Antigua. NR picks and chooses what is to be
in the pattern of Ancient Roma, and what is not.
C. Aelius Ericius.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>From the 1999/2752 Nova Roma Constitution:
1.Governors shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
a.To hold imperium and have the honor of being preceeded by six lictors
solely within the jurisdiction of their
provincia;
b.To proclaim those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
which advance the mission and
function of Nova Roma, solely within the jurisdiction of their
provincia (such edicts being binding upon
themselves as well as others);
c.To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of their
provincia;
d.To appoint legati (legates) to administer sub-divisions of their
province with all of the authority of the
governor and to remove the same as they see fit;
e.To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other
tasks, as the governor shall see fit.
2.The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
a.Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by their
normal title;
b.Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul has
expired, yet who are continuing in their
role as governor, shall be called proconsuls;
c.Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as praetor has
expired, yet who are continuing in their
role as governor, as well as those citizens whom the Senate shall
appoint who are not currently serving as
consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:55:18 -0600 |
|
9 Jan 2001
Salve Consul
I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds, will in the
long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In my Provincia
plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller divisions, but
they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other Propraetors many feel
the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their Provincias,
especially when so many Provincias are just getting Propraetors and starting
to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose not appeal to me
as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and control it,
and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end result of loss of
more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it necessary to form this
third level of government.
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office |
| From: |
Ira Adams <iadams@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:31:59 -0600 |
|
Salve
I'm certain you say this in jest. I repeat:
"Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be construed as approval of his
candidacy."
The alternative?
'I asked nicely if I could have the money in his bank vault and he never
replied. It is often said "Qui tacet, consentit."'
Yes, I'm sure the courts anywhere would accept that argument - aren't
you? ;-)
It simply won't fly.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
On 1/9/01 1:04 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:
>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] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:22:18 -0700 |
|
Well, somebody, somewhere, ought to be keeping tabs on whether a candidate is a
valid candidate or not before the polls are opened. If a candidate isn't going
to be allowed to assume office, and it's pretty much a given that the Senate
would not have allowed Draco to assume office regardless of anything he said in
the election, I believe, then his name shouldn't have been allowed on the
ballot.
It's not DRACO's fault that the Senate et Censores chose not to ratify his
election. It's not DRACO's fault that his name was allowed to be submitted to
the people to be voted on. Draco attempted to get senatorial consent....in the
face of no word from the Senate, he assumed he had the green light. If I'd been
in his shoes, I'd have done the same.
So partly the Senate is to blame, for not giving a response that Draco could use
to guage.
Who's suppossed to be monitoring such things as who ends up on the ballot? One
suggestion that comes to mind is.....the Rogators. However, the way this
election was structured, that was not a function of the Rogators, and in fact
the Rogators didn't even know the final ballot until the polls opened. We got
sneak previews as to the form, but we certainly weren't involved in the content,
nor did we have enough prior information to know whether any candidate wasn't
going to be a "valid" candidate.
So partly we Rogators are at fault, for not persisting with a question we didn't
think to ask about whether all on the ballot were rightfully there (and which
would have halted the election after the polls opened, anyway).
Another option for monitoring who ends up on the ballot could be the Censors.
This actually makes more sense, inasmuch as the censors are the ones who have
all the information needed to alert as to any red flags about a candidate. I
certainly wouldn't, at surface, know whether a candidate was 17 or 71. (I for
one didn't know Draco was 17 1/2 until after the election, since I was not
reading the list like I normally do.) Or whether they were Nova Roma citizens in
good standing. Only the Censors would know that.
So partly the Censors (et Senators) are at fault, for allowing the name to be
posted on the ballots despite information they had which they knew would lead to
a weak shot at a favorable Senatus Consultum.
As far as I'm concerned, Draco's name shouldn't have made it onto the ballot.
But it did, and whoever is responsible for that, it's NOT Draco. If he were
declaring candidacy in a macronational election, you better believe there would
be officials responsible for verifying the validity of his candidacy. If by a
fluke his name got on the ballot, the Election Commission would be to blame, not
the candidate.
Let's give the kid a break. He's got a lot of smarts and potential about him,
but he's still younger than the rest of us. If he were your son, or younger
brother, wouldn't you want his interest in taking an active role fostered? At
least, if you have to reject him from the elected role of his choice, reject him
with civility and forthrightness. (Even if you don't feel you were met with the
same from him -- an eye for an eye is Hammurabic.) Let's recognize that some of
the fault for the situation falls on a lot of shoulders, and own up to our own
culpabilities instead of shoving it back onto Draco.
Let's refrain from saying...."Sorry kid, you're not getting the office you were
elected to.....and it's your own fault anyway."
Ouch. That would sting ME and dissuade ME, a thirty-something corporate type.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Ira Adams wrote:
> Salve
>
> I'm certain you say this in jest. I repeat:
>
> "Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be construed as approval of his
> candidacy."
>
> The alternative?
>
> 'I asked nicely if I could have the money in his bank vault and he never
> replied. It is often said "Qui tacet, consentit."'
>
> Yes, I'm sure the courts anywhere would accept that argument - aren't
> you? ;-)
>
> It simply won't fly.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
> On 1/9/01 1:04 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:
>
> >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] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:34:58 -0700 |
|
I second Quintus Sertorius' concern over how these issues affect the provincial
administration. I think a lot of these issues cannot be addressed without a
board of governors considering the issues and drafting the proposal. I don't
know who is involved in these discussions, but we need to make sure the right
people (i.e., primarily the set of provincial propraetors/proconsuls) are taking
part in the discussions.
It's been my understanding all alone that affairs inside a province were
essentially at the parvenue of the propraetor to manage. Therefore, I'm
concerned that we are getting a little too much definition and proscription
happening from the greater magistrates and Nova Roma in determining something
that is essentially a provincial issue, without a concentrated effort by the
governors to address the situation. At this time, I don't think this is
something that should be discussed on the open list, and move that the topic be
moved over to the NovaRomaProv list attached to the Limes Cooperation.
For any provincial propraetors not part of the Limes Cooperation, this is the
perfect opportunity to look at joining and having a say in standardizing
organizational issues inside the province.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Propraetrix, Amer. Austroccidentalis
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete!
>
> A conceptual question has come up as I and some others were discussing the
> possibility of local chapters (which I'm calling Civitae for now). Just what
> sort of relationship would (or should) the provincial governors and legati
> have with such local chapters? I would think that concerning the scheduling
> of events and local recruiting the Civitae would be relatively autonomous,
> with the Provincial government perhaps serving in an advisory and
> coordinating capacity. Provincial governors would probably be in charge of
> issuing the charters for new Civitae, and making sure they adhere to
> whatever standards are set (a minimum number of meetings per year, minimum
> population, etc.).
>
> But so far the model leaves the Provincial Governors (and their legati) with
> little to do vis-a-vis the Civitae (and indeed leaves the Civitae doing many
> of the things-- events and recruiting-- that were originally envisioned as
> being done by the Governors and Legati). Should there be areas where the
> Governor would have authority rather than the Civitas (perhaps in the realm
> of finances)? Should the Governor have veto power over the actions of the
> Civitas? Should he appoint local magistrates, or vett their appointment, or
> would the Civitas be completely self-sufficient in terms of its own internal
> administration? All these things were done at various times and in various
> types of settlement in Roma Antiqua, so we have a broad spectrum of models
> to choose from.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: More on the Non-Election of Draco |
| From: |
bcatfd@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:57:21 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
>
> Quiritibus salutem
>
> I wrote:
>
> > > Proconsul Audens reverendissime:
> > >
> > > I do not wish to make a battle of this any more than you do,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius replied:
>
> > Then don't...
>
> And promptly did so himself. I have considered the option of not
replying at
> all, or of replying privately, but it really won't do.
You are right, I rose to the bait--or perceived bait--when I should
not have. These arguments can spin out of control. You post a message
with an unpleasant spin to it, I reply and put another nasty twist to
it, you do the same, etc. This can go on and on with little purpose
served. For my part I stop here.
> If I think someone's reputatio is being smeared, I'll say so. I do
not
> admire the practice of senators tearing strips of each other in the
Curia,
> only to close ranks afterwards when a vote and supporting statement
is made
> public. Where is the dignitas in that?
>
> > >I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
> > > defence of his pater something akin to maiestas.
> >
> > In case you hadn't noticed, I did not mention his supposed
defence of
> > his paterfamilias. To be frank I had not been following the little
> > battle in the sandbox where this was taking place. The only posts
of
> > his I read during the period were those where he commented on Nova
> > Roman laws.
>
> I never said that Palladius mentioned Draco's defence of Formosanus.
You said "I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
defence of his pater something akin to maiestas." I took that "they"
to include me since you had been referring to my vote along with
others. A natural mistake, don't you think?
> > Since you read the senate board you already know that I admitted I
> > was wrong on this point but I guess nothing feels as good as
kicking
> > a dead horse?
>
> I repeat: one cannot have it both ways. If Palladius wishes to
engage in
> certain kinds of dialectic he disparages, he must include himself
with those
> disparaged by association, in the same breath. If I am kicking a
dead horse
> in the sandbox, so is he.
As I said earlier, I rose to a perceived bait. I guess I did step
into the sandbox, you are right.
> Palladius here displays an unfortunate rigidity and inflexibility of
> thinking, since the gap between the minimum age for independent
citizenship
> (civis sui iuris) and the minimum age for holding office as
Aedilis, is
> three years. Three years is not a long time.
Generally speaking, it is not. However 3 years between certain ages
is a long time. The 3 years between a 27 year old and a 30 year old
or between a 50 year old and a 53 year old is not significant at all.
However, the 3 years between a 17 year old and a twenty year old, or
even between a 20 year old and a 23 year old person is a long time
*generally* speaking. It is a long time in terms of physical
development and mental maturity.
> Now Palladius accuses Draco of calling him a liar to me, privately.
This is
> untrue. It is in any case an unprovable smear. I trust Palladius
now regrets
> having said this.
I do.
> I didnot take note of who voted in what order and at what time. At
the time
> Palladius voted, and accused Draco of not applying for an age
exemption as
> the primary reason for his voting against such an exemption, several
> senators had not yet voted who could have done.
When I voted I was under the impression that I was voting right at
the deadline or even beyond it. I was pretty sure no one else would be
voting after me--no one did.
> >My vote was dead last, it came just under the wire and
> > influenced no one. Also, my vote did not change the outcome, he
still
> > would not have gotten enough votes and he did not have the vote of
> > both censors.
>
> Palladius will perhaps recall that some senatores on the list
received my
> vote last. Evidently the order in which votes are received by
different
> e-mail accounts varies.
Granted. When I voted I noticed that your vote had been done much
earlier that day. However, you are right, delivery times vary.
>If all who had been entitled to vote had voted,
> their votes could arguably have been influenced by Palladius'
unfounded
> allegation against Draco. I still maintain that a mistaken
allegation made
> in public against someone requires an apology.
*Could* have influenced but did not. Anyone who voted after me would
have been voting after voting was completed. It is difficult to
apologize for an act which damaged no one and which I do not believe
could have. That is not the point though, is it? Right is right,
honor is honor.
Draco,
I was operating under a false assumption that you had not
applied for a senatorial exemption in advance. Apparently I was wrong
and I am sorry. I was not trying to intentionally damage you and glad
that my mistake, in the end, did not affect the outcome.
>Agreed, however, that the
> Censorial veto makes a mockery of a senate vote under such
circumstances.
Which is why I am in favor of the law being amended to clarify the
process--that the applicant (before the declaration of candidacy)
approach the censors first, receive their approval and then have the
full senate vote.
> > > Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an
unworkably-
> > worded
> > > lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority about what it
> > ought, in
> > > retrospect, to mean.
> I do not understand Palladius' sense of personal inuria. If I were
to refer
> to a lex someone made as a steaming pile of merda (or even a little
> undersized piece of merda), it is clear that I am not so referring
to the
> person. The person who never made a mistake never made anything.
But what
> shall we say of a person who refuses neither to admit a mistake,
nor to
> express regret for a mistake?
Unfortunately I got the impression that you were not referring to the
law but to the author of the law. I got this impression because you
said "Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an
unworkably-worded lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority
about what it ought, in retrospect, to mean." By your reaction I take
it you did not mean it in a personal vein but I took it otherwise. I
probably am a bit touchy but in retrospect a second glance at what
you wrote might lead you to also believe that the author of the law
was your inadvertent target and not the law itself.
> No
> > doubt you are and would have if the situation were reversed but it
> > wasn't. This is a learning process for all of us (pardon, except
for
> > you) and if a law is deficient, then it can be amended.
>
> I quote (or paraphrase) Germanicus: "Why is it that we never have
time to
> craft a law properly in the first place, but always seem to have
time to
> tinker with it afterwards?"
Because we are all still novices at this and sometimes do not see the
problems with a law until its provisions are enforced. If we waited
until we came up with a perfect body of law we would never get
anything done and have no laws. I think this learning experience is
useful. Laws are changed all the time in macronations as well.
