Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Return to action
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:35:31 -0600

Welcome back Gaius Sentius -great to have you back!

-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Stevenson [mailto:dougies@--------]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:05 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Return to action


Ave all,

I'm back again! I've just received a fairly clean bill of health (even
though that bill was extremely large:-) ), and have been told that I
will now be able to go on with my duties as per normal, though it may
take a while for me to catch up on things as they occur, as well as the
backlog of e-mails Lucius Sentius wouldn't read to me.

Anyway, it's great to be back!

Valete bene all,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura


eGroups Sponsor

Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Of Power and People
From:	"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:49:10 -0000

Quiritibus Salutem

Scripsit Censor Sulla:

> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:38:22 -0800
>From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
>Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis and the People and AD
>
>Yes. But as signatories of the amici dignitas you have chosen to abide
>by their statement. Which states that the "People" are sovereign correct?
In
>particular article 1 of the amici dignitas statement that states,
> "1) that the sovereignty of our Res publica rests solely with the
>People who form it;"
>
>You cant have it both ways either you as signatories of the amici
>dignitas abide by your statement or you show that your statement of the
Amici dignities is
>just in essence a political ploy.
>
>I am just going by what was stated on the amici dignitas statement. A
>statement which both Tribunes of the Plebs subscribe too? Either it is a
document
>you live up too or a document proven to be a political bluff. Either you
want
>the People to vote on the laws or you want a part of the People to vote on
laws
>binding on all citizens of Nova Roma. I did not write the amici dignitas.
Nor am I a
>member of it. But you are a signatorie of it?
>
>The letter and spirit of the law is not what I am specifically
>questioning. It is the integrity and validity of the amici dignitas. An
organization you
>and your colleague have subscribed too. And something that you seem, very
>non-chalant in disregarding when it seems inconvenient as in the case with
this
>summoning of the Comitia Plebis.
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Respondeo: it is well known that Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is a
citizen of the respublica. It therefore follows that he is one of the people
(id est, he is a person). He is therefore a component part of the sovereign
power of the state, which ultimately consists of individual people.

It is also fairly well known to anyone who has been here any length of time
that Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is a most active citizen who is
keen to get on any list he can and thereby to bring his disinterested and
benign influence to bear on the deliberations of any assembly which uses
such lists, as he can (some wicked oligarchs even wanted to exile him for
this, once).
His natural modesty often inhibits him from letting
people know this, and he may even be so self-effacing as to disagree with
this
public encomium of mine. That's the kind of public-spirited citizen he is.

Now it is a shame and a tragedy that such a noble man, a wholly
disinterested slave of public duty, should be prevented from benefitting all
of us in this way by an archaic, unjust and oligarchical law which makes him
a patrician and thereby unable to vote in the comitia plebis, even though
(as was not the case in ancient Rome) he is allowed to debate in the
Plebeian assembly (I am sure we shall all be very grateful for that).

The remedy, however, is in his hands. Let the good Censor courageously
emulate the brothers Gracchi and renounce his patrician status, and the
measly 5 voting points that go with it. Unfair though it may be, he cannot
shoulder the burdens of civic responsibility belonging to the plebs as well
as all the other burdens of office and rank he carries. He cannot have it
both ways, even though Nova Roma would undoubtedly be a happier respublica
if he (and anyone else like him, if such a possibility were conceivable)
were allowed to do whatever he wanted for the good of all. Think of the
great things Sulla could accomplish on behalf of the people if he wielded
multiple Senatorial proxy votes in the Comitia Plebis!

For all the people have power, but some wield more power than others. For
everyone else's good, of course.

Censor Sulla, the Amici Dignitatis advocate the ultimate sovereignty of the
people (because we're in res which are publica), but not of all of the
people all of the time. We never advocated the kind of un-Roman socialist
egalitarianism you daringly propose. Making all the Patricians de facto
plebeians! I suppose the Amici Dignitatis just aren't radical enough for
you.

Avete

Nicolaus Moravius Vado
Signatory to the Amici Dignitatis.

Subject:	[novaroma] P L-M de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:33:55 -0600

Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus Quiritibus SPD

My apologies for being so late in posting the text of this plebiscitum.
I was unavoidably detained.

The following plebiscitum is hereby placed before the Comitia Plebis
Tributa for consideration on a pass/fail basis.
_______________________
Plebiscitum Labiena-Moravia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum

I. Purpose
Under the authority of the Constitution of Nova Roma, Sections III.C,
this plebiscitum defines the procedures for conducting votes upon
plebiscita and magistracies in the Comitia Plebis Tributa delineated in
Sections III.C.1 and 2. It does not cover the procedures involved in
criminal or civil trials (III.C.3).

II. Clarifications
A. This plebiscitum shall replace Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum
Plebis Tributorum, with the exception of paragraph VI, which is quoted
below.

"VI. Leges satura, which are laws which deal with more than one topic,
may not be enacted by the comitia plebis tributa. Laws dealing with
different aspects of the same topic shall not fall into this category."

B. This plebiscitum shall replace Lex Vedia de Ratione Eligium as it
applies to the Comitia Plebis Tributa, with the exception of paragraphs
I and II, which shall continue to apply. These two paragraphs are
quoted below.

1. "I. The censors shall issue to each citizen a unique voter
identification code. This code shall be used to maintain anonymity in
the voting process, and to minimize the possibility of vote fraud. In a
timely fashion prior to a vote, the censors shall make available to the
rogatores a list of valid voter identification codes and the centuries
and/or tribes with which they are associated. The rogatores shall not
have access to the names of the citizens associated with particular
voter identification codes."

2. "II. In consultation with the rogatores, the curator araneum shall
make available a cista; a secure web-based form to allow citizens to
vote directly through the official Nova Roma web site. This form shall
record the voter identification number and desired vote(s) of the
individual, and no other information. The information thus collected
will either be forwarded to the rogatores as it is gathered, or at the
end of the process, at their discretion. This shall constitute the
primary means by which citizens will vote, although alternative methods
may be enacted by other legislation as required."

C. For the purpose of this plebiscitum, "public forum" shall mean the
major venue for public business in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. This
definition is not exclusive, and tribuni plebis are free to include
other venues in which to publicize the actions that fall under the
purview of this plebiscitum.

III. Procedures
The procedure for calling the Comitia Plebis Tributa together for a vote
that does not involve a civil or criminal trial shall be as follows:

A. Preliminary Declaration
In the case of an election of plebeian magistrates or other elected
plebeian officials, a tribunus plebis shall, in a public forum, call for
all cives who wish to stand for election to declare such intent directly
to him or her. This decree shall include the following information:
1. The positions requiring candidates
2. The deadline for declaring one's candidacy, not to be less than nine
full days from the issuance of the Preliminary Declaration
3. The method by which candidates shall contact the tribunus plebis who
issued the decree

B. Preparation for the Vote
1. The tribunus plebis who wishes to convene the Comitia Plebis Tributa
and the censores shall work together to ensure that any potential
candidates meet all necessary qualifications for standing for office
under the various leges, plebiscita, edicta, and other legal documents
of Nova Roma. The tribunus plebis shall be responsible for taking all
reasonable steps to ensure that no ineligible candidate appears upon the
ballot.