> > I am quite surprised by the seemingly personal (even insulting)
tone
> > of this message--I would have thought it unlike you. Our
occasional
> > communications in the past have always been cordial, even
friendly--
> > our previous discussion about Symmachus for example. I am sorry to
> > have to respond in even somewhat like fashion.
>
> I accept that Palladius has every right to see himself as a
paradigm of
> injured innocence.
> People can believe whatever they like (and they often do). But if
Palladius
> had alledged about Symmachus what he alledged about Draco, our
> correspondence on that subject would not have been cordial.
As I recall, you said something about Symmachus that I corrected you
on, but I do not recall the exact details (I believe you called him
elderly when he was much younger during the period in question or
something minor like that) Anyway, I am hoping you are kidding about
a potential less than cordial discussion over a man 1500 years dead,
no matter what was said about him.
> I feel it is disingenuous both to pretend to a moral high ground by
> criticising another's post, and then to descend to the level of the
lowest
> possible interpretation of that post, to indulge one's spleen by
retaliating
> with interest. Palladius was under no obligation to react to my
post in this
> way. He chose his interpretation, and his reaction. He must accept
the
> responsibility for any result.
You are right, one should always reflect and reflect again before
sending such a message. I was hotheaded as I am on occasion. Who
benefits by such a conversation? Certainly not you and certainly not
me. Perhaps we provide entertainment for a few but that is not our
task here. I am going to try and take the advice I gave a fine young
Nova Roman recently to not take things here so personally and to try
and keep things in perspective. Nova Roma is not so important as to
want to inflict damage on others, even if only through email.
> > I have now responded here and had previously commented in the
senate.
> > I have received no communication from him about my vote and do not
> > post on nor read the main list enough to follow every comment he
> > might have made, though I looked today for the insult you say he
> > leveled, to no success.
>
> I leave it to Draco's detractors to find that post. The onus of
proof is on
> them as his accusers, not on me - nor indeed on Palladius, if he
also finds
> the allegation objectionable. If Palladius wishes to disassociate
himself
> from Draco's detractors in this, I am gratified.
I have no interest in pursuing what he might have said. It would have
been said in understandable haste and anger over what he thought was
an intentional slur by me. If he did say it, I am sure he regrets it
as he knows I did not intentionally try to misrepresent his case.
However, I would advise him not repeat the act in the future despite
the provocation. A hotheaded response can spin things out of control
quickly, as I can testify having been the author of a few myself. :)
> If Palladius wishes to reopen a correspondence on historical fact
(relating
> to Symmachus or anybody else), I shall be further gratified. I
shall be
> cordial. I shall be friendly, as to one often of like mind and
interest. I
> do not enjoy the dialectic of vituperation, but neither will I
>ignore it.
Then we are in agreement. As for a further discussion of Symmachus,
that may come soon.
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Are Provincia Propraetores Magistrates? |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:06:59 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Senator C. Aelius Ericius pointed out the right.
If we read the Consitution word by word, the Extraordinarii are listed in
Sect. IV.B and the provincial governors in Sect. V.C.1.a. This indicates
that the governors are not Ordinarii and not Extraordinarii, they are simply
an own sort of office-holders.
But the Section V.C.1.a says that the governors hold imperium and are
preceeded by six lictors, like the Praetors (Sect. IV.A.3.a Constitution),
within the jurisdiction of their provincia. That makes them comparable with
the Praetors.
The Section V.C.1.b gives the governors the authority to issue edicta to
advance the mission and function of Nova Roma within their provincia. The
same right is given to the Consules (Sect. IV.A.2.b Constitution) for the
whole Res Publica. That makes the governors comparable with the Consuls.
I don´t want to argue with titles here, but only with powers and
obligations. The aforesaid honors, powers and obligations show that the
governors are a special form of imperium-holding officials, and that is,
imho, the most important. They have authorities comparable with Praetors and
Consuls making them comparable with those magistrates, especially the
Consuls.
I prefer the term "magistrate" for the governors, since this title makes the
office and it´s authorities more accessible and clear. Futhermore, I see the
lawfully appointed provincial Legati as magistrates, too, since they have
the same authority of the governor (Sect. V.C.1.d. Constitution) within a
sub-division of the province.
Btw, this points might be of interest in the debate about an obligatory
Cursus Honorum, and the offices that enables a candidate to run for specific
higher offices within the hierarchy.
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Razenna" <razenna@-------->
To: "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:11 AM
Subject: [novaroma] RE: Are Provincia Propraetores Magistrates?
> Propraetors hold and exercise Imperium. That makes them "magistrates".
Of course
> NR provincial propraetors are similar to NR Tribunes of the People and
Censors, they
> ain't what they used to be -- in Roma Antigua. NR picks and chooses what
is to be
> in the pattern of Ancient Roma, and what is not.
>
> C. Aelius Ericius.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> From the 1999/2752 Nova Roma Constitution:
>
> 1.Governors shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
> a.To hold imperium and have the honor of being preceeded by
six lictors
> solely within the jurisdiction of their
> provincia;
> b.To proclaim those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in
those tasks
> which advance the mission and
> function of Nova Roma, solely within the jurisdiction of
their
> provincia (such edicts being binding upon
> themselves as well as others);
> c.To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of
their
> provincia;
> d.To appoint legati (legates) to administer sub-divisions of
their
> province with all of the authority of the
> governor and to remove the same as they see fit;
> e.To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative
and other
> tasks, as the governor shall see fit.
> 2.The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
> a.Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by
their
> normal title;
> b.Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul
has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their
> role as governor, shall be called proconsuls;
> c.Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as
praetor has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their
> role as governor, as well as those citizens whom the Senate
shall
> appoint who are not currently serving as
> consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:31:10 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve Senator
Once again, you have fully explain my confusion! I understand now.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> T Labienus Quinto Sertorio omnibusque SPD
>
> > 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?
>
> It seems at first that we have run across another ambiguity in the
> constitution. That extremely broad definition includes anyone who
holds
> a government post. However, the apparitores are explicitly excluded
> from the list of magistrates, and Senatores are explicitly defined
in a
> separate section than magistrates, though they easily fit the broad
> definition you quoted.
>
> The fact that the magistrates are specifically defined under their
own
> section in the constitution also implies that those officials
described
> elsewhere are not necessarily magistrates. Are the pontifices
> magistrates? They are, after all, "responsible for the
maintenance...of
> the affairs of state."
>
> Still, to be fair, it does seem that should one attempt to define a
> propraetor, one would be forced to agree that they fulfill a role an
> important and administrative function in much the same way as, say,
the
> praetores.
>
> > 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,
>
> Actually, they are certainly not ordinarii, as the constitution
> explicitly states, "The ordinarii, in decreasing order of
authority, are
> as follow," and lists only censores, consules, praetores, aediles
> curules, aediles plebis, quaestores, tribuni plebis, the
> vigintisexviri, and apparitores (who are defined as not being
> magistrates).
>
> Indeed, the constitution says, "There are two categories of
magistrates:
> ordinarii (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii
(those
> who are only occasionally appointed or elected)." Propraetores are
> "only occasionally appointed" by the Senate, and would therefore
fall
> under the extraordinarii. However, the constitution also explicitly
> defines the extraordinarii as either a dictator or an interrex.
>
> Only the loose definition you cited would allow a propraetor to be
> counted as a magistrate (at least in specific constitutional terms,
as
> opposed to informal conversation), but the section of the
constitution
> that defines the magistrates only ambiguously allow for magistrates
> other than those defined in section IV.
>
> > 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!
>
> This is not true. Section V also states, "Should a magistrate's
office
> become vacant during the course of his term, the Senate may appoint
a
> replacement to serve out the remainder of the term should there be
less
> than three months remaining therein." This is clearly an exception
to
> the section you cite, and clearly involves those positions
explicitly
> defined as the ordinarii.
>
> It seems to me that magistrates, as defined by the constitution,
should
> be taken to include only those "elected and appointed officials
> responsible for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of
state" who
> are also members of the central government, and whose actions can
> directly affect the whole populace. Provincial governors only have
> authority within their provinciae, and serve through the will of the
> Senate, as opposed to the will of the people. (Yes, the argument
could
> be made that the extraordinarii also serve in this capacity. I
admit
> the point, but would argue that they are a special case.)
>
> Valete
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:48:35 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus, S.P.D.
I am not among those who have, I think erroneously, come to feel
that we are oppressed by the Patricians. The distinction between the Two
Orders was primarily introduced, I imagine, for the sake of interest and
historical authenticity. I tend to support this fundamental divion for
those reasons.
However, it is also true that the Patricians include leaders and
gentiles from the early days (as in Roma Antiqua), who have through
various means also augmented their relative power and influence through
senate membership and holding office. This class, let us call them "The
Establishment", which may also include a few Plebeians, has at its
disposal many institutional arrangements which gives it a very
disproportionate amount of power, and in some cases, attitudes to match.
I myself have experienced being condemned by a certain patrician
magistrate on another list as "a mere civis", as though being a Civis
Romanus were not in itself something worthy. He said that in wrath, but
no doubt this kind of thinking is latent in his mind and perhaps the
minds of more than one of the Establishment. (I certainly do not say
*all*, please note!)
In Roma Antiqua there was an Establishment too, and in this way we
can indeed experience the same kind of historical division and enjoy -
if that's the word - the pleasures (?) of lordship and humble status.
However, the reason why Rome and Her Republic are so worthy of respect
unto today is that the Common People, the Plebs, were not content with
being subjugated to a disproportionately powerful Establishment, but
produced a democratic (in modern terms) counter-structure in the form of
the Tribunate of the People, sacrosanct and with powers of coercion, to
guarantee their collective interests, protect them individually, and
make sure that the concessions wrung out of the Patricians stayed in
place.
This never worked perfectly, and in the end was coöpted by the
Establishment, but it worked for a while to secure dignity and liberty
for the common people in a political sense. In Nova Roma we now see the
Plebs ready to stand up on their own two feet and organise itself to be
something more than a passive mass waiting for Establishment
initiatives.
I think this is a good thing. It is true that the real
socio-political division between the Patricians and Plebeians is not
exactly the more significant distinction between Establishment and
non-Establishment, but it is the one we have in the instituions of the
Constitution, and the one we must and can work with. The point of
breathing life into the plebeian institutions is to give the vast
majority of us in the non-Establishment a means of negotiating on a more
equal footing with the Establishment - just as in Roma Antiqua.
It is easy to talk about "divisiveness" whenever one's possible
rivals or opponents wants to organise. Employers are not enthusiastic
about seeing labour unions they cannot dominate being formed, and
party-less or one-party regimes are not fond of seeing independent
parties established... But in all such cases there is a group that feels
that it has certain interests that those in effective power do not truly
represent. In such cases there are only two things to be done:
suppression or recognition that new partners in dialogue have been
created and must be treated seriously and with respect.
Our esteemed Consul Germanicus, whom I personally respect and feel
warm feelings towards, has been fond of saying that the senate advises
and the People rule. Now that the People are really getting ready to
rule, I do not think that he should be in opposition. If we had a modern
variety of egalitarian democracy, this might not be necessary. But we
have chosen a Roman model, which is built on a distinction between the
mostly patrician/senatorial Establishment and the common Plebs, so we
have to let it be properly and fully organised on *each* side of that
divide.
Piscinus has done a great deal of research into the traditions of
the tribunate and the movements of the Roman Plebs, and we are fortunate
that he is establishing at last the institutions to represent the common
man and woman. The Plebs are simply going to play a greater rôle here in
Nova Roma from now on, as it was in the best times of Rome.
I am fond of saying that the dignitas of every civis is to be
respected. The plebeian organisation is the way in which Romans
traditionally permitted the common Roman-in-the-Street to have his
dignitas too, and not just the Great Roman in the Senate. This is a
natural development of historical precedent and of the Vedian
Constitution. I urge the curule magistrates, senate and Patricians to
accept this fact and to amicably accept the existence of a Plebs that
can speak and act. It is something good for all of us, and should be the
realisation of any wholesome Roman dream. If the Establishment were to
be dramatically hostile to these developments, *that* would be something
that would really be divisive. Let it not be so.
Let us have Concordia - and a well-organised and active Plebs!
Dii nos omnes bene ament!
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:15:57 -0800
From: Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Subject: Reply to Vedius on CPT
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: |
Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:48:34 EST |
|
EX DOMO PROCURATORIS BRITANNIAE
Those governors and their provincial staff who subscribe to the Nova RomaProv
will have already seen my basic outline for a five stage plan for growing
local groups based on historical precedents. I have not posted it to the main
NR list because it is too basic a document at the moment.
I would urge all governors to join the Nova RomaProv list to discuss this
matter 'from the top' so to speak. After all, governors are given sole
discretion to virtually what they like within a province. At this time there
is nothing to present to cives to comment on.
Many of the points raised in para 2 are covered by my document. The
overriding basic principle is that provincial governors maintain absolute
control over any local group set up that wants to operate within NR.
Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
Procurator Britanniae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:55:22 EST |
|
Salve Livia Cornelia
I agree with you completely on this. We (collectively, to include the
whole government) goofed in the handling of this issue. Sextus Apollonius
did all the right things under existing law. We didn't respond promptly
to his request, and didn't consider the implications of allowing his name
on the ballot. I don't actually know who was supposed to make certain
that the names on the ballot were all appropriate. And, to be fair, I'm
not even certain that, under the existing law, it's all that "cut and
dried" that he shouldn't have been on the ballot - I was merely pointing
out that different interpretations of the situation are possible and
supportable, in contrast to certain other people's strident ravings.
I think surely no-one blames Sextus Apollonius for any of this.
Unfortunately, his name - like that of Lucas Marius last month - is being
shamefully used by others to advance a certain political agenda that
seeks to factionalize our little Republic while brazenly accusing others
of doing just that. Draco's alleged advocate is doing nothing but harm to
his name in this matter.
Unfortunately, I can testify that it is hard to make a raving Tribune
shut up. In reality, his mouth is the only weapon a Tribune has readily
available, and so it tends to get overused. No wonder our ancestors
occasionally resorted to murdering them! :-)
It is a muddled and unneccessarily testy situation, but no blame for any
of it attaches to Sextus Apollonius Draco. I would ask that all of us -
the Censores, the Senate, and the plebian citizens - keep that in mind
when and if the Tribunes decide to get down to business and arrange an
interim election in the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
ex raving Tribune of the Plebs
On 1/10/01 1:22 AM gmvick32@-------- (gmvick32@--------) wrote:
>Well, somebody, somewhere, ought to be keeping tabs on whether a candidate
>is a
>valid candidate or not before the polls are opened. If a candidate isn't
>going
>to be allowed to assume office, and it's pretty much a given that the Senate
>would not have allowed Draco to assume office regardless of anything he
>said in
>the election, I believe, then his name shouldn't have been allowed on the
>ballot.
>
>It's not DRACO's fault that the Senate et Censores chose not to ratify his
>election. It's not DRACO's fault that his name was allowed to be
>submitted to
>the people to be voted on. Draco attempted to get senatorial
>consent....in the
>face of no word from the Senate, he assumed he had the green light. If
>I'd been
>in his shoes, I'd have done the same.
>
>So partly the Senate is to blame, for not giving a response that Draco
>could use
>to guage.
>
>Who's suppossed to be monitoring such things as who ends up on the ballot?
> One
>suggestion that comes to mind is.....the Rogators. However, the way this
>election was structured, that was not a function of the Rogators, and in fact
>the Rogators didn't even know the final ballot until the polls opened. We
>got
>sneak previews as to the form, but we certainly weren't involved in the
>content,
>nor did we have enough prior information to know whether any candidate wasn't
>going to be a "valid" candidate.
>
>So partly we Rogators are at fault, for not persisting with a question we
>didn't
>think to ask about whether all on the ballot were rightfully there (and which
>would have halted the election after the polls opened, anyway).
>
>Another option for monitoring who ends up on the ballot could be the Censors.
>This actually makes more sense, inasmuch as the censors are the ones who have
>all the information needed to alert as to any red flags about a candidate. I
>certainly wouldn't, at surface, know whether a candidate was 17 or 71. (I for
>one didn't know Draco was 17 1/2 until after the election, since I was not
>reading the list like I normally do.) Or whether they were Nova Roma
>citizens in
>good standing. Only the Censors would know that.
>
>So partly the Censors (et Senators) are at fault, for allowing the name to be
>posted on the ballots despite information they had which they knew would
>lead to
>a weak shot at a favorable Senatus Consultum.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, Draco's name shouldn't have made it onto the ballot.
>But it did, and whoever is responsible for that, it's NOT Draco. If he were
>declaring candidacy in a macronational election, you better believe there
>would
>be officials responsible for verifying the validity of his candidacy. If
>by a
>fluke his name got on the ballot, the Election Commission would be to
>blame, not
>the candidate.
>
>Let's give the kid a break. He's got a lot of smarts and potential about
>him,
>but he's still younger than the rest of us. If he were your son, or younger
>brother, wouldn't you want his interest in taking an active role fostered? At
>least, if you have to reject him from the elected role of his choice,
>reject him
>with civility and forthrightness. (Even if you don't feel you were met
>with the
>same from him -- an eye for an eye is Hammurabic.) Let's recognize that
>some of
>the fault for the situation falls on a lot of shoulders, and own up to our
>own
>culpabilities instead of shoving it back onto Draco.
>
>Let's refrain from saying...."Sorry kid, you're not getting the office you
>were
>elected to.....and it's your own fault anyway."
>
>Ouch. That would sting ME and dissuade ME, a thirty-something corporate
>type.
>
>Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
>Ira Adams wrote:
>
>> Salve
>>
>> I'm certain you say this in jest. I repeat:
>>
>> "Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be construed as approval of his
>> candidacy."
>>
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] CPT list FAQ |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:12:48 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:12
>
> 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."
I must congratulate our Tribune on his energy and efficiency. I have
misjudged him. I was unaware that he had in fact called the Comitia Plebis
Tributa to order, and introduced a successful Plebiscitum that established
that its business would be conducted on such a private email list, expressly
overruling the part of the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum
which stipulates the business of the Comitia Plebis Tributa be handled "in a
public forum." After all, since only the Comitia may determine how it
operates, it must have done so in this case, correct? I know Piscinus,
champion of the rights of the Plebeians, would never act as a "Dictator of
the Plebs" and undertake such an action unilaterally.
I suggest some sort of official censure is in order for our Curator Areneum
for not posting this vital Plebiscitum to the Tabularium.
> 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.
I must confess I fail to see the logic of the above statement. If the
judicial procedures for the Comitia have not yet been worked out, how does
that "thus" lead to the notion that a separate and private list is required?
Is this one of those items delineated in the above-referenced, but hitherto
unseen Plebiscitum? I realize it is probably only because of my own
ignorance of the goings-on in the Comitia Plebis Tributa, but the outward
appearance is that our good Tribune is taking it upon himself to make such
momentous decisions on his own, rather than putting them to the vote of the
Comitia, as is required and proper. I am sure, however, this is merely a
misunderstanding, which he will be happy to clear up.
(As an aside, since the "F" in "FAQ" usually stands for "Frequently", and
this is the first most of these questions have been asked, I must inquire as
to what it stands for in this case.)
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Provinces, Regions, Districts, Municipalities |
| From: |
Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:20:35 -0600 |
|
Avete Omnes,
I'd like to add to the discussion about structuring our territories within a sound system of
governance.
We are in process of amending and emending the structure and working of our national government,
which is at the top of the political structure. Wherein, the Senate appoints Provincial governors,
ostensibly because they are most familiar with the macro-national political subdivisions which
comprise their province.
I think that Governors must have some flexibility in the ordering of their own province because
there are regional and cultural differences amongst out citizens which must be taken into account,
under generously drawn guidelines from the national magistracy. But, I do agree there must be some
regulation from the national government.
The custom already looks to be forming, under Constitutional guidance, of having the governors
appoint Legates for regions within the provinces.
I take my region within Great Lakes Province as an example. I am the appointed Legate for these
states within the US macronation: Wisconsin, Illinois (wherein I live) and Indiana. A big chunk of
territory.
Taking my state of residence in further example. The size of land mass it covers begs for further
subdivision into districts, under the direction of a (?), sub legate(?).
Within each district would come the formation of municipalities. At our current state of
development, such local groups would be more along the lines of households, which would form the
nucleus of future village, towns, etceteras.
This seems to me a natural progression from Nation to Locality.
A final word, to those who are distressed by the suggestion we look at other re-creation and
recreation groups as examples. The ones that last have good organizational structures and skills.
We can look to them for ideas, while preserving the Romanitas of what we accomplish.
--
======================================================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes - Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria, Legate, Dominus Sodalis
http://www.geocities.com/piparskegg/index.html
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Veto on a non-action |
| From: |
Gian G Reali <piscinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:44:56 -0800 |
|
Salve Marce Octavi
Scripsisti:
"If that happened, the candidate would not be able to assume office.
<snippet>
If the terms of section VI are not fulfilled by an exception being
granted
by the Senate; if the Senate votes against the exemption or fails to vote
at all, then an exemption has not been granted and the candidate
may not assume office.
The language is clear and unambiguous. Without a specific action
performed by the Senate, "no person may assume the office" until
reaching the required age."
Respondeo:
Quite true, and correct, here and further on in your post.. I was in
error when I said the progression would be that an underage elected
official would assume his office under the circumstances. He would not.
A tribunician intercessio could prevent an assumption allowed by an
exemption. The tribunes could issue a intercessio on the Senatus
consulta that rejects an exemption, although it would amount to only a
matter of protest. Without the exemption by the Senate, and then by the
Censors, whether by action or inaction, or by the Tribuni Plebis
intercessio on the exemption, then an underage elected official could not
assume his office.
There is still the problem that he would nonetheless be the elected
official.
Scripsisti:
"The words "interpret" and "review" do not occur in Section IV.7, or
anywhere else in the magistrates' section. Interpreting the Constitution
is a fundamental part of every magistrate's duty. IV.7 merely grants
to Tribunes the right of intercessio when they feel the constitution is
being violated."
Respondeo:
We have been banging this issue of judicial review for the purpose of
constitutionality before. Every government official does in a way
interpret the law in the performance of their duties. Every official has
a range within which they may conduct their duties. Because the
Constitution says (Section I.A) that it is the "basic authority" and
(Section I.B) that it "shall be the highest authority," the Constitution
brings up the issue of review. The closest it comes to then saying who
has such authority is under the provisions on the tribunicia potestates,
Section IV.7 where it concerns the Tribuni Plebis use of an intercessio.
This is not an all powerful attribute of the Tribunes either. They
cannot simply issue intercessio because they dislike an action, as a
Consul certainly can. A tribunician intercessio may only be issued when
they feel the Constitution is violated. That places a limit on their
authority to use their power. However at the same time it is a power of
review.
A Praetor may issue an edict, which could be an opinion and more
properly referred to as a rescripta, in which he would be giving his
interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, the Praetors unwritten duty
is that they act as legal counsels to the Consuls. Although they offer
an opinion, the Tribuni still would have authority of review over any
action taken based on the Praetor's opinion. One thing should be
clarified here too. A Praetor's opinion in a rescripta is not an edict
and cannot in itself fall under tribunician review, only some other
magistrate acting upon it.
Scripsisti:
"Consuls possess imperium and the power of coercitio. They can interpret
and execute the law and compel obedience to their edicts."
Without his legions behind him, a Consul cannot compel anyone to do
anything. Without a mob of club-wielding viatores a Tribune cannot
compel anyone to do anything. Much as Scaevola Magister said about a
need for an atmosphere for civil rights necessary for there to be any
civil rights, for our Constitution to have any weight we need an
atmosphere of constitutionality. As you correctly pointed out to Censor
Sulla on the matter of a Praetor's issuance of an edict to a Censor, the
Censor would be mandated (not compelled) to obey the edict. The reason
for that would be respect for the Constitution and the division of
authority that it provides. A Censor could go to another Praetor, or to
the Consuls, or even to the Tribuni Plebis for a constitutional review,
to see if he could have a higher ruling made. I do not think a Censor
could simply issue his own edict to overrule a Praetor, even in an area
of responsibility that is within the perogative of the Censors. Censors
do not have imperium nor a power of intercessio, and their authority to
issue edicta is restricted that such must be within accordance to the
Constitution and the leges, plebiscita and edicta that form the
Constitution. A censorial edictum contravening a preatorian edict issued
specifically to the censors would have to be construed at that point as
unconstitutional. In order for the Constitution to work at all, we are
all required to defer to the Constitution as our authority, and to defer
to every other magistrate within their own areas of responsibility.
Ultimate authority within Nova Roma itself resides with the citizenry,
and the highest authority lay with the gods.
As in Roma Antiqua itself, a danger arises when any magistrate abuses
their authority, or extends their authority beyond what the Constitution
allows. Two Tribuni Plebis tossing intercessio around all the time will
accomplish nothing but a new lex to curb their powers. Censors combining
to clear the Senate and then elevating their own retainers might be
legal under the Constitution, but recognizably dangerous. Every
magistrate must have a degree of respect for the office they hold, and
act accordingly at all times. At the same time every magistrate must
respect the offices of all other magistrates. Otherwise there is no
legal atmosphere and no constitutional authority in Nova Roma at all.
Without the means to compel, legionares and mobs, the greatest danger in
Nova Roma becomes when magistrates refuse to fulfill the duties they are
mandated to perform. The whole reason for our current topic of
discussion is the danger posed by non-action, and how it paralyses Nova
Roma. That is a situation in which any magistrate in question has no
respect for his own office, or for the offices of the other magistrates.