2. The tribunus plebis who wishes to convene the Comitia Plebis Tributa
shall contact the rogatores and curator araneae, stating his or her
intention to convene said comitia and providing at least nine full days
for these magistrates to make any necessary preparations. This
preparatory period may coincide with the period for candidates to
declare themselves to the tribunus plebis mentioned in section III.A of
this plebiscitum.

C. Primary Declaration
After the end of the deadline set forth in the Preliminary Declaration,
if such a declaration is necessary, and after performing all necessary
preparations for the vote, the tribunus plebis who wishes to convene the
Comitia Plebis Tributa shall, in a public forum, issue a decree that
shall include the following information:
1. All vacant positions, if any, and the candidates running for those
positions
2. The entire text of all plebiscita to be voted upon - since this is
likely to create a very long message, the tribunus plebis is authorized
to split the announcement into reasonable pieces and post them
separately, as long as they are all published to the same public forum
and as long as they are all published at roughly the same time.
3. The date upon which voting is to begin, not to be less than nine
full days from the issuance of the Primary Declaration
4. Instructions upon how to cast one's vote
5. The date at which voting is to end, not to be less than nine full
days from the date upon which voting begins

D. Debate
Debate among the cives over the subjects presented in the Primary
Declaration may begin as soon as that declaration is posted, and may
last for however long the cives care to debate. However, an ongoing
debate shall not postpone the voting period, nor shall it have any
affect upon the vote once the cista has officially closed.

E. Voting
1. A vote, once cast, may not be changed for any reason. Every
reasonable effort shall be made to ensure the continuing privacy of the
cista and the secrecy of every civis' vote both during the voting period
and afterward.

2. Each civis may cast one, and only one, vote for each magistracy (as
opposed to each open position within a magistracy) and/or plebiscitum on
the ballot. For example, let us consider a vote in which the cives must
choose a new pair of aediles plebis. There are two open positions for
aedile plebis, but each plebeian civis may cast no more than one vote,
as only one magistracy is being voted upon.

F. Tallying the Vote
1. The rogatores shall have forty-eight hours in which to tally the
vote and report the results.

2. In the case of votes cast for candidates, each tribe shall have a
number of votes, called 'tribal votes' in this document for clarity's
sake, equal to the number of open positions within each magistracy. The
rogatores shall assign one tribal vote from each tribe to each of the
candidates who received the most votes from that tribe sequentially
until the tribe has run out of tribal votes or votes cast by voters. In
no case shall a candidate receive more than one tribal vote from any
tribe.

3. Ties between candidates shall be resolved at random through a method
agreed upon by all rogatores to be both fair and impartial.

a. Example 1: Caesar, Crassus, and Pompeius are standing for aedilis
plebis. There are two open positions. The cives of tribe 1 cast 2
votes for Caesar, 1 vote for Crassus, and no votes for Pompeius. Tribe
1 therefore casts one tribal vote for Caesar and one tribal vote for
Crassus.

b. Example 2: Caesar, Crassus, and Pompeius are standing for aedilis
plebis. There are two open positions. The cives of tribe 2 cast 3
votes for Pompeius, and none for either Caesar or Crassus. Tribe 2
therefore casts one tribal vote for Pompeius.

c. Example 3: Caesar, Crassus, and Pompeius are standing for aedilis
plebis. There are two open positions. The cives of tribe 3 cast 1 vote
for Caesar, 2 votes for Crassus, and 1 vote for Pompeius. Tribe 2
therefore casts one tribal vote for Crassus. Its second tribal vote
will be randomly assigned to either Caesar or Pompeius by the rogatores.

G. Reporting the Results
The results shall be reported by the rogatores to each and every
tribunus plebis. Only the aggregate votes of the tribes shall be
delivered, and the votes of individual cives shall remain secret. The
tribunus plebis who convened the Comitia Plebis Tributa shall have
twenty-four hours from the time at which he or she receives the results
in which to report them to the populace. This report shall be made in a
public forum.

End of Plebiscitum

Valete

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:17:15 -0500

Some comments ad locc.:

At 06:00 PM 18/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> the following plebiscitum is made as a reaffirmation of
> the Lex Canuleia, 308
>AUC.
>
> 1) No provisions shall be included in any leges, plebiscita, edicta,
>decreta, rescripta, or responsa to be issued by any magistrate or
>official of Nova Roma, or put before a comitia for a vote, which shall be
>held to prohibit conuptia among Plebeians, among Patricians, or between
>Patricians and Plebeians; nor shall provisions likewise prohibit,
>nullify, or disallow a confarreatio between a patrician and a plebeian.

I think a better word would be conubium (which is capacity to enter into a
legally-recognized marriage; you can have a 'marriage' without conubium,
but it wouldn't be legal), which is what the lex Canuleia most likely dealt
with (Roman marriage laws were written in terms of conubium ...)

> 2) No pater or mater familias shall have the authority to prohibit
>conuptia of gens members, nor may they coerce by any means any member of
>their respective gentes into conuptia.

There are precedents for this in Justinian's code ... I can track them down
if you like.



> 3.a) The individuals who enter into conuptia with one another are
>solely authorized for detailing the arrangements of their relationship.
>They may enter into any and all gentes that will accept them, or remain
>in their respective gentes, or they may form their own gens without
>interference or inhibiting effect allowed to be made by any magistrate.
>A new gens thus created out of a conuptia shall be entered by the Censors
>into the Album Gentes, subject only to Sectiom II.D.2.
> 3.b) Each individual citizen may belong to only one
> gens. Individuals
>joined in a conuptia are not required to change their gens affiliation,
>and thus members to a conuptia agreement may belong to different gentes.

... we might want to simply state that all marriages will be considered
sine manu ...


> 4) Children born to parents of differing orders may be placed in the
>gens of either parent, provided the pater or mater familias of the
>designated gens approves. Otherwise the children shall be considered to
>belong to the gens and the order of the natural mother.

... we're wandering quite a bit from Roman tradition here ...

mpj

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:12:00 -0500

I think this one needs some definitions and or clarifications in regards
especially to:
> 1) No magistrate, major or minor, ordinarii or extraordinarii, shall
>interrupt, interfer, or otherwise inhibit the assembly and/or voting
>procedures of the Comitia Plebis Tributa either directly or through the
>use of agentes provocatores. Nor shall any magistrate, major or minor,
>ordinarii or extraordinarii, attempt to recruit agentes provocatores or
>encourage other magistrates, major or minor, ordinarii or extraordinarii,
>to act in a manner intended to disrupt or otherwise interfer with the
>legal assembly and/or voting procedures of the Comitia Tributa Plebis.

How can we identify these a.p. types?

mpj

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Greetings!
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:18:26 EST

Salve Lentulus,


I, understand, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.


Vale,
Aeternia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Greetings!
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:35:24 EST

We got bumped off. As I mentioned, I was communicating with the Pater, Gens
Cornelia, Californicus. Is that the proper Latin wording, spelling, for this,
my native province. Oh, but I do need to bone up on my Latin!

Lentulus Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER TEN
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:38:48 -0600

CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER TEN

APPOINTMENT OF SCRIBAE FOR CANADA OCCIDENTALIS

18 Jan 2000

Salve

I, Quintus Sertorius Praetor Canada Occidentalis, issue the following Edicta
to announce the appointment of Tertia Albia Caesia as Scribae for Canada Occidentalis.

Vale

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

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Powers of the Tribunes
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:06:48 -0500

Ave omnes,

The Gens Sicinia is to be commended for its avid interest in affairs of
state, and for its sense of history and tradition. One must question,
however, why this admirable civic-mindedness does not extend to all members
of Nova Roma equally and in kind. Why so stringent a focus on separatist
politics? Why not magnanimity rather than incitement to disaffection? The
Gens Sicinia lauds recent efforts on the part of a select few to "protect the
Powers of the Tribunes of the Plebes." Had it been usurped? If memory
serves our Constitution has not surreptitiously been changed in regard to the
Tribunes of the Plebes.

Drusus concurs "that it would be fair to have all the people vote on laws",
that in all "fairness laws should be brought before the People rather than
the Plebes." Kudos! Drusus advances the argument, however, that sadly this
is not possible as the Tribunes of the Plebes cannot call a convocation of
the Comitia Populi Tributa. Yet, whose interests are served by vesting
increased power in the Tribunes by taking away the power of the Res Publica,
specifically anyone who is not Plebeian?

In Roma Antiqua, the Comitia Tributa was a meeting of ALL Cives -- Patrician,
Equites, Plebeian. The assemblies met only to vote, NOT to discuss or
initiate action. Legislation was initiated by a magistrate and discussed by
the Senate, and was taken to one of the assemblies (the Curiata and
Centuriata being the other two Comitiae for all Cives during the Republic;
the Concilium Plebis was for plebeians only). Cui bono -- to whose profit --
is it to break with tradition and abandon our Romanitas?

One must admire Drusus' agility in jumping from the admiration of Roma
Antiqua and the accomplishments of his Gen's ancestors and his ability to
call for the establishment of new precedents, indeed, amendments to the
Constitution citing that "the day could come when we have Consuls and
Praetors with less integrity . . ." than we do at present in NR. Should his
proposals become manifest, we may see this day sooner than later.

The agile Drusus jumps again to cite the social structure of Roma Antiqua,
and describes the manner in which " . . . the Ordo Patricius has been
handled. . . " as a "problem". When I applied for Citizenship I had the choice of joining either
a Patrician or a Plebeian Gens; I made my decision after considering NR's
Constitution -- a document which, hopefully, all Cives have read. The
Constitution has not been amended in this regard. Why would an individual
apply for Citizenship as either a Patrician or Plebeian and then seek to
change the laws by which NR is governed to suit their own agendas and aims? Certainly it can't be the best interests of the Res Publica, in this case, because a large portion of the People would be excluded were these changes to be made.

The Gens Cornelia takes special interest in the powers of the RES PUBLICA,
the welfare of her PEOPLE and that which best serves NOVA ROMA. It is quite
alien to me why a Gens, Statespeople or Quirites would conduct themselves in any other way.

Salvete,

Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata



novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> The Gens Sicinia takes special intrest in the powers of the Tribunes
> of the Plebes. It was L. Sicinius Velutrus who led the secessio of the
> Plebes that led to the establishment of the office of Tribune of the
> Plebes. It was Lucius Sicinius who started the campaign to restore the
> powers that the Dictator Sulla striped from the Tribunes. The Gens
> Sicinia applauds the tribunes for thier efforts to protect the Powers
> of the Tribunes of the Plebes.
>
> Some have argued that in the intrest of fairness laws should be bought
> before the People rather than the Plebes. I concur that it would be
> fair to have all the people vote on laws, however the Tribunes of the
> Plebes lack the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to meet. They
> are limited to working with the Comita Plebis Tributa. If we accept
> the view that all laws should be passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa,
> then we have greatly weakened the powers of the Tribunes. They would
> be limited to going hat in hand begging for the Comitia Populi to be
> called on, rather than summoning the the Comitia Plebis. While I have
> no doubt that our present Consuls and Praetors would not hesitate to
> honor such a request from the Tribunes, the day could come when we
> have Consuls and Praetors with less intregity, who might refuse the
> request. It's better to firmly establish the precedents now. If the
> Patricians wish to vote on laws the Tribunes want enacted, Then I
> sugest that rather than making sugestions that have the effect of
> limiting the powers of the Tribunes, they use thier influance in the
> Comitia Centuria and the Senate to amend the Constitution so that the
> Tribunes would have the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to
> meet.
>
> Part of the problem here is how the Ordo Patricius has been handled in
> Nova Roma. The Patricians form a far greater percentage of the
> population in Nova Roma than they ever did in Roma Antiquita. In the
> old Republic Patricians were a tiny minority, and barring them from
> the Comitia Plebis didn't result in a major portion of the population
> being barred from voting on leges. The few additional votes the
> patricians would have been able to cast would have rarely made a
> difference in the outcome of a vote. During most of the history of
> Respublica Roma there were only two ways to become a Patrician. To be
> born a Patrician, or to adopted as the son of a Patrician. New
> Citizens NEVER were accepted into the Ordo Patricius. For example if a
> member of the Patrician Gens Cornelia freed a slave, this freeman
> would become a citizen, and a client of his former master. He would be
> a member of his Patron's Gens, but despite the fact that he was a
> member of Gens Cornelia, he WOULDN"T be a patrician. He would be a
> Plebian member of the Gens. The same applies to a freeman who became a
> citizen through the actions of a member of a Patrician Gens. By
> allowing new citizens to become members of the Ordo Patricius Nova
> Roma has created a population with a far higher percentage of
> Patricians than Historical Rome ever had.
>
> I would also like to commit on the 5 extra points that seems to
> concern so many Plebians. When I decided to apply for citizenship I
> looked at those points and compared to being ineligible to vote in one
> of the comitia, and being unable to vote for or run for the Tribune.
> Those 5 points are nothing compared to the penalities that patricians
> operate under. There is a far worse problem with the Comitia Centuria
> than those 5 points. It's the points for time as a citizen. I have no
> problem with active citizens recieving these points, however I'm sure
> that there are some people who became citizens during the early days
> of Nova Roma, and are no longer taking part in Nova Roma. 3 years mean
> 30 points while 2 years mean 20 points. These citizens who no longer
> take an active role in Nova Roma will wind up being in the first or
> second classes, forcing newer citizens who are active into the lower
> classes. According to Livy one of the Centuries was for the head
> count. If we applied the same princeples to the Centuries as we do to
> the tribes, we could assign all citizens who fail to vote to the Capti
> Censi as well as to the Urban tribes. This would't have any effect on
> thier points, and they could regain thier place in the classes by
> voting this December. It would open up places in the higher classes
> for those who are active though.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>

--
Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/


--
Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Paging Nicolaus Moravius Vado
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:41:37 +1030

Ave Vado,

Just wondering if you had checked your Hotmail account recently, as I have sent some
things to you that need to be looked at, and I can't contact you at your
gens_moravia address.

Vale,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Of Power and People
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:48 -0500

Salve;

The esteemed Vado would have us believe that "the Amici Dignitatis advocate
the ultimate sovereignty of the people"; however, "not of all of the people
all of the time".

Can one serve two masters and be faithful to both?