In that situation constitutional authority nolonger holds sway over the
magistrate. To attempt to correct such a situation becomes highly
disruptive, as we all know. We really do not have a means to deal with
such a situation, and are still building our atmosphere of
constitutionality as a way to prevent it. One necessary step is to
clarify our constitutional language. To that means I greatly thank you
for your continued attention to my posts.
Vale
Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:21:33 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BICURRATUS@-------- [mailto:BICURRATUS@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 08:49
>
> I would urge all governors to join the Nova RomaProv list to discuss this
> matter 'from the top' so to speak. After all, governors are given sole
> discretion to virtually what they like within a province. At this time
there
> is nothing to present to cives to comment on.
I would have, had I known of its existence, or if it came up on an eGroups
search of "Nova Roma". Referring someone to an invisible secret list is
hardly productive.
Please be so kind as to extend an invitation to me, so that I might also
take part in these discussions. (Indeed, I'm surprised that thought hadn't
occurred to whoever the list moderator is, given the recent discussion here
concerning local groups and my own enthusiasm for the idea.)
I think this points up a need for some sort of central control (since
central control seems to be a recurring theme here lately) of email lists.
Too many people are establishing their own semi-official email lists (I
confess I've done so myself for the law committee). Official business, and
official discussions, should take place only on official email lists, under
the direction of the Curatrix Sermo. Any list not under her direction is, by
definition of the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri, unofficial.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The kindergarten |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:15:25 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites Novae Romae!
[please, no one take offence, it's not meant in an offending way what I'm
going to write!]
Dixit Vado, respondens Palladio:
>>If you had passed your 18th birthday I would
>> probably have voted the other way.
>
>Nova Roma is of course a free country, in which citizens are free to
believe
>whatever they like. Does six months make such an unconditional difference
>between a person fitted, and not fitted, for office?
Sic Senator Palladius:
> Generally speaking, it is not. However 3 years between certain ages
> is a long time. The 3 years between a 27 year old and a 30 year old
> or between a 50 year old and a 53 year old is not significant at all.
> However, the 3 years between a 17 year old and a twenty year old, or
> even between a 20 year old and a 23 year old person is a long time
> *generally* speaking. It is a long time in terms of physical
> development and mental maturity.
Und also sprach Livia Cornelia:
> Let's give the kid a break
It seems to me that, as the discussion and sub-discussions regarding either
the Lex Iunia or me rage on, I keep shrinking in everyone's view physically.
First I was merely a young man, then later the prefix 'young' was adopted by
some people as a substitute for my praenomen. My 18th birthday seems to be
getting further and further away in the future for everyone, and now I am
referred to as 'kid'. (?) Next thing I'm going to hear is that I'm even too
young to speak for myself and to think coherently. Alas, I have to
disappoint you all.
I'm usually not so picky about what people tell about me, as long as it's
true. I'm not six months away from my birthday, but four months (hee hee!),
as my birthday is May 28. And I can assure everyone that I'm physically
allright. There is a difference between most 20 year olds and most 17 year
olds, but it's not as large as some like to think. I'm in full possession of
all body parts I should have. More than likely, I will not grow over the
coming three years (I am six feet tall already), and in the past five years
of my life I've never been referred to as a kid. Perhaps some of you don't
want all this embarrassing information to be public ;-) but hey, I didn't
ask for it! But seriously, I'm certainly no erronous young quixotist. I'm a
person just like anybody else, only I was born a few years later. Any
possible handicaps or flaws I may have are attributed to my character and my
education, and not my age.
Valete bene, omnes,
and smile,
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] Reply to Vedius on CPT, and On election of Sextus Apollonius |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:29:06 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
I won't reply to most of this, because I don't see it as productive. I will
say, however, that I am stunned by the vicious and mean-spirited nature of
Piscinus' posts yesterday, and equally stunned by his assertion that my
attempts to be open, honest, and cooperative with all my fellow magistrates
and all the Citizens of our Republic-- Plebeian and Patrician-- is mere
"childish posturing".
It is not. My attempts at reaching out to those who saw (and perhaps still
see) themselves as an "enemy" of mine are genuine. My attempts to engage
everyone in productive, substantial, and congenial discussion of new ideas
are genuine. Even when I disagreed with Piscinus' posts on the issue of
Draco's serving as Plebeian Aedile, I tried to do so with politeness,
arguing the facts and the law, and not arguing against him personally.
If he chooses to see that as "posturing", so be it. I trust my fellow Cives
will see it for what it truely is.
Of course, I am sure that Piscinus will now see this email as mere posturing
as well. So be it. I know better, and I hope most of us here do, too.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 16:16
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 18:35
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] On election of Sextus Apollonius
>
>
> 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: |
Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:22:43 +0100 |
|
Salvete, Consul et Alii,
(The NovaRomaProv-List)
> I would have, had I known of its existence, or if it came up on an eGroups
> search of "Nova Roma". Referring someone to an invisible secret list is
> hardly productive.
The respective list was established for Limes Cooperation purposes only, and
so it´s a non-public list. Only provincial officials of the Limes
Cooperation member-provinces have access to this list.
> Please be so kind as to extend an invitation to me, so that I might also
> take part in these discussions. (Indeed, I'm surprised that thought hadn't
> occurred to whoever the list moderator is, given the recent discussion
here
> concerning local groups and my own enthusiasm for the idea.)
The founders annouced the Limes Cooperation shortly after it´s creation, and
of course all provinces are invited to join the LC, and take part in it´s
discussions. You might review the small LC homepage under www.novaromade/lc/
where the LC´s mission is explained. Membership in the LC is indeed
voluntarily, so we don´t add other provincial officials automatically.
As Limes Cooperation Scriba and list moderator, I invite you to join the LC
with your province, this enables you to join the mailing-list and take part
in the discussions there about provincial administration topics.
> I think this points up a need for some sort of central control (since
> central control seems to be a recurring theme here lately) of email lists.
> Too many people are establishing their own semi-official email lists (I
> confess I've done so myself for the law committee). Official business, and
> official discussions, should take place only on official email lists,
under
> the direction of the Curatrix Sermo. Any list not under her direction is,
by
> definition of the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri, unofficial.
The LC received official approval by the Senate, so I can see nothing
unofficial in it´s business. Of course, we could discuss our topics on the
main list, boring the other citizens with administrative details and filling
the list with special-interest mailings. The setup of an own mailing-list is
the better alternative, imho. This was our Intention, and not a false sense
of secrecy.
I think that the LC members have no problem with discussing that special
topic on the main list. I would prefer this, too, since the provincial
sub-levels are a general-interest topic for all citizens.
So, Consul, you are welcome in the LC, if you should decide to join!
Valete, respectfully
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
Limes Cooperation Scriba
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The kindergarten |
| From: |
"Sheridan/Hibernicus " <legioix@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:19 -0000 |
|
> And I can assure everyone that I'm physically
> allright. There is a difference between most 20 year olds and most 17 year
> olds, but it's not as large as some like to think.
Ah the deceptions the hormones of youth cause. When you are but 3 years older you will no longer think this way.
There is a certain mellowing of the brain, almost a fermentation, that occurs during the 3 years you refer to, a condition of
continual change, sometimes gradual, sometimes sudden, that does not end. Mostly it is evidenced with the continual growth (and or
shrinkage) of various body parts predominantly an increase in mass, soon (relatively soon) followed by a sagging of the external
covering. Gravitas will not be defeated.
Hibernicus
:)
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:36:07 -0700 |
|
Salve:
Germanicus, NovaRomaProv is the elist associated with the Limes Cooperation. I
know you're aware that exists. At any rate, contact Diocletianus for
information about the list, Limes, etc. It's my understanding you have to join
Limes to join the list.
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BICURRATUS@-------- [mailto:BICURRATUS@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 08:49
> >
> > I would urge all governors to join the Nova RomaProv list to discuss this
> > matter 'from the top' so to speak. After all, governors are given sole
> > discretion to virtually what they like within a province. At this time
> there
> > is nothing to present to cives to comment on.
>
> I would have, had I known of its existence, or if it came up on an eGroups
> search of "Nova Roma". Referring someone to an invisible secret list is
> hardly productive.
>
> Please be so kind as to extend an invitation to me, so that I might also
> take part in these discussions. (Indeed, I'm surprised that thought hadn't
> occurred to whoever the list moderator is, given the recent discussion here
> concerning local groups and my own enthusiasm for the idea.)
>
> I think this points up a need for some sort of central control (since
> central control seems to be a recurring theme here lately) of email lists.
> Too many people are establishing their own semi-official email lists (I
> confess I've done so myself for the law committee). Official business, and
> official discussions, should take place only on official email lists, under
> the direction of the Curatrix Sermo. Any list not under her direction is, by
> definition of the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri, unofficial.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Choosing a Roman Name |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:04:14 -0500 (EST) |
|
Salve, KIT;
There is a record of all Roman gravestones found in Great Britain and in
Europe that list at least who the person was, and usually giving enough
information on his background to determine something of his past life.
In the case of Marcus Minucius Audens his tomb / alter indicates that he
served in the XXth Legio in Great Britiain, and he was a Miles Immunes
(soldier exempt of century fatigues) and a specialist in two areas
Gromaciti (Military Surveyor) and Gubernator (Military Pilot). Since we
know quite a bit about service in the legions, and since the alter /
tomb was of significant size, we can assume he was well thought of by
those who survived him, and that there was significant money in his
family to see to constructing the alter. Since there is no other
mention of his activities outside the legions, we may assume his demise
either in the Legions or shortly after leaving them. There is no
indication that he moved beyond the position of Miles Immunes (soldier's
salary), but the fact that he had two specialties in a legion indicates
that he was not a stupid or lazy man, since a Legionary served normally
from 6 to 12 years in the Legon to which he was assigned, before he was
given the chance to apply for the position of Miles Immunes, based on
the needs of the Legion, his service record, his relations with his
Centurion, and the geographical area in which he served .
I selected this name on the basis of my early interests in Roman
Reenactment, before I joined Nova Roma and for a time portayed a Miles
Immunes rather than a Line Legionary. When I applied for admisson to NR
I brought the name with me. Because of my past military service, and my
work in Nova Roma, I was granted an elevation to Patrician Rank at my
request, and at the encouragement of a few very good friends, chose to
enter the Political Arena of NR after serving in a non-political
position and founding a Sodalitas. Either Senator Moravius Vado who has
very considerately provided me with a picture of Marcus' tomb altar or
Bicurratus who suggested the name based on my Roman interests at the
time, will be able to point you to the list of Roman Tombs.
I am placing my response on the Main List in the hope that others who
are far more adept at Roman History than I, will have further
information for you.
Vale, Respectfully and Good Luck!!!
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Rogatorship Resignation |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:32:09 -0500 (EST) |
|
Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma;
This message should have been sent to this net to begin with. My
oversight and my apologies.
Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Choosing a Roman Name |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:51:23 EST |
|
EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
> Either Senator Moravius Vado who has
> very considerately provided me with a picture of Marcus' tomb altar or
> Bicurratus who suggested the name based on my Roman interests at the
> time, will be able to point you to the list of Roman Tombs.
>
>
Sorry, Audens, did you ask me for a picture of the tombstone? I cannot
remember - must be 3+ years ago - since we corresponded on this.
Anyway, the book you want is ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS IN BRITAIN (RIB) Volume 1.
The cut off point was 1954 but nothing too significant has been found since
then. This book lists altars, tombstone, commerative building slabs, etc.
Anything that has a inscription on stone.
I have this book, the index and the addendum and corrigenda if anyone wants a
name to match their interests.
Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:54:29 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve Consul
I understand that you are a very busy man sir, but I would humbly ask
that you respond to my below email. It seems to me that there is
going
to be a problem with your plan as it infringes on our Provincial
powers. In Canada we have these constitutional difficulties when our
Federal government tries to change the powers of the Provinces, and
they are always fought and exposed for what they truly are, power
grabs by the Federal government. So what we have in Canada is a "Not-
with-standing" clause in our constitution, which gives the Provinces
the option to opt out of any of these Federal plans. I feel we may
soon need this in Nova Roma! I am all for any plan to increase our
Populations, but not at the expense of our Provincial Powers! My only
conciliation is that your plan is way ahead of it's time, and can not
fully work now. It is hard enough to get two citizens to meet face to
face, let alone organize in small groups as current or potentional
Citizens. If this measure goes through what it will result in is the
creation of not nearly as much small groups as you believe I suspect.
Groups that do not really have to ansewr to the Propaetors.
Time will tell.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
--- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-
sertorius@--------> wrote:
> 9 Jan 2001
>
> Salve Consul
>
> I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds, will
in the
> long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In my
Provincia
> plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller
divisions, but
> they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other Propraetors
many feel
> the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their
Provincias,
> especially when so many Provincias are just getting Propraetors and
starting
> to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose not
appeal to me
> as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and
control it,
> and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end result
of loss of
> more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it necessary to
form this
> third level of government.