Vale,

Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata


novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> Quiritibus Salutem
>
> Scripsit Censor Sulla:
>
> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:38:22 -0800
> >From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
> >Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis and the People and AD
> >
> >Yes. But as signatories of the amici dignitas you have chosen to abide
> >by their statement. Which states that the "People" are sovereign correct?
> In
> >particular article 1 of the amici dignitas statement that states,
> > "1) that the sovereignty of our Res publica rests solely with the
> >People who form it;"
> >
> >You cant have it both ways either you as signatories of the amici
> >dignitas abide by your statement or you show that your statement of the
> Amici dignities is
> >just in essence a political ploy.
> >
> >I am just going by what was stated on the amici dignitas statement. A
> >statement which both Tribunes of the Plebs subscribe too? Either it is a
> document
> >you live up too or a document proven to be a political bluff. Either you
> want
> >the People to vote on the laws or you want a part of the People to vote on
> laws
> >binding on all citizens of Nova Roma. I did not write the amici dignitas.
> Nor am I a
> >member of it. But you are a signatorie of it?
> >
> >The letter and spirit of the law is not what I am specifically
> >questioning. It is the integrity and validity of the amici dignitas. An
> organization you
> >and your colleague have subscribed too. And something that you seem, very
> >non-chalant in disregarding when it seems inconvenient as in the case with
> this
> >summoning of the Comitia Plebis.
> >
> >Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Respondeo: it is well known that Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is a
> citizen of the respublica. It therefore follows that he is one of the people
> (id est, he is a person). He is therefore a component part of the sovereign
> power of the state, which ultimately consists of individual people.
>
> It is also fairly well known to anyone who has been here any length of time
> that Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is a most active citizen who is
> keen to get on any list he can and thereby to bring his disinterested and
> benign influence to bear on the deliberations of any assembly which uses
> such lists, as he can (some wicked oligarchs even wanted to exile him for
> this, once).
> His natural modesty often inhibits him from letting
> people know this, and he may even be so self-effacing as to disagree with
> this
> public encomium of mine. That's the kind of public-spirited citizen he is.
>
> Now it is a shame and a tragedy that such a noble man, a wholly
> disinterested slave of public duty, should be prevented from benefitting all
> of us in this way by an archaic, unjust and oligarchical law which makes him
> a patrician and thereby unable to vote in the comitia plebis, even though
> (as was not the case in ancient Rome) he is allowed to debate in the
> Plebeian assembly (I am sure we shall all be very grateful for that).
>
> The remedy, however, is in his hands. Let the good Censor courageously
> emulate the brothers Gracchi and renounce his patrician status, and the
> measly 5 voting points that go with it. Unfair though it may be, he cannot
> shoulder the burdens of civic responsibility belonging to the plebs as well
> as all the other burdens of office and rank he carries. He cannot have it
> both ways, even though Nova Roma would undoubtedly be a happier respublica
> if he (and anyone else like him, if such a possibility were conceivable)
> were allowed to do whatever he wanted for the good of all. Think of the
> great things Sulla could accomplish on behalf of the people if he wielded
> multiple Senatorial proxy votes in the Comitia Plebis!
>
> For all the people have power, but some wield more power than others. For
> everyone else's good, of course.
>
> Censor Sulla, the Amici Dignitatis advocate the ultimate sovereignty of the
> people (because we're in res which are publica), but not of all of the
> people all of the time. We never advocated the kind of un-Roman socialist
> egalitarianism you daringly propose. Making all the Patricians de facto
> plebeians! I suppose the Amici Dignitatis just aren't radical enough for
> you.
>
> Avete
>
> Nicolaus Moravius Vado
> Signatory to the Amici Dignitatis.
>
>
>
--
Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/

--
Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Powers of the Tribunes
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:34:05 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, LucillaCornelia@n... wrote:
> Ave omnes,
>
> The Gens Sicinia is to be commended for its avid interest in
affairs
of
> state, and for its sense of history and tradition. One must
question,
> however, why this admirable civic-mindedness does not extend to all
members
> of Nova Roma equally and in kind. Why so stringent a focus on
separatist
> politics? Why not magnanimity rather than incitement to
disaffection? The
> Gens Sicinia lauds recent efforts on the part of a select few to
"protect the
> Powers of the Tribunes of the Plebes." Had it been usurped? If
memory
> serves our Constitution has not surreptitiously been changed in
regard to the
> Tribunes of the Plebes.
>
> Drusus concurs "that it would be fair to have all the people vote
on
laws",
> that in all "fairness laws should be brought before the People
rather than
> the Plebes." Kudos! Drusus advances the argument, however, that
sadly this
> is not possible as the Tribunes of the Plebes cannot call a
convocation of
> the Comitia Populi Tributa. Yet, whose interests are served by
vesting
> increased power in the Tribunes by taking away the power of the Res
Publica,
> specifically anyone who is not Plebeian?
>
> In Roma Antiqua, the Comitia Tributa was a meeting of ALL Cives --
Patrician,
> Equites, Plebeian. The assemblies met only to vote, NOT to discuss
or
> initiate action. Legislation was initiated by a magistrate and
discussed by
> the Senate, and was taken to one of the assemblies (the Curiata and
> Centuriata being the other two Comitiae for all Cives during the
Republic;
> the Concilium Plebis was for plebeians only). Cui bono -- to whose
profit --
> is it to break with tradition and abandon our Romanitas?
>
> One must admire Drusus' agility in jumping from the admiration of
Roma
> Antiqua and the accomplishments of his Gen's ancestors and his
ability to
> call for the establishment of new precedents, indeed, amendments to
the
> Constitution citing that "the day could come when we have Consuls
and
> Praetors with less integrity . . ." than we do at present in NR.
Should his
> proposals become manifest, we may see this day sooner than later.
>
> The agile Drusus jumps again to cite the social structure of Roma
Antiqua,
> and describes the manner in which " . . . the Ordo Patricius has
been
> handled. . . " as a "problem". When I applied for Citizenship I
had
the choice of joining either
> a Patrician or a Plebeian Gens; I made my decision after
considering
NR's
> Constitution -- a document which, hopefully, all Cives have read.
The
> Constitution has not been amended in this regard. Why would an
individual
> apply for Citizenship as either a Patrician or Plebeian and then
seek to
> change the laws by which NR is governed to suit their own agendas
and aims? Certainly it can't be the best interests of the Res
Publica, in this case, because a large portion of the People would be
excluded were these changes to be made.
>
> The Gens Cornelia takes special interest in the powers of the RES
PUBLICA,
> the welfare of her PEOPLE and that which best serves NOVA ROMA. It
is quite
> alien to me why a Gens, Statespeople or Quirites would conduct
themselves in any other way.
>
> Salvete,
>
> Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata

Pax, Lucilla Prima Cornelia,

The Tribunes of the Plebes are an important tradition of Roma
Antiquita, and stood as the guardian's of the rights of the Plebes at
a time when the Patricians held vast powers.

In those days the Patricians were a tiny minority, less than 1
percent of the population. Barring this very powerful but tiny
minority from the Comitia Plebis was nessacary at that time. In Nova
Roma the Ordo Patricius is handled differntly. My point about the
"problem" is Patricians number far more than 1% of the people in Nova
Roma, and the way the Ordo chooses to be far more inclusive than it
was has created a problem that a very large percentage of the
population has been disenfranchised in one of the Comitia, and the
old
excuse of the vast powers of the Patricians no longer stands.

By following the ancient form of the Roman Republic we have
reintroduced the struggle between the orders into our new republic.
The Patricians no longer have thier ancient powers and that has given
us Plebians the upper hand through our exclusive right to vote in one
of the Comitia, and to name the Tribunes. I can fully understand the
Patricians viewpoint that this is unaceptable.

In the spirit of fairness we have extended the right to vote and to
take part in the affairs of Nova Roma to Women. In this same spirit
we based class assignment on a citizen's participation in public
affairs rather than thier wealth. I think it's time to apply this
spirit to the relationship between the orders BEFORE it destroys the
modern repblic, just as the battle between the orders destroyed the
ancient republic.

One soulation would be to weaken the Tribunes. I find this
unaceptable. I prefer to strengthen them by giving them the power to
call the Comitia Populi Tributa. Merging the two tribal Comitia would
give the Patricians a voice in the affairs of the Tribunes, and also
extend the protections the the Plebians enjoy from the Tribunes, to
the Patricians.

Last of all I was going include a statement here that I intended to
post. I feel moved by Concordia to make the following offer to the
Patrician members of my Tribe, Cornelia. Before I vote on any of the
Pleblicita, I ask for your feelings on these matters that you are
banned from voting on. You may contact me privatly or publicaly on
the Nova Roma Group. I'll spell out my address so the privacy feature
won't block it. drusus AT bellsouth DOT net.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Lexes proposed by the Tribunes
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:32:21 EST

Salvete,

Tribunes Moravius and Labienus, I would like to thank you for taking the time
to post these proposed laws. I see alot of work has been put into them, and I
mean no harm or rudeness when I say this,but how do these proposed lexes
benefit the plebian citizens? I have read everyone of these proposed laws,
only to see the Tribunes gaining, will this gaining help the plebian
citizens? Please don't take this offensively, I am speaking my opinions on
the subject, and I don't mind being corrected if mistaken.

Valete,
Aeternia

Subject:	[novaroma] Introduction of another new citizen
From:	kelibol@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:25:05 -0000

Avete to all the Nova Roma citizens..

Today,I learned that I've joined as a new citizen to
the res publica which I was a regular visitor for more than five
months now.That's why I know every worthy citizen on the mainlist.
So,I humbly bow before you all and want to tell you that it is a
real privilege to become a part of the res publica.May she expand
her borders towards the horizons,illuminated forever with the Light
of Rome....
Here (with a broad grin on my face),I'd like to thank
our estimable censors.Then,I'd like to express my gratitude to my
paterfamilias Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura for his support during
the times when I was a non citizen.It is an honor to be a part of
the gens Sentia.
Valete bene et Gratias
Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN: The power of the Tribunes is not the power of the people
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:01:14 -0000

Salvete

Following Aeternia's post, I am here to praise our Tribuni Plebis for the
work they had preparing their Plebiscita. In fact their work deserves to be
praised as a true work of art, a true net of laws that intersperses in a
carefully planned way elements from the time of the Kings to the Dominate of
Diocletianus (and maybe beyond) with the sole objective of usurping all the
power in Nova Roma to the Tribunes and transform the Tribunate into a
Trinity of power that replaces the Senate, the Consuls and even (and this is
the most deserving of praise) the very Comitia whose powers the Tribunes
should be defending. Yes, Novi Romani, do you still believe that the Tibunes
will ask you if you want to perform their right of veto? No! The Tribunes
will use their power to impose their ideas to the Senate and the
magistrates. They will be able to veto even the very edicts that call of
Comitia. Don't let them guide you in this path. When a Tribunus Plebis
becomes a Tirant, the difference between the two concepts resides in nothing
but the name.
Wasn't Iulius Caesar a member of the "populares"? And he was also the first
to be treated as Emperor.
Novi Romani do not let a bunch of demagoges use your power to usurp you.
Otherwise, many valuable citizens will be soon exiled against your will.

May the Gods protect our Respublica.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Introduction of another new citizen
From:	"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:43:31 +0100

Salvete Quirites,

a good opportunity to say "welcome" to you, Publi Senti Rutiliane, and all
the other citizens who joined our Res Publica during the last days.

Bene Valete

Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor et Senator

----- Original Message -----
From: <kelibol@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:25 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Introduction of another new citizen


>
>
>
> Avete to all the Nova Roma citizens..
>
> Today,I learned that I've joined as a new citizen to
> the res publica which I was a regular visitor for more than five
> months now.That's why I know every worthy citizen on the mainlist.
> So,I humbly bow before you all and want to tell you that it is a
> real privilege to become a part of the res publica.May she expand
> her borders towards the horizons,illuminated forever with the Light
> of Rome....
> Here (with a broad grin on my face),I'd like to thank
> our estimable censors.Then,I'd like to express my gratitude to my
> paterfamilias Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura for his support during
> the times when I was a non citizen.It is an honor to be a part of
> the gens Sentia.
> Valete bene et Gratias
> Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion
>
>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] 2nd Call for Candidates
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:34:14 -0500

Salvete, Omnes!

This is a reminder that there are two vacant positions for Quaestor that
must be filled, as well as the open position of Curator Differum (newsletter
editor). Anyone interested in running for these positions should get in
contact with the Consuls (consuls@--------) as soon as possible. The
election in the Comitia Populi Tributa will be commencing next week. (It is
now looking more likely that the election will run from January 24th through
the 31st.)

Thusfar, only one candidate has volunteered to stand for Quaestor; I hope
more cives will take advantage of this opportunity to participate in the
public life of Nova Roma.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Draft Leges for Review
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:02:48 -0000

Salvete;

--- In novaroma@--------, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...>
wrote:
>
>
> I suggest that instead, there be a law that citizens who are
approved
> during the election period not be granted voter codes, and not have
> the ability to vote, until the election during which they gain
> citizenship is over. This will allow the Censors to continue
working
> as much as usual during the election, but they'll simply leave the
> voter code field blank.

Unfortunately, this would violate paragraph II.B.2. of the
Constitution. Once people are accepted as Citizens, they have the
right to vote; the Constitution makes no provision for some rights to
be granted on a delayed basis.

And of course none of us would want to pass a law that would violate
sections of the Constitution...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

Subject:	[novaroma] The Gentes Sentia
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:00:53 +1030

Ave mi quirites, et pater conscripti,

I would like to welcome into my gens, and also into the magnificence of our res
publica that is Nova Roma. I would like to welcome them individually.

Firstly, I would like to welcome to my gens Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion.
Having struggled for a long time to become a citizen, I think that there is no more
deserving person than he to enter our community. Some of you out there may have
already met him as Maximus Dexion in the Taverna. I welcome him gladly, and hope he
finds Nova Roma as fulfilling as I do.

Secondly, I would like to welcome my frater, Lucius Sentius Ahenobarbus Quadratus.
Without his help, I would have been completely in the dark about events in Nova
Roma, and would have found my ailment to be much more difficult to deal with.
Unfortunately, he is working at a rally in Bogota at the moment, but I wish him
well.

Thirdly and finally, I would like to welcome my newest gens member, Mamercus
Sentius Erronious Brutus. He has been of great help to me recently, and without
him, I would have been a lot slower than I am now at picking up on how the Internet
works. I'd like to thank him now, publicly, for his assistance.

As well as the above mentioned, I'd like to also thank the original two retainers
of the gens Sentia, Titus Sentius Altitudenus, and Numerius Sentius Danteius. They
helped me through the more difficult times, and it is much appreciated.

I hope that you all welcome them, and that they become, if even just a small, part
of this great nation we know as Nova Roma. May the great god Mars, he who is
foremost in battle, watch over us all, and help us to excel in our duties, and to
prtoect us all!