>
> Quintus Sertorius
> Propraetor
> Canada Occidentalis
> quintus-sertorius@--------
>
> Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] RIB |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:04:48 EST |
|
EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
Just so happens Guy de la Bedoyere has put the text of RIB on his website.
Have a shufti at...
http://www.bedoyere.freeserve.co.uk/RIB.htm
Bicurratus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:23:22 -0500 |
|
Salve;
Allow me to reassure you, Quintus Sertorius, and all the other provincial
Governors; there is no "plan" that is going to be implemented from on high
to strip you of your power. Everything is still waaaaay early along in the
discussion stage. That's one of the reasons I've tried to keep the
discussion on this subject going; to get input.
Now, personally, I don't see anything wrong with governor-supervised
semi-autonomous local groups. I find it curious that some governors have
replied with alarm that they might not have absolute control over everything
that goes on within their Provincia. I know that if some of the Cives in,
say, Baltimore wanted to get together on their own, recruit more members,
and start holding their own feasts and chariot races, I'd be thrilled! I
don't see any reason I need to be directly involved, or even have a Legatus
on the scene.
But hey, maybe that's just me.
Hope that allays your (and others') fears.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:54
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration
>
>
> 10 Jan 2001
>
> Salve Consul
>
> I understand that you are a very busy man sir, but I would humbly ask
> that you respond to my below email. It seems to me that there is
> going
> to be a problem with your plan as it infringes on our Provincial
> powers. In Canada we have these constitutional difficulties when our
> Federal government tries to change the powers of the Provinces, and
> they are always fought and exposed for what they truly are, power
> grabs by the Federal government. So what we have in Canada is a "Not-
> with-standing" clause in our constitution, which gives the Provinces
> the option to opt out of any of these Federal plans. I feel we may
> soon need this in Nova Roma! I am all for any plan to increase our
> Populations, but not at the expense of our Provincial Powers! My only
> conciliation is that your plan is way ahead of it's time, and can not
> fully work now. It is hard enough to get two citizens to meet face to
> face, let alone organize in small groups as current or potentional
> Citizens. If this measure goes through what it will result in is the
> creation of not nearly as much small groups as you believe I suspect.
> Groups that do not really have to ansewr to the Propaetors.
> Time will tell.
>
> Vale
>
> Quintus Sertorius
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-
> sertorius@--------> wrote:
> > 9 Jan 2001
> >
> > Salve Consul
> >
> > I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds, will
> in the
> > long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In my
> Provincia
> > plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller
> divisions, but
> > they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other Propraetors
> many feel
> > the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their
> Provincias,
> > especially when so many Provincias are just getting Propraetors and
> starting
> > to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose not
> appeal to me
> > as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and
> control it,
> > and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end result
> of loss of
> > more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it necessary to
> form this
> > third level of government.
> >
> > Quintus Sertorius
> > Propraetor
> > Canada Occidentalis
> > quintus-sertorius@--------
> >
> > Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:52:08 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve Consul
Thank you, this does make me feel better! I will continue to try to
be constructive in this deliberations.
Vale
QS
--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> Salve;
>
> Allow me to reassure you, Quintus Sertorius, and all the other
provincial
> Governors; there is no "plan" that is going to be implemented from
on high
> to strip you of your power. Everything is still waaaaay early along
in the
> discussion stage. That's one of the reasons I've tried to keep the
> discussion on this subject going; to get input.
>
> Now, personally, I don't see anything wrong with governor-supervised
> semi-autonomous local groups. I find it curious that some governors
have
> replied with alarm that they might not have absolute control over
everything
> that goes on within their Provincia. I know that if some of the
Cives in,
> say, Baltimore wanted to get together on their own, recruit more
members,
> and start holding their own feasts and chariot races, I'd be
thrilled! I
> don't see any reason I need to be directly involved, or even have a
Legatus
> on the scene.
>
> But hey, maybe that's just me.
>
> Hope that allays your (and others') fears.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germa--------s@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:54
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration
> >
> >
> > 10 Jan 2001
> >
> > Salve Consul
> >
> > I understand that you are a very busy man sir, but I would humbly
ask
> > that you respond to my below email. It seems to me that there is
> > going
> > to be a problem with your plan as it infringes on our Provincial
> > powers. In Canada we have these constitutional difficulties when
our
> > Federal government tries to change the powers of the Provinces,
and
> > they are always fought and exposed for what they truly are, power
> > grabs by the Federal government. So what we have in Canada is
a "Not-
> > with-standing" clause in our constitution, which gives the
Provinces
> > the option to opt out of any of these Federal plans. I feel we may
> > soon need this in Nova Roma! I am all for any plan to increase our
> > Populations, but not at the expense of our Provincial Powers! My
only
> > conciliation is that your plan is way ahead of it's time, and can
not
> > fully work now. It is hard enough to get two citizens to meet
face to
> > face, let alone organize in small groups as current or potentional
> > Citizens. If this measure goes through what it will result in is
the
> > creation of not nearly as much small groups as you believe I
suspect.
> > Groups that do not really have to ansewr to the Propaetors.
> > Time will tell.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Quintus Sertorius
> >
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-
> > sertorius@--------> wrote:
> > > 9 Jan 2001
> > >
> > > Salve Consul
> > >
> > > I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds,
will
> > in the
> > > long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In my
> > Provincia
> > > plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller
> > divisions, but
> > > they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other Propraetors
> > many feel
> > > the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their
> > Provincias,
> > > especially when so many Provincias are just getting Propraetors
and
> > starting
> > > to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose not
> > appeal to me
> > > as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and
> > control it,
> > > and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end
result
> > of loss of
> > > more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it necessary
to
> > form this
> > > third level of government.
> > >
> > > Quintus Sertorius
> > > Propraetor
> > > Canada Occidentalis
> > > quintus-sertorius@--------
> > >
> > > Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> > > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Northeastern USA |
| From: |
"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:13:37 -0500 |
|
Salve,
I want to take a moment and invite all of the good people within
driving/walking/training distance to NYC to join me/us whomever we can find
in attending the what we hope to become a monthly thing...
"Romans on the Green".. to be held the last friday evening of every month
(hopefully) from 6:00 until whenever... Location to be determined Very
Soon...
This is NOT a sanctioned/approved/anything associated with the offical Govt
of NR. It's just an excuse to get together with fellow Cives in a social
setting and meet, drink, and be merry!!
For more info contact
Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus.
Vale,
ATR
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:21:14 +0100 |
|
Salve Australice,
> I'm certain you say this in jest. I repeat:
>
> "Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be construed as approval of his
> candidacy."
>
> The alternative?
>
> 'I asked nicely if I could have the money in his bank vault and he never
> replied. It is often said "Qui tacet, consentit."'
>
> Yes, I'm sure the courts anywhere would accept that argument - aren't
> you? ;-)
Ok ok, I confess! I wrote my reply in a hurry, as my day schedule of
yesterday was so tight that errors had to slip in. And as English isn't my
native language, is likely to happen there first (oops, my fancy Latin is no
English!). I didn't mean to say that the Senate was nodding at my candidacy
invisible, but they couldn't have prevented it anyway. As someone has
pointed out here before, the difficulty in the Lex Iunia de MA lies in the
word "assume". I approached the Senate, but got no further reply from the
Curia, or any sort of advice. And as I was in a nick of time (voting started
on December 15, I thought?), I advanced and announced my candidacy anyway.
Trying wouldn't hurt.
> It simply won't fly.
I have a set of beautiful wings though.
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: |
[novaroma] Re: The Northeastern USA |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:52:37 -0000 |
|
Ye Gods, I wish I lived cl;ose to you ATR!!
QS
--- In novaroma@--------, "Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@h...>
wrote:
> Salve,
>
> I want to take a moment and invite all of the good people within
> driving/walking/training distance to NYC to join me/us whomever we
can find
> in attending the what we hope to become a monthly thing...
>
> "Romans on the Green".. to be held the last friday evening of every
month
> (hopefully) from 6:00 until whenever... Location to be determined
Very
> Soon...
>
> This is NOT a sanctioned/approved/anything associated with the
offical Govt
> of NR. It's just an excuse to get together with fellow Cives in a
social
> setting and meet, drink, and be merry!!
>
> For more info contact
>
> Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus.
>
> Vale,
>
> ATR
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Reply to Formosanus (was: Re: Reply to Vedius on CPT) |
| From: |
cassius622@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:55:33 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@y...>
wrote:
>
> I am not among those who have, I think erroneously, come to feel
> that we are oppressed by the Patricians. The distinction between
the Two Orders was primarily introduced, I imagine, for the sake of
interest and historical authenticity. I tend to support this
fundamental divion for those reasons.
Cassius:
The two orders were introduced not only because of an interest in
historical authenticity, but also because they are fundamental to the
Roman system. There are major offices and priesthoods that couldn't
exist otherwise. Without them we wouldn't have a true Roman system,
and would be in essence in violation of our charter.
Formosanus:
> However, it is also true that the Patricians include leaders and
> gentiles from the early days (as in Roma Antiqua), who have through
> various means also augmented their relative power and influence
through senate membership and holding office.
Cassius:
"Through various means also augemented their relative power and
influence?" One could easily mistake your words as an attempt to say
that people are gaining unfair personal advantage simply by working
on behalf of Nova Roma.
Formosanus:
This class, let us call them "The
> Establishment", which may also include a few Plebeians, has at its
> disposal many institutional arrangements which gives it a very
> disproportionate amount of power, and in some cases, attitudes to
match.
Cassius:
MUST we continually divide ourselves into two camps, so that there
can be a "we" to point fingers at "them?" These words could easily be
mistaken as a deliberate attempt to paint those who have worked to
bring this micronation into reality as shady villians of some sort.
The thing to remember is that there is in essence no "power" here to
have disproportionate amounts of. Magistricies and official offices
simply mean that one gets to do a lot of work, and, seemingly, take a
lot of abuse for being willing to volunteer time and effort toward
the Roman ideal.
Formosanus:
> I myself have experienced being condemned by a certain patrician
> magistrate on another list as "a mere civis", as though being a
Civis Romanus were not in itself something worthy. He said that in
wrath, but no doubt this kind of thinking is latent in his mind and
perhaps the minds of more than one of the Establishment. (I certainly
do not say *all*, please note!)
Cassius:
You don't have to actually use the word *all* to infer a clear
division and general abuse of power. Very well done, my friend. Why,
I'm angry at the evil patrician establishment now myself! Got a red
banner I can wave, come the revolution? ;)
Seriously, it may be a mistake to infer that one angry comment by one
person is "no doubt" an indication of his general thinking or anyone
elses. We've all (yourself included) had to retract statements made
too quickly or in anger. Hopefully you've seen yourself that it's not
easy once you're "up on the Rostra" and subject to myriad conflicting
opinions.
Formosanus:
> In Roma Antiqua there was an Establishment too, and in this way
we can indeed experience the same kind of historical division and
enjoy - if that's the word - the pleasures (?) of lordship and humble
status.
Cassius:
Objection your honor, counsel is leading the witness! Er, audience.
I see we've gone from supporting the two Roman classes as historical,
to referring to them as "lordship" and "humble status".
Formosanus, you're very far indeed from convincing me that
you're "humble", or that you'd consent to remain here for an instant
if you really thought that anyone here was exersizing "lordship".
Formosanus:
> However, the reason why Rome and Her Republic are so worthy of
respect unto today is that the Common People, the Plebs, were not
content with being subjugated to a disproportionately powerful
Establishment, but produced a democratic (in modern terms) counter-
structure in the form of the Tribunate of the People, sacrosanct and
with powers of coercion, to guarantee their collective interests,
protect them individually, and make sure that the concessions wrung
out of the Patricians stayed in place.
Cassius:
I'm not sure that ancient Rome is worthy of respect solely for one
aspect of its complex internal politics.
Formosanus:
> This never worked perfectly, and in the end was coöpted by the
> Establishment, but it worked for a while to secure dignity and
liberty for the common people in a political sense. In Nova Roma we
now see the Plebs ready to stand up on their own two feet and
organise itself to be something more than a passive mass waiting for
Establishment initiatives.
>
Cassius:
Is that how you've viewed Citizenship in Nova Roma, Formosanus? "A
passive mass waiting for Establishment incentives?" I personally find
this incredible. As a micronation, Nova Roma is a veritable land of
opportunity for anyone with ideas, creativity, and drive. The
Provinces are in essence blank territory waiting for local incentive.
The Sodalitas are only starting to be created. We have how many now?
Five? We could eassily have a hundred. The Macellum, and the Ordo
Equester are starving for lack of attention. For those who practice
the Religio Romana there are many priesthoods to be filled. And of
course, there are the magistracies, many of whom were essentially
uncontested this year due to a lack of candidates.