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Glass catalogue
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:24:28 -0500 (EST)

Salve, Gentlemen;

My earlier posting to the Nova Roma List was the least I could do at
short notice. As I indicated at the time, I was very impressed with the
extent of your catalogue and I strongly recommended that Consul Julianus
consider placing your business on the Macellum.

At the moment, there is a great deal of political traffic on the net,
and I will again include this message on that net, for your benefit.
Thank you for the information regarding the catalouge to Consul
Julianus--it will save me the trouble of copying and mailing.

>>romanglassmakers@--------<<

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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

Subject:	R: [novaroma] Newsletter of the Sodalitas Militarium, Volume 1, Issue 1
From:	"Prometheus" <fresco@-------->
Date:	Thu, 28 Dec 2000 02:31:42 +0200

-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: <jmath669642reng@-------->
A: <novaroma@-------->
Data invio: Wednesday, 17 January, 2001 12:14 AM
Oggetto: [novaroma] Newsletter of the Sodalitas Militarium, Volume 1, Issue
1


> Salvete, Nova Roman Citizens Interested In the Military Aspects of Nova
> Roma;
>
> Friends and Countrymen;
>
> I take great pride in presenting to you the first of the proposed Annual
> Sodalitas Militarium Newsletters. I offer this publication free to
> anyone wishing to have it sent to them by internet E-Mail.

Marcus PrometheusS.P. dicit

Please send it .

Vale.

Gratus (thankful) Marcus Prometheus

Subject:	[novaroma] sodalitas milit
From:	elgabal734@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:40:30 EST

Salvete,
please send it to me
Titvs Avrelivs Rvfvs



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

Subject:	[novaroma] On Serving Two Masters
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:26:36

Salve mea cara Fortunata

Quaeristi:

>The esteemed Vado would have us believe that "the Amici Dignitatis advocate
>the ultimate sovereignty of the people"; however, "not of all of the people
>all of the time".
>
>Can one serve two masters and be faithful to both?

Respondeo: I would like to answer this question by asking another:
Can one serve 700 masters, yet be faithful to all of them? (700 being about
the current citizen population).

I think, mea Fortunata, the answer is YES. However, one cannot PLEASE all of
the people all of the time, and this is basically what this topic is about.
In political life, satisfying the majority is about the best one can usually
hope for.

Bene vale,

Vado.

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Paging N. Moravius Vado
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:52:45

Mi Sura,

My Hotmail account has not been used by me for a few days until today. I
have had a look through my inbox and have received nothing from you for
ages.

If it's urgent and confidential, send it flagged and via a mutual friend. I
have no idea why this is happening.

Bene vale,

Vado.


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

Subject:	Re: R: [novaroma] Newsletter of the Sodalitas Militarium, Volume 1, Issue 1
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:07:08 +0100

Salve, Marce Prometheus,

please visit the current Sodalitas Miltiarium website
www.diocletian.de/sodmil/. You find a link to the newsletters archive there.

Btw, please review the date/time-settings of your computer. Your mail was
listed under december 28th 2000.

Ave et Vale
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Retarius Sodalitas Militarium

Prometheus wrote:

> -----Messaggio Originale-----
> Da: <jmath669642reng@-------->
> A: <novaroma@-------->
> Data invio: Wednesday, 17 January, 2001 12:14 AM
> Oggetto: [novaroma] Newsletter of the Sodalitas Militarium, Volume 1, Issue
> 1
>
> > Salvete, Nova Roman Citizens Interested In the Military Aspects of Nova
> > Roma;
> >
> > Friends and Countrymen;
> >
> > I take great pride in presenting to you the first of the proposed Annual
> > Sodalitas Militarium Newsletters. I offer this publication free to
> > anyone wishing to have it sent to them by internet E-Mail.
>
> Marcus PrometheusS.P. dicit
>
> Please send it .
>
> Vale.
>
> Gratus (thankful) Marcus Prometheus

Subject:	[novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:34:17 -0500

Salvete, omnes;

Having now had time to read through all of the proposed plebiscita from the
Tribunes, I see I was in error in my previous assessment based on the
summaries that were earlier posted. These proposals are not basically sound
ideas in need of tinkering. They are complete and utter disasters, riddled
with errors and showing a complete disregard for our Constitution.

These proposals would allow the Comitia Populi to set the rules by which the
other Comitiae operate, infringe on the rights of ordinary Cives to speak
their mind or do so on someone else's behalf, do away with rights possessed
by various magistrates and priests, redefine or ignore basic Constitutional
concepts and institutions, take away sovereign rights held by paterfamiliae,
and various other abominations too numerous to detail here. And to what end?
To increase the power of the Tribunes at the expense of everyone and
everything else.

My friends, the gross and contemptious disregard for the letter, spirit, and
intentions of our Constitution is chilling. It demonstrates nothing less
than a clear and deliberate pattern of subverting the Constitution to
aggrandize the personal power of the Tribunes. That the appointed guardians
of the Constitution are themselves responsible for propagating it is simply
monstrous, and a violation not only of their oath of office but of their
sacred duty as Tribuni Plebis.

This is nothing less than attempt to foment a coup detat, with the Tribunes
in absolute authority, the Comitia Plebis as "supreme Comitia", and our
Constitution being trampled whenever it was inconvenient to the Tribunes'
ambitions.

This sad and sorry episode goes to show the danger of such "hidden"
legislation, conceived outside of the inclusive and fair debate of the main
email list. I daresay that few of these proposals would have ever been heard
from again, had the People-- all the People-- been allowed to discuss them
before they were rammed down the throats of the voters in the Comitia Plebis
Tributa. But who needs that? Piscinus and Fortunatus know better; with their
vast intellects there is no need for them to consult anyone else! They wish
to remold Nova Roma in their own image, and they fully expect the Plebeians
to simply roll over and obey.

I urge everyone to reject these proposals and the Tribunal Monarchy they
would create, and I urge the Tribunes to withdraw their call for a vote at
this time.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

Subject:	[novaroma] The Constitution and the Plebiscita (long)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:41:08 -0500

Salvete, Omnes;

I shall limit myself here to merely commenting on the various Constitutional
problems with the proposed plebiscita. If I were to include my thoughts on
the Constitutionally valid, but just plain unworkable or bad ideas, I might
find myself writing for days. I have cut out sections upon which I do not
wish to comment, in the interest of space.

-----

>From the P. L-M de Tribunicia Potestates:

> 1.a) Each individual Tribunus Plebis shall be elected as to a separate
> office of the same magistracy, according to the procedures of the Comitia
> Plebis Tributa.

This sounds like a redefinition of the nature of the magistracy. In regards
to the power of intercessio (for example) the Tribunes are explicitly
required to act in a "collegial" manner in the Constitution. This provision
of the plebiscitum would seem to change that, in violation of the
Constitution.

> Section II. All Tribuni Plebis shall be entitled to be proceeded by ten
> viatores. The honors, powers, and duties of the Tribuni Plebis,
> individually and/or collectively shall be as follows:

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution allow for
viatores, while privileges such as lictores are explicitly granted in the
case of other magistracies.

> 1) Each Tribunus Plebis shall hold a position for the duration of his
> or her tenure in office that shall be considered sancrosanct. No
> individual civis, no magistrate nor officer of Nova Roma shall fail to
> yield to a Tribunus Plebis, or fail to honor an intercessio placed on
> their actions by a Tribunus Plebis. Any individual, magistrate or officer
> of Nova Roma to do so may be held to be in sacer under the judgement of a
> court of law in Nova Roma.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution allow for
sancrosanctity, while powers such as imperium are explicitly granted in the
case of other magistracies.

> 3.a) In accordance with Section IV.A.7.a of the Constitution of Nova
> Roma, each Tribuni Plebis shall have the power to pronounce intercessio
> against the actions of any and all other magistrates, and any and all
> edicta, Senatus consulta, and leges passed in comitia when they feel that
> the spirit and letter of the Constitution has thereby been violated. In
> the absence of a pronouncement of intercessio by a second Tribunus
> Plebis, the assumption shall be that the issuance of an intercessio by
> one Tribunus Plebis is a collegial pronouncement of intercessio.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. The Tribunal intercessio must be made
collegially. By definition, this requires the active participation of all
parties involved; to say that a collegial act can be made by a single person
without the participation of the other Tribune is absurd.

> 3.b) Tribunician intercessio should be based solely on the provisions
> of the Constitution, the leges, plebiscita, decreta and edicta of Nova
> Roma.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. The collegial power of the Tribunes to
pronounce intercessio is allowed solely when the Constitution is being
violated. To claim that Tribunal intercessio can be used when a mere law,
decree, edict, or plebiscite is being violated is an expansion of the power
of the Tribunes beyond Constitutional boundaries.

> 3.c) In accordance with Section IV.A.7.b of the Constitution of Nova
> Roma, the exercise of tribunicia potestates, and/or duties performed by
> any and all Tribuni Plebis shall not be subject to intercessio by any and
> all other magistrates, including that of any other Tribunus Plebis, who
> are by Section IV.A of the same instrument defined as magistrates.
> Where a conflict arises between two Tribuni Plebis on the pronouncement
> of an intercessio, the junior Tribunus Plebis should yield to the
> decision of the current senior Tribunus Plebis. A junior Tribunus Plebis
> should not issue a intercessio counter to an intercessio issued by a
> senior Tribunus Plebis. A junior Tribunus Plebis should withdraw an
> intercessio he has issued, upon notification by the senior Tribunus
> Plebis of an intent to issue a counter intercessio. Only in a case where
> the junior Tribunus Plebis can demonstrate the validity of his position
> by sound legal argument should he not yield to the judgement of the
> senior Tribunus Plebis.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. The two Tribunes are equal colleagues
under the Constitution. The power of intercessio is mandated to be
pronounced collegially; that is, jointly. A single Tribune, junior or
senior, cannot declare such an intercessio by himself. To allow such is to
redefine the powers of the Tribunes beyond their Constitutional boundaries.

> 5) Each Tribunus Plebis shall have authority to sit in
> session with the
> Senate, sine suffragio. Collectively, it shall be the duty of the
> Tribuni Plebis to keep the citizenry informed as to items placed for
> consideration before the Senate, the progress of proceedings on such
> items, and the final vote on such items. The Tribuni Plebis shall not,
> however, be responsible for reporting to the citizenry on the internal
> procedures of the Senate, nor on any matter concerning an individual
> civis, with respect to the privacy of that individual civis, nor on any
> matter that a Consul has deemed to be of a private and confidential
> matter.

This section violates paragraph V.F. of the Constitution. Only the Senate
may enact rules governing its internal procedure; the Comitia are forbidden
to interfere with this. By granting the Consuls the power to declare certain
Senate business private and confidential, this is infringing on the right of
the Senate to set its own rules.

> 7) Each Tribunus Plebis shall have a power of auxilium which shall not
> be subject to the intercessio of any magistrate, officer, or any other
> Tribunus Plebis. The power of auxilium shall be that a Tribunus Plebis
> may call for an immediate halt to any judicial procedure, tribunal, or
> hearing, against an individual civis of any order, and have the
> proceedings then removed to a higher authority for judgement. The power
> of auxilium may be exercised by a Tribunus Plebis at any time during a
> judicial procedure.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution allow for
auxilium, while powers such as the issuance of notae are explicitly granted
in the case of other magistracies.

> For the duration of any such judicial proceedings,
> the power of auxilium may be exercised by a Tribunus Plebis without being
> subject to an intercessio by the senior Tribunus Plebis. The power of
> auxilium may be exercised by a Tribunus Plebis following a judicial
> decision, whereby the Tribunus Plebis would issue an intercessio against
> the judicial decision and call for a right of provocatio on behalf of a
> defendant, thus appealing the judicial decision to a higher judicial
> authority. In this case the senior Tribunus Plebis may exercise
> intercessio over the auxilium, intercessio, and provocatio made by the
> Tribunus Plebis; the power of the senior Tribunus Plebis to so intercede
> against a junior Tribunus Plebis does not abrogate a citizen's own right
> of provocatio. The power of a Tribunus Plebis to exercise auxilium shall
> not extend beyond the highest judicial authority within Nova Roma.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
authorizing the exercise of auxilium up to "the highest judicial authority",
this provision has the effect of setting rules by which the other Comitiae
must operate. Doing so vastly increases the power of the Comitia Plebis
Tributa beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> 9.a) Each Tribunus Plebis shall have the power of coercitio. The power
> of coercitio should be held subject solely to the intercessio of the
> senior Tribunus Plebis. The power of coercitio shall be that a Tribunus
> Plebis may call for the Comitia Plebis Tributa to assemble for the
> purposes of trying legal cases under the provisions of the Constitution,
> Section III.C.3.

This section violates paragraphs IV.B.7.a and IV.B.7.b. of the Constitution.
The powers of the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to
those powers without altering the Constitution. One Tribune cannot pronounce
intercessio on another, both because such proclamations must be made
"collegially", and because as magistrates themseves, they could not declare
intercessio against a Tribunis Plebis. This attempts to broaden the powers
of Tribunal intercessio beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> 9.d) The senior Tribunus Plebis may exercise his power of intercessio
> against any Tribuni Plebis' exercise of the coercitio at any time upon
> notification, during the period prior to the posting of the charges, and
> up to 72 hours after the posting of the charges.

This section violates paragraphs IV.B.7.a and IV.B.7.b. of the Constitution.
The powers of the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to
those powers without altering the Constitution. One Tribune cannot pronounce
intercessio on another, both because such proclamations must be made
"collegially", and because as magistrates themseves, they could not declare
intercessio against a Tribunis Plebis. This attempts to broaden the powers
of Tribunal intercessio beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> 9.g) A decision of the Comitia Plebis Tributa made against any
> individual civis shall be subject to provocatio, and thus may be appealed
> to the Comitia Populi Tributa.

This section violates paragraph II.B.5. of the Constitution. The right of
provocatio is specifically stated to be invoked against the decision of a
magistrate, not one of the comitia. This attempts to broaden the definition
of provocatio beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> 11) Each Tribunus Plebis shall be empowered to appoint Plebeian
> apparitoria, to include but not be limited to, scribae, curatores, and
> viatores as may be required in the performance of his duties, and to
> assist the Comitia Plebis Tributa in the conduct of its affairs. Such
> appoints as may be necessary shall be made by posting a nuntio to the
> Comitia Plebis Tributa.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution allow for
the Tribunes to appoint scribae, which is a power explicitly granted in the
case of other magistracies.

-----

>From the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia:

> 1) No magistrate, major or minor, ordinarii or extraordinarii, shall
> interrupt, interfer, or otherwise inhibit the assembly and/or voting
> procedures of the Comitia Plebis Tributa either directly or through the
> use of agentes provocatores.