I value the Tribune of the Plebs position as a valuable part of the
Roman system, but as a Citizen of any stripe I'd look to my own
personal drive and involvement as the surest way to achievement here,
or anywhere else in life.
Formosanus:
> I think this is a good thing. It is true that the real
> socio-political division between the Patricians and Plebeians is not
> exactly the more significant distinction between Establishment and
> non-Establishment, but it is the one we have in the instituions of
the Constitution, and the one we must and can work with.
Cassius:
So what you're saying here is that since there isn't really a need
for a struggle between the Plebians and Patricians, we must create a
struggle by promoting a gulf between "Establishment" and "non-
Establishment?"
Formosanus:
The point of
> breathing life into the plebeian institutions is to give the vast
> majority of us in the non-Establishment a means of negotiating on a
>more equal footing with the Establishment - just as in Roma Antiqua.
Cassius:
The people you're trying to promote as an "Establishment" are simply
Citizens, both Plebian and Patrician, people who have volunteered a
great deal of time and personal effort to Nova Roma. This is a good
thing as it provides all Citizens with a simpler means of
gaining "equal footing" than expecting Plebian institutions to
provide them: Do productive things which build our community instead
of divide it, and be recognized for your efforts.
There isn't a Citizen here that doesn't have the opportunity to start
their way upon a path of public service and recognition this very
instant. Become active in your Provincia, and build a name for
youself there. Join a Sodalicium or two, learn the ropes, and then
create your own to promote some aspect of Roman life. If you're
religious, volunteer for a Priesthood. Join the Ordo Equester and
help provide our nation with Roman goods. Participate regularly on
this list, write for the newsletter, etc. etc. Being an influential
Citizen is simply the result of being active and getting things
done.
> Formosanus:
> It is easy to talk about "divisiveness" whenever one's possible
> rivals or opponents wants to organise. Employers are not
enthusiastic about seeing labour unions they cannot dominate being
formed, and party-less or one-party regimes are not fond of seeing
independent parties established... But in all such cases there is a
group that feels that it has certain interests that those in
effective power do not truly represent. In such cases there are only
two things to be done: suppression or recognition that new partners
in dialogue have been created and must be treated seriously and with
respect.
Cassius:
Hmm. So if I disagree with you that there is a fermenting class
struggle going on, I'm obviously one of the oppressors? That if I
don't support what seems to be a personal bid on your part to get
people angry and dissatisfied, that I've got a vested interest in
keeping people down in some way?
I, and nearly everyone else in Nova Roma, am very profoundly
interested in "raising people up" rather than the reverse. No attempt
to paint things otherwise is going to change that. I'm also more than
willing to put my "sestertii where my mouth is."
I, Marcus Cassius Julianus, as Consul, Pontiff, and Senator, hereby
extend my hand to any Citizen wishing to become more involved in Nova
Roma. I will personally work with *anyone*, including Marius and
Draco, (the two most popular Martyrs to the "Establishment") toward
building public careers, climbing the cursus honorum, becoming
influential Citizens, and/or generally keep them feeling busy,
productive and "enfranchised". While I cannot guarantee results (as
those will be determined by how much time a person can spend, what
skills they have, etc.) I do pledge to offer all assistance that is
withing my personal abilities and means to provide.
To this end, I will try to establish some facilities beyond simple
personal email. Perhaps a mailing list or a website. This will of
course simply be a personal forum and not part of the infrastructure
of Nova Roma itself. (Unless other magistrates/Senators wish to join
me in creating a new Sodalitas for Citizen Careers or somesuch.)
The last thing that has ever been intended for Nova Roma is that
there would exist a class of powerless, disenfranchised Citizens -
that, having no personal opportunities whatever, should need "civil
rights champions" to stand up for them. I truly believe that we all
have equal opportunities here, and it is because of this I offer my
services to all who feel their needs are not being met. I will post
more about this in the next few days, but in the meantime, if anyone
needs to contact me, email me at: Cassius622@--------
Formosanus:
> Our esteemed Consul Germanicus, whom I personally respect and feel
warm feelings towards, has been fond of saying that the senate
advises and the People rule. Now that the People are really getting
ready to rule, I do not think that he should be in opposition.
Cassius:
It seems to me that you're forgetting that we ALL are the People.
It's not just the Plebians, nor "non-Establishment", or any other
carefully crafted sub-division of our population that is suddenly
going to hold all rights.
Formosanus:
If we had a modern variety of egalitarian democracy, this might not
be necessary. But we have chosen a Roman model, which is built on a
distinction between the mostly patrician/senatorial Establishment and
the common Plebs, so we have to let it be properly and fully
organised on *each* side of that divide.
Cassius:
If it were to be TRULY equal, there would be a "Tribune of the
Patricians", or perhaps a Tribune of the Magistrates" to make sure
that all groups of Nova Roma become as class conscious and organized
as you seem to want one section of it to become. As it stands right
now, your "Establishment" is in fact made up of Patricians and
Plebians together, experienced and newer Citizens together, Amici
Dignitatis members and non Amici, etc. There is a lot more balance in
Nova Roma than people seem to recognize.
> Formosanus:
> Piscinus has done a great deal of research into the traditions
of the tribunate and the movements of the Roman Plebs, and we are
fortunate that he is establishing at last the institutions to
represent the common man and woman. The Plebs are simply going to
play a greater rôle here in Nova Roma from now on, as it was in
the
best times of Rome.
Cassius:
I personally have every confidence that Piscinus will conduct himself
honorably as Tribune of the Plebs. In addition, I personally will be
interested to see how the Plebs will play a greater role from now on,
since we already have Plebians in all official positions and
magistracies.
> Formosanus:
> I am fond of saying that the dignitas of every civis is to be
> respected. The plebeian organisation is the way in which Romans
> traditionally permitted the common Roman-in-the-Street to have his
> dignitas too, and not just the Great Roman in the Senate.
Cassius:
We must also remember that our circumstances today are vastly
different than those of our ancient forebears. Our interpersonal
dealings are greatly leveled simply due to the fact that we all
participate equally in this general forum... anyone is welcome to
speak their ideas and thoughts at any time.
Formosanus:
This is a
> natural development of historical precedent and of the Vedian
> Constitution. I urge the curule magistrates, senate and Patricians
to accept this fact and to amicably accept the existence of a Plebs
that can speak and act.
Cassius:
I certainly amicably accept the fact that there should exist a
comitia plebis tributa as per our Constitution. Yet I will certainly
not accept false divisions to be set among us where one does not
exist. Hopefully those of the Plebian order will remember fully well
their options as individual Citizens first and foremost. After all,
Plebians have been speaking and acting on an equal basis since the
founding of Nova Roma... this is why we've got Plebian Senators, etc.
Formosanus:
It is something good for all of us, and should be the realisation of
any wholesome Roman dream. If the Establishment were to be
dramatically hostile to these developments, *that* would be something
that would really be divisive. Let it not be so.
Cassius:
Indeed, let there be no false divisions of class, or "establishment"
to be raised among us, setting Citizens against one another.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Email Troubles |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:59:38 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve All
Just a note to let everyone know I am currently having email
troubles! I hope it does not last long, but I still have internet
access so I will be monitoring the egroups. Thank you.
vale
Quintus sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:08:04 -0700 |
|
Salve:
I'd be thrilled too if cives in any part of the res publica band together and
organize an impromptu event. Getting together for the sake of getting together
isn't the issue.
Formalizing the concept of local groups before the greater part of the res
publica is ready for formalized local groups is one half of the issue. Speaking
for my own province, I think it will be at least a year, or more, before we are
ready for any formally defined local groups. The precursor to local groups is
spontaneity in local gatherings.
The other half of the issue isn't that I, or other propraetors, need "absolute"
control. It's that we are closest to the issue of getting local participation
up and running, and we're being asked to participate with comments in an equal
environment and side by side with every "plain old Publius". Let me also add
that by default, when you set out defining the workings of local groups, the
flip side of that is you are also defining overall provincial administration,
which has heretofor been left alone. If my propraetorship is stripped down to
charter-stamping and fiscal functions, I'll be gone from that office faster than
you can blink.
Right at this moment, I'm alarmed because I: a) don't know what guidelines
you're writing, because I haven't seen them, b) don't know WHO is in the pool
of those whom you've been chatting at length with about this, but know I'm not
one of them, c) think Germanicus needs to do less writing of the guidelines and
more consensus building and committee work among the people most affected by it
(the governors), and that the writing of the guidelines needs to be a group
effort, and, most importantly:
d) I DON'T want to choke off local growth by codifying it too early.
As I stated in an earlier post, at this stage of the game, the most that should
be appropriate are loose guidelines from the central government, and beyond that
the issue of local chapters is properly a provincial one.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salve;
>
> Allow me to reassure you, Quintus Sertorius, and all the other provincial
> Governors; there is no "plan" that is going to be implemented from on high
> to strip you of your power. Everything is still waaaaay early along in the
> discussion stage. That's one of the reasons I've tried to keep the
> discussion on this subject going; to get input.
>
> Now, personally, I don't see anything wrong with governor-supervised
> semi-autonomous local groups. I find it curious that some governors have
> replied with alarm that they might not have absolute control over everything
> that goes on within their Provincia. I know that if some of the Cives in,
> say, Baltimore wanted to get together on their own, recruit more members,
> and start holding their own feasts and chariot races, I'd be thrilled! I
> don't see any reason I need to be directly involved, or even have a Legatus
> on the scene.
>
> But hey, maybe that's just me.
>
> Hope that allays your (and others') fears.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:54
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration
> >
> >
> > 10 Jan 2001
> >
> > Salve Consul
> >
> > I understand that you are a very busy man sir, but I would humbly ask
> > that you respond to my below email. It seems to me that there is
> > going
> > to be a problem with your plan as it infringes on our Provincial
> > powers. In Canada we have these constitutional difficulties when our
> > Federal government tries to change the powers of the Provinces, and
> > they are always fought and exposed for what they truly are, power
> > grabs by the Federal government. So what we have in Canada is a "Not-
> > with-standing" clause in our constitution, which gives the Provinces
> > the option to opt out of any of these Federal plans. I feel we may
> > soon need this in Nova Roma! I am all for any plan to increase our
> > Populations, but not at the expense of our Provincial Powers! My only
> > conciliation is that your plan is way ahead of it's time, and can not
> > fully work now. It is hard enough to get two citizens to meet face to
> > face, let alone organize in small groups as current or potentional
> > Citizens. If this measure goes through what it will result in is the
> > creation of not nearly as much small groups as you believe I suspect.
> > Groups that do not really have to ansewr to the Propaetors.
> > Time will tell.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Quintus Sertorius
> >
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-
> > sertorius@--------> wrote:
> > > 9 Jan 2001
> > >
> > > Salve Consul
> > >
> > > I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds, will
> > in the
> > > long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In my
> > Provincia
> > > plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller
> > divisions, but
> > > they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other Propraetors
> > many feel
> > > the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their
> > Provincias,
> > > especially when so many Provincias are just getting Propraetors and
> > starting
> > > to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose not
> > appeal to me
> > > as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and
> > control it,
> > > and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end result
> > of loss of
> > > more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it necessary to
> > form this
> > > third level of government.
> > >
> > > Quintus Sertorius
> > > Propraetor
> > > Canada Occidentalis
> > > quintus-sertorius@--------
> > >
> > > Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> > > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:25:10 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve Propraetrix
I echo your concerns, and hope the other Propraetors understand the
long term implications that will result from any such ideas that are
introduced to soon. I can not help but feel someone steping on my
toes right now!
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
--- In novaroma@--------, gmvick32@u... wrote:
> Salve:
>
> I'd be thrilled too if cives in any part of the res publica band
together and
> organize an impromptu event. Getting together for the sake of
getting together
> isn't the issue.
>
> Formalizing the concept of local groups before the greater part of
the res
> publica is ready for formalized local groups is one half of the
issue. Speaking
> for my own province, I think it will be at least a year, or more,
before we are
> ready for any formally defined local groups. The precursor to
local groups is
> spontaneity in local gatherings.
>
> The other half of the issue isn't that I, or other propraetors,
need "absolute"
> control. It's that we are closest to the issue of getting local
participation
> up and running, and we're being asked to participate with comments
in an equal
> environment and side by side with every "plain old Publius". Let
me also add
> that by default, when you set out defining the workings of local
groups, the
> flip side of that is you are also defining overall provincial
administration,
> which has heretofor been left alone. If my propraetorship is
stripped down to
> charter-stamping and fiscal functions, I'll be gone from that
office faster than
> you can blink.
>
> Right at this moment, I'm alarmed because I: a) don't know what
guidelines
> you're writing, because I haven't seen them, b) don't know WHO is
in the pool
> of those whom you've been chatting at length with about this, but
know I'm not
> one of them, c) think Germanicus needs to do less writing of the
guidelines and
> more consensus building and committee work among the people most
affected by it
> (the governors), and that the writing of the guidelines needs to be
a group
> effort, and, most importantly:
>
> d) I DON'T want to choke off local growth by codifying it too
early.
>
> As I stated in an earlier post, at this stage of the game, the most
that should
> be appropriate are loose guidelines from the central government,
and beyond that
> the issue of local chapters is properly a provincial one.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
>
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> > Salve;
> >
> > Allow me to reassure you, Quintus Sertorius, and all the other
provincial
> > Governors; there is no "plan" that is going to be implemented
from on high
> > to strip you of your power. Everything is still waaaaay early
along in the
> > discussion stage. That's one of the reasons I've tried to keep the
> > discussion on this subject going; to get input.
> >
> > Now, personally, I don't see anything wrong with governor-
supervised
> > semi-autonomous local groups. I find it curious that some
governors have
> > replied with alarm that they might not have absolute control over
everything
> > that goes on within their Provincia. I know that if some of the
Cives in,
> > say, Baltimore wanted to get together on their own, recruit more
members,
> > and start holding their own feasts and chariot races, I'd be
thrilled! I
> > don't see any reason I need to be directly involved, or even have
a Legatus
> > on the scene.
> >
> > But hey, maybe that's just me.
> >
> > Hope that allays your (and others') fears.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Consul
> >
> > email: germa--------s@--------
> > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> > www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:54
> > > To: novaroma@--------
> > > Subject: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial
Administration
> > >
> > >
> > > 10 Jan 2001
> > >
> > > Salve Consul
> > >
> > > I understand that you are a very busy man sir, but I would
humbly ask
> > > that you respond to my below email. It seems to me that there is
> > > going
> > > to be a problem with your plan as it infringes on our Provincial
> > > powers. In Canada we have these constitutional difficulties
when our
> > > Federal government tries to change the powers of the Provinces,
and
> > > they are always fought and exposed for what they truly are,
power
> > > grabs by the Federal government. So what we have in Canada is
a "Not-
> > > with-standing" clause in our constitution, which gives the
Provinces
> > > the option to opt out of any of these Federal plans. I feel we
may
> > > soon need this in Nova Roma! I am all for any plan to increase
our
> > > Populations, but not at the expense of our Provincial Powers!
My only
> > > conciliation is that your plan is way ahead of it's time, and
can not
> > > fully work now. It is hard enough to get two citizens to meet
face to
> > > face, let alone organize in small groups as current or
potentional
> > > Citizens. If this measure goes through what it will result in
is the
> > > creation of not nearly as much small groups as you believe I
suspect.
> > > Groups that do not really have to ansewr to the Propaetors.
> > > Time will tell.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Quintus Sertorius
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In novaroma@--------, "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-
> > > sertorius@--------> wrote:
> > > > 9 Jan 2001
> > > >
> > > > Salve Consul
> > > >
> > > > I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds,
will
> > > in the
> > > > long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In
my
> > > Provincia
> > > > plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller
> > > divisions, but
> > > > they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other
Propraetors
> > > many feel
> > > > the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their
> > > Provincias,
> > > > especially when so many Provincias are just getting
Propraetors and
> > > starting
> > > > to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose
not
> > > appeal to me
> > > > as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and
> > > control it,
> > > > and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end
result
> > > of loss of
> > > > more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it
necessary to
> > > form this
> > > > third level of government.
> > > >
> > > > Quintus Sertorius
> > > > Propraetor
> > > > Canada Occidentalis
> > > > quintus-sertorius@--------
> > > >
> > > > Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:40:24 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 14:08
>
> one of them, c) think Germanicus needs to do less writing of the
guidelines and
> more consensus building and committee work among the people most affected
by it
> (the governors), and that the writing of the guidelines needs to be a
group
> effort, and, most importantly:
Funny. I would've thought that the people-- you know, the ones who would
actually be _in_ the local groups-- would be interested in this, too; not
just the governors.
A word on my style of work. It's just a funny way my mind works that these
sorts of broad conceptual questions become clearer when trying to envision
the exact mechanisms. Sometimes I do a draft of these sorts of mechanisms,
they spark more ideas and questions, and those get put to the list for all
to contribute. The original mechanisms that led to the questions might never
see the light of day, certainly not in their original form. Too, I often
will blurt out a number of ideas when brainstorming, just off the top of my
head as they occur to me, some of which I don't agree with at all, just to
spark conversation and see if they lead in profitable directions.
You will know when I'm putting forth a definite "let's put this up for a
vote" proposal; it'll look like the laws in the Tabularium, and be very
formal.
I'm sorry you don't think that bringing these sorts of issues to the main
list constitutes "consensus building". I would have thought that asking
folks-- governors, magistrates, and everybody-- for their opinions on the
subject of how the provincial governors should interact with local chapters
would have been seen as exactly that. How do you form consensus, if you
don't know where everyone is coming from?
There are certainly some topics that need to be worked on in committee
before they are rolled out. I don't happen to think these broad sorts of
questions are among them; quite the opposite.
May I ask for some specific answers to my conceptual questions? You've been
very vocal about what you _don't_ like. I'm anxious to hear how you _do_
envision local groups interacting with provincial government. Just saying
"no" isn't helpful unless you put an alternative right behind it!
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:56:13 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 14:25
>
> I echo your concerns, and hope the other Propraetors understand the
> long term implications that will result from any such ideas that are
> introduced to soon. I can not help but feel someone steping on my
> toes right now!
Then I must challenge you as well; rather than just telling us what you
don't like, let's hear your ideas! How do _you_ see local groups and
provincial administrations interacting with one another? Enough vague senses
of unease; nothing's going through until it's been gone through thoroughly
here! Give us your ideas, Quintus Sertorius!
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:29:00 -0800 (PST) |
|
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Quintus Sertorius
> [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 14:25
> >
> > I echo your concerns, and hope the other
> Propraetors understand the
> > long term implications that will result from any
> such ideas that are
> > introduced to soon. I can not help but feel
> someone steping on my
> > toes right now!
>
> Then I must challenge you as well; rather than just
> telling us what you
> don't like, let's hear your ideas! How do _you_ see
> local groups and
> provincial administrations interacting with one
> another? Enough vague senses
> of unease; nothing's going through until it's been
> gone through thoroughly
> here! Give us your ideas, Quintus Sertorius!
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
Well said. I understood the intent of your initial
post on this to be a "what do you think"/"how can we
do this?", not a "so let it be written, so let it be
done."
However, I have seen nothing anywhere *directing*
governors to form local groups. 'Seems to me that if
they're not ready, they can form local groups later.
On the other hand, we're moving ahead in Germania.
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] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:27:02 -0800 |
|
Salve Consul Germanicus et Omnes!
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:30 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration
Salvete!
A conceptual question has come up as I and some others were discussing the
possibility of local chapters (which I'm calling Civitae for now). Just what
sort of relationship would (or should) the provincial governors and legati
have with such local chapters? I would think that concerning the scheduling
of events and local recruiting the Civitae would be relatively autonomous,
with the Provincial government perhaps serving in an advisory and
coordinating capacity. Provincial governors would probably be in charge of
issuing the charters for new Civitae, and making sure they adhere to
whatever standards are set (a minimum number of meetings per year, minimum
population, etc.).
<<OFS: Having now been fortunate enough to review the structure
proposed by Procurator Bicurratus, I for one think that this is
an excellent place to start. Bicurratus has expressed his desire
to bandy it about with the provincial governors prior to posting
it in its entirety to the main list. With his gracious permission,
I refer only to it's general overview in my comments here.
(Procurator Bicurratus, please correct me in any misinterpretations
here.)
The proposed structure most importantly solves three of the primary issues
addressed so far:
1-Leaving flexibility for cives to organize at sub-provincial
levels, feel a sense of pride, ownership, accomplishment, etc.
It provides an informal structure in which a growth path is clearly
defined.
2-Ultimate power still rests with the Propraetor in terms of managing
the charters and ultimate organization of said levels.
3-Is squarely modeled on real provincial organizational practices as
utilized in Roma Mater.
I'd recommend any provincial governors not yet familiar with the
contents of Bicurratus' excellent document to do so at your earliest
opportunity.>>
But so far the model leaves the Provincial Governors (and their legati) with
little to do vis-a-vis the Civitae (and indeed leaves the Civitae doing many
of the things-- events and recruiting-- that were originally envisioned as
being done by the Governors and Legati).
OFS: This would be addressed by Bicurratus' proposed provincial structure.
Should there be areas where the
Governor would have authority rather than the Civitas (perhaps in the realm
of finances)? Should the Governor have veto power over the actions of the
Civitas? Should he appoint local magistrates, or vett their appointment, or
would the Civitas be completely self-sufficient in terms of its own internal
administration? All these things were done at various times and in various
types of settlement in Roma Antiqua, so we have a broad spectrum of models
to choose from.
<<OFS: See above. To add my own opinion, I think (as has been stated
before) that ANY structure we have should allow for firm control
of the governor, WITHOUT strangling even the faintest glimmer of
local or 'grass roots' organization. I firmly believe that many cives
and potential cives are attracted to organizations by the sincere
desire to make a difference and to feel a sense of ownership and
to see real results from their efforts. Furthermore, active,
quality cives will want to have a viable structure within which
to advance a path of provincial 'cursus honorum' if you will.
To summarize, I actually support 'both camps' of thought on this
issue if you will. Central control, without strangulation of
true grass-roots efforts. With that said, I'd personally like
to see the formal discussion shift (at least temporarily) toward
Bicurratus' proposal. This is not up to me to post here, but I understand
that this will handled on the Limes list, which he has graciously
offered to cc' me on.
Vale bene,
Oppius>>
Any thoughts?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
eGroups Sponsor
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest Number 1167 DTAssumption of Office |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:42:34 -0500 |
|
Salvete, Quirites
________________________________________________________________________
From: gmvick32@--------
Subject: Re: Denuntio Tribunicia:
Well, somebody, somewhere, ought to be keeping tabs on whether a candidate
is a
valid candidate or not before the polls are opened...
Lucius Equitius: As I stated in an earlier post, to have run for office in
Nova Roma's first election a prospective candidate had to petition the
Censores their intention to run for office so that their status as citizen
could be verified. (at that time there were no age requirements for any
office)
It's not DRACO's fault that the Senate et Censores chose not to ratify his
election. It's not DRACO's fault that his name was allowed to be submitted
to
the people to be voted on. Draco attempted to get senatorial consent....in
the
face of no word from the Senate, he assumed he had the green light...
Lucius Equitius: Well, not exactly :-) The law does state that an underaged
prospective candidate must get an exemption. He didn't have an exemption.
So partly the Senate is to blame, for not giving a response that Draco could
use
to guage.
Lucius Equitius: True the law is not clear on the exact procedure. So let's
not place blame, I'll explain soon.
Who's suppossed to be monitoring such things as who ends up on the ballot?
One
suggestion that comes to mind is.....the Rogators...
Lucius Equitius: I would not think so.
So partly we Rogators are at fault,
Lucius Equitius: Humm, well if you want to take the blame, have it.
seriously though....
Another option for monitoring who ends up on the ballot could be the
Censors.
Lucius Equitius: Since the Consules actually run the election, I see them as
working with the Censores in this process.
This actually makes more sense, inasmuch as the censors are the ones who
have
all the information needed to alert as to any red flags about a candidate...
Only the Censors would know that.
Lucius Equitius: Don't forget that the candidates themselves should have
some responsibility in ensuring that they meet requirements.
So partly the Censors (et Senators) are at fault, for allowing the name to
be
posted on the ballots despite information they had which they knew would
lead to
a weak shot at a favorable Senatus Consultum.
Lucius Equitius: Right, but remember it is the Consules (along with
Praetores), who convene the Senate. They never brought the issue on Sextus
Appolonius forward for our consideration until the end of the year.
As far as I'm concerned, Draco's name shouldn't have made it onto the
ballot.
Lucius Equitius: I completely agree, and if anyone had asked me I would have
said not to place it on the ballot.
But it did, and whoever is responsible for that, it's NOT Draco...
Lucius Equitius: As I stated above, he is responsible for obtaining the
exemption; however, and correct me if I'm wrong, he did want to force the
issue. Sextus Appolonius dixit: "I approached the Senate, but got no further
reply from the Curia, or any sort of advice. And as I was in a nick of time
(voting started
on December 15, I thought?), I advanced and announced my candidacy anyway.
Trying wouldn't hurt."
This is a good case to test the Lex and we have seen that it does need some
more work. However, the
Lex Iunia de MA still establishes the need for those who do not meet the
required ages to obtain an exemption. It my opinion the office of the
Censores should review applications for candidacy and exemptions. (Believe
me I'm not looking for more work, but as has been pointed out Censores are
the custodians of citizen's data.)
Let's refrain from saying...."Sorry kid, you're not getting the office you
were
elected to.....and it's your own fault anyway."
Ouch. That would sting ME and dissuade ME, a thirty-something corporate
type.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Lucius Equitius: In this particular case there is blame enough to go around.
I suppose ONE of the Senatores should have replied to S Appolonius, but who
had the duty that day? or week? Qui culpare?
To my mind since the Censores are in the Senate and they need to collegially
approve an exemption one of them should have taken up the case. However,
since no one gave an exemption the case should have reverted to the Lex and
the prospective candidate should have not been posted on the ballot. (Why
put the name on the ballot if he cannot assume the office?) Qui culpare? I
believe that the Consules call the comita for the elections, don't they post
they ballot? Last of all, Cives, should not each candidate be responsible
for ensuring they meet requirements of the office for which they are
applying? (Of course)
Valete, Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] (Humor) Re: Pats/Plebs and Cassius' Vow |
| From: |
Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Date header was inserted by mta1.rcsntx.swbell.net |
|
Salvete Quirites...
Quoth Cassius Consul:
: I, Marcus Cassius Julianus...will personally work with *anyone*,
: including Marius and Draco, (the two most popular Martyrs to the
: "Establishment")...
LOL!!
Check it out, NovaRomani...I'm *popular!!* >({|:-D
[runs a couple of laps around the yard chanting "We're Number One!
We're Number One!"]
But seriously, folks...I'm doing fine, really I am. My duties as
Legatus of the Lone Star Region are keeping me happy and busy. I
moderate three Roman Lists (none 'official') and own a humble but neat
little Web site; I'll also be contributing to the Nova Roma site, the
Plebeian Page, and maybe even a little something about dogs in Roma
Antiqua over the next several months. Lots of writing and hardly any
politics--that's the way this just-plain-Citizen/Storyteller likes it!
So while some vocal Citizens have been tugging on your heart-strings on
my behalf, I didn't ask them to; I appreciate the thought; but I'm not
sitting here feeling sorry for myself and I really don't need that kind
of help.
On the rebound is...
***********************************************************
Lucius Marius Peregrinus <peregrinus@-------->
Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, |>[SPQR]<|
Historical Re-Creationist |\=/|
and Citizen of Rome ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
"...when are you going to realize ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
that being normal is not a virtue; | | / )\ \| /
rather it denotes a lack of courage." _|_| / _/_| /`(
-- Frances Owens /./..=' /./..'
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Comments from Propraetrix Canada Orientalis |
| From: |
"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:18:53 -0000 |
|
Salvete Consul Germanicus et alii:
A few thoughts, if I may.......
Personally, I have nothing against local or regional NR groups or events
being established in my provincia independent of my initiative as
Propraetrix.
However, I think it is rather important that I be made aware of them.
As a Governor representing Nova Roma, it is my duty to ensure that the
constitution of Nova Roma is followed by civites in NR in my provincia. I
think it is also my duty to act as a resource person, to answer questions
and provide any assistance otherwise. If I am not informed about NR
gatherings and chapters in my provinciae, I can do neither of these.
Allow me to give you a couple of specific examples: A group of NR civites,
maybe (not nec. even members of Cda Orientalis) is planning to hold a
reenactment venue for the first time in Toronto, as an "NR" event. They
have never done this before; as Propraetrix I know the intricacies of
Ontario law, I could help them pick a location, furnish them with NR flyers,
connect them with Reenactors close by, because of my affiliations through
Militarium and Egressus. Other governors, such as Quintus Sertorius and L.
Cornelia Aurelia can boast the same capabilites in their provincia. This I
say, because I am trying to make a point other than blowing my own horn :)!!
And, another thought: Maybe there is already an reenactment event being
planned by a Nova Roma civities group the week after in Scarborough, which
is a suburb of Toronto. If I know what's going on, I might be able to
suggest one group reschedules its event, to avoid a poor turnout.
Here is another, not so pretty example: A group of NR civities hold a
gathering or sets up a chapter in my provincia, which ends up engaging in
unconstitutional, unvirtuous, and perhaps even macronationally illegal
behavior. I know nothing of this: there is no way I can step in and defend
the constitution of Nova Roma or possibly stop macronationally illegal
activity. My ignorance will prevent an email to the Urban Praetor, or a call
to the police. I don't for a minute "expect" this, but we should be open to
the possibility. This is especially important during our pioneer years when
we are trying to establish a good name in macronations.
I think Nova Roma would indeed shortchange itself if it did not take
advantage of the Imperium it bestows upon its Provincial Governors for
reasons stated above, and likely others.
Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strab0
Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
Nova Roma
I
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:50:28 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve Consul
I said I would be constructive with this, so I will be. These are my
ideas. It is very hard for a Propaetor to retinue control of these
groups if they are set up along the lines that have been discussed on
this list so far. I feel that the creation of these groups should
part of a general recruitment campaign set up by the State along
proper deconstructionist lines, and implemented and administered by
the Propaetors. The most important part of this plan would be to
actually go out proactively and find the areas where we will find
people how are interested in forming. Two areas come to mind; 1,
existing citizens, and 2, tap into already formed groups such as SCA
and the startrek people ect. ect. The Propraetors, with help from the
State, must be ready to offer as much help as is possible for these
groups to sprout into existence. These groups should be firmly under
the care of the Provincial Propaetor, who will act as a conduit for
the group to the institutions for both in the non Nova Roma and Nova
Roma world. The actual structure of the groups must still be decided,
but what I would like to see is along the lines explained in my
Provicnia plan, with leaders of these groups to be called a
Perfectus' and working closely with the Legates of their Regios. The
organizational structure in the Provincia must be of the line form,
with limited lateral freedom. This will ensure a strong Provincal
presence, with no renegade Groups deciding they do not want to work
for the Provincia. These are only some of the ideas that may be of
value to this discussion, I hope. I still feel this idea is very
ahead of it's time, and if implemented will have very limited
success, and will be more successful if the Propaetors are made
responsible for their administration.
Vale
QS
From: Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <germa--------s@-------->
Date: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:56pm
Subject: RE: Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 14:25
>
> I echo your concerns, and hope the other Propraetors understand the
> long term implications that will result from any such ideas that are
> introduced to soon. I can not help but feel someone steping on my
> toes right now!
Then I must challenge you as well; rather than just telling us what
you
don't like, let's hear your ideas! How do _you_ see local groups and
provincial administrations interacting with one another? Enough vague
senses
of unease; nothing's going through until it's been gone through
thoroughly
here! Give us your ideas, Quintus Sertorius!
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germa--------s@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Comments from Propraetrix Canada Orientalis |
| From: |
Steve Perpich <perpichs@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:58:26 -0500 |
|
I have a question regarding Pompeia Cornelia Strabo statement:
"Here is another, not so pretty example: A group of NR civities hold a
gathering or sets up a chapter in my provincia, which ends up engaging in
unconstitutional, unvirtuous, and perhaps even macronationally illegal
behavior. I know nothing of this: there is no way I can step in and defend
the constitution of Nova Roma or possibly stop macronationally illegal
activity. My ignorance will prevent an email to the Urban Praetor, or a call
to the police. I don't for a minute "expect" this, but we should be open to
the possibility. This is especially important during our pioneer years when
we are trying to establish a good name in macronations."
The question is:
Legally and/or practically - what recourse does Nova Roma have with regard
to activities done in the name of (or close facsimile of the name) Nova Roma
in areas outside of the U.S. state of New Hampshire (where it seems to be an
encorporated entity). Is Nova Roma federally incorporated in the U.S.? In
Canada? In Germany? In Australia? And if Nova Roma DOES have legal rights
to enforce policy in those nations/states does it then assume
responsibilities for actions that take place in the name of Nova Roma by its
citizens? That should have the Senate quaking in fear.
Perhaps the legal ramifications of local groups should be explored with all
its attendant charters, contracts and disclaimers produced through
litigation before Nova Roma puts anything more in public writing. To date
things have been wonderfully abstract - but now we are beginning to talk
about real meetings, places and events that can be construed as assumption
of liability by unscrupulous lawyers if the conversation threads are
followed in a devious manner...
Gaius Marius Lepidus
Citizen
-----Original Message-----
From: Pompeia Cornelia [mailto:scriba_forum@--------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:19 PM
To: NovaRoma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Comments from Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
Salvete Consul Germanicus et alii:
A few thoughts, if I may.......
Personally, I have nothing against local or regional NR groups or events
being established in my provincia independent of my initiative as
Propraetrix.
However, I think it is rather important that I be made aware of them.
As a Governor representing Nova Roma, it is my duty to ensure that the
constitution of Nova Roma is followed by civites in NR in my provincia. I
think it is also my duty to act as a resource person, to answer questions
and provide any assistance otherwise. If I am not informed about NR
gatherings and chapters in my provinciae, I can do neither of these.
Allow me to give you a couple of specific examples: A group of NR civites,
maybe (not nec. even members of Cda Orientalis) is planning to hold a
reenactment venue for the first time in Toronto, as an "NR" event. They
have never done this before; as Propraetrix I know the intricacies of
Ontario law, I could help them pick a location, furnish them with NR flyers,
connect them with Reenactors close by, because of my affiliations through
Militarium and Egressus. Other governors, such as Quintus Sertorius and L.
Cornelia Aurelia can boast the same capabilites in their provincia. This I
say, because I am trying to make a point other than blowing my own horn :)!!
And, another thought: Maybe there is already an reenactment event being
planned by a Nova Roma civities group the week after in Scarborough, which
is a suburb of Toronto. If I know what's going on, I might be able to
suggest one group reschedules its event, to avoid a poor turnout.
Here is another, not so pretty example: A group of NR civities hold a
gathering or sets up a chapter in my provincia, which ends up engaging in
unconstitutional, unvirtuous, and perhaps even macronationally illegal
behavior. I know nothing of this: there is no way I can step in and defend
the constitution of Nova Roma or possibly stop macronationally illegal
activity. My ignorance will prevent an email to the Urban Praetor, or a call
to the police. I don't for a minute "expect" this, but we should be open to
the possibility. This is especially important during our pioneer years when
we are trying to establish a good name in macronations.
I think Nova Roma would indeed shortchange itself if it did not take
advantage of the Imperium it bestows upon its Provincial Governors for
reasons stated above, and likely others.
Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strab0
Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
Nova Roma
I
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws |
| From: |
Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:11:50 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
The macronational laws aspect of this issue raises fascinating conflicts of
laws questions, since NR is an international entity and e.g. the UK has
abolished the contractual disabilities of minors (persons under 18) though
18 is the legal age of majority at which one can vote, etc. (To be a Member
of the UK Parliament you have to be 21). I guess the US rules vary from
state to state; which rules should apply?
More generally, the question has been posed why we have an exemption
procedure at all, because this defines when we should give exemptions. It
seems to me that the reason we have an exemption procedure is that Nova
Roma is a new organisation and is likely therefore to have a relatively
young membership, so that there may be difficulties in getting qualified
candidates - hence the problems in America BoreOccidentalis referred to.
The argument that X is very bright, mature, etc., seems to me to be a lousy
reason for either having an exemption procedure, or granting an exemption
in an individual case. (A) It sounds like "X is a young fogey" and on the
other hand it invites people who don't like X's views to accuse X of
immaturity (as happened in the instant case) Such arguments are on both
sides unedifying. (B) However young-fogeyish X may be, X still won't have
the experience of an older candidate.
On the contrary, the best reason for granting an exemption is that there
are no or insufficient qualified candidates. Having someone "too young"
doing the job is better than having no-one doing it at all. (I cannot
refrain form commenting that this is a good reason for objecting to the
refusal of an exemption in the particular case of Draco).
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:44:45 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve LTC
I come from the ranks, and it is known impatient officers get men
killed.
Vale
QS
--- In novaroma@--------, Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@y...> wrote:
> --- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> <germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete;
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Quintus Sertorius
> > [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 14:25
> > >
> > > I echo your concerns, and hope the other
> > Propraetors understand the
> > > long term implications that will result from any
> > such ideas that are
> > > introduced to soon. I can not help but feel
> > someone steping on my
> > > toes right now!
> >
> > Then I must challenge you as well; rather than just
> > telling us what you
> > don't like, let's hear your ideas! How do _you_ see
> > local groups and
> > provincial administrations interacting with one
> > another? Enough vague senses
> > of unease; nothing's going through until it's been
> > gone through thoroughly
> > here! Give us your ideas, Quintus Sertorius!
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Consul
>
> Well said. I understood the intent of your initial
> post on this to be a "what do you think"/"how can we
> do this?", not a "so let it be written, so let it be
> done."
>
> However, I have seen nothing anywhere *directing*
> governors to form local groups. 'Seems to me that if
> they're not ready, they can form local groups later.
> On the other hand, we're moving ahead in Germania.
>
> 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: Tied votes |
| From: |
Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:19:39 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
Livia wrote
>If this was ever an actual practice, I'd like citations on it.<
Lily Ross Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies (Michigan: Ann Arbor pbk, 1990)
70-71 (Comitia Tributa) 91-2 (Comitia Centuriata)
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