This section is in violation of paragraph VI.B.2.b.2. of the Constitution.
Members of the Collegium Augurum have the right to declare nuntatio and thus
delay the meeting of the Comitia Plebis Tributum. Should an Augur also
happen to be a magistrate, this provision would seek to prohibit them from
exercising their Constitutional authority. To do so takes away an
explicitly-granted power of the individual Augures, far beyond the
boundaries of the Constitution.

This section is also in violation of paragraph II.B.4. of the Constitution.
All Citizens, magistrate and non-magistrate alike, are guaranteed the right
to participate in discussions on public fora, regardless of content. As the
only way interruption or interference could be undertaken is by verbal means
(indeed, the very questioning of the legitimacy of proposed plebiscita could
be taken as "interferance"), the sovereign right of free speech is
threatened by this proposal.

> Nor shall any magistrate, major or minor,
> ordinarii or extraordinarii, attempt to recruit agentes provocatores or
> encourage other magistrates, major or minor, ordinarii or extraordinarii,
> to act in a manner intended to disrupt or otherwise interfer with the
> legal assembly and/or voting procedures of the Comitia Tributa Plebis.

This section is in violation of paragraph II.B.6. of the Constitution. All
Citizens are guaranteed the right to be secure in their own persons. Such a
right must implicitly include the right to association with whomever the
individual wishes, and for whatever lawful reasons and purposes. This
provision would remove the right of one person to act on behalf of another
in the furtherance of a Constitutionally-protected act (i.e., to engage in
free speech, even if that speech has the effect of "interfering" with a vote
of the Comitia Plebis Tributa. To do so deeply cuts into the individual
rights of Citizens to act on behalf of one another, in contravention of
Constitutional protections to the contrary.

This section is also non-sequitor. There is no legally-defined body referred
to as the "Comitia Tributa Plebis".

> 2) Jurisdiction for judgement under this plebiscitum shall be held in
> the Comitia Plebis Tributa whose assembly and/or procedures were thus
> violated.

This is a violation of paragraph III.C.3. of the Constitution. The Comitia
Plebis Tributa can only "try legal cases solely involving members of the
plebeian order". Should a member of the Patrician order run afoul of this
plebiscitum, the Constitution would prohibit his or her undergoing a legal
proceeding in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. To do so vastly increases the
scope of the powers of the Comitia Plebis Tributa, far beyond the boundaries
of the Constitution.

> a.) A call to assemble must be made no less than 72 hours in advance of
> its assembly, in which time any of the Tribuni Plebis may issue an
> intercessio. A legal assembly of any comitia shall be construed to mean
> that a call to assemble was made by the appropriate magistrate with a
> proper interval of time, and that no Tribunus Plebis has issued an
> intercessio against the magistrate's action.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
mandating the interval between a call to assemble and the actual assembly,
this provision has the effect of setting rules by which the other Comitiae
must operate. Doing so vastly increases the power of the Comitia Plebis
Tributa beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> b.) No Tribunus Plebis individually, nor the Tribuni Plebis
> collegiately, may halt any comitia once it has assembled for the purpose
> of considering proposed leges or plebiscita, nor when a comitia has
> assembled for an election.

This section is in violation of paragraph IV.A.7.a. of the Constitution. The
Tribuni Plebis are explicitly empowered to pronounce intercessio against any
unconstitutional act on the part of any magistrate. Should such an act take
place in the context of the working of the comitia, the Tribuni Plebis are
still Constitutionally empowered to pronounce intercessio. This provision
would reduce the powers of the Tribuni Plebis below their Constitutional
boundaries.

This section also violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution.
The Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
forbidding the Tribuni Plebis from halting the other comitiae when those
comitiae have not mandated such themselves, this provision has the effect of
setting rules by which the other Comitiae must operate. Doing so vastly
increases the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa beyond the boundaries of
the Constitution.

> d.) A comitia assembled for the purpose of holding trial, as provided
> in Section III. B.3, C.3, and D.3, shall be subject to a Tribunus Plebis
> authority to remove its proceedings to a higher judicial authority by the
> tribunician power of auxilium. Such a removal to another judicial
> authority shall not be construed as an interruption, interference, or
> inhibition of the assembled comitia, but as a continuance of its
> proceedings.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
specifying the power to remove a legal proceeding from one comitia to
another when those comitiae have not mandated such themselves, this
provision has the effect of setting rules by which the other Comitiae must
operate. Doing so vastly increases the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa
beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

This section also violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers
of the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those
powers without altering the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution
allow for auxilium, while powers such as the issuance of notae are
explicitly granted in the case of other magistracies.

-----

>From the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia:

> 1) No provisions shall be included in any leges, plebiscita, edicta,
> decreta, rescripta, or responsa to be issued by any magistrate or
> official of Nova Roma, or put before a comitia for a vote, which shall be
> held to prohibit conuptia among Plebeians, among Patricians, or between
> Patricians and Plebeians; nor shall provisions likewise prohibit,
> nullify, or disallow a confarreatio between a patrician and a plebeian.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
preventing the other Comitiae from considering leges with particular
content, this provision has the effect of setting rules by which the other
Comitiae must operate. Doing so vastly increases the power of the Comitia
Plebis Tributa beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> 2) No pater or mater familias shall have the authority to prohibit
> conuptia of gens members, nor may they coerce by any means any member of
> their respective gentes into conuptia.

This section violates paragraph II.D. of the Constitution. The Constitution
explicitly gives the paterfamilias of a gens the "undisputed right and
responsibility to see to the education and raising of their children". By
prohibiting coersion "by any means" on the issue of conuptia, the power of
the paterfamilias to edicate and raise their children is infringed. Doing so
removes sovereign rights that are defined in our Constitution.

> 4) Children born to parents of differing orders may be placed in the
> gens of either parent, provided the pater or mater familias of the
> designated gens approves. Otherwise the children shall be considered to
> belong to the gens and the order of the natural mother.

This section violates paragraph II.D.3. of the Constitution. The
paterfamilias of a gens is explictly given the right to determine who joins
their gens. By mandating that the gens of the natural mother of a child must
accept that child, the power of the paterfamilias to determine who is or is
not accepted into the gens, is infringed. Doing so removes sovereign rights
that are defined in our Constitution.

-----

>From the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia:

> 1) No measures shall be passed, no leges placed before a comitia, no
> plebescita placed before the Comitia Plebis Tributa, nor edicta issued by
> any magistrate or any provincial praetor or any subordinate acting in
> their name, which includes disparate measures and/or disparate provisions
> of any nature among the citizens of Nova Roma in the exercise of their
> rights, as outlined in Section II.B and elsewhere.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
preventing "disparate measures and/or disparate provisions" in leges
presented to the other Comitiae, this provision has the effect of setting
rules by which the other Comitiae must operate. Doing so vastly increases
the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa beyond the boundaries of the
Constitution.

> 2) All leges and plebescita previously enacted, all edicta previously
> issued, which have provided disparate measures among the citizenry of
> Nova Roma are hereby nullified in those provisions.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi Tributa. By
preventing "disparate measures and/or disparate provisions" in leges
presented to the other Comitiae, this provision has the effect of setting
rules by which the other Comitiae must operate. Doing so vastly increases
the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa beyond the boundaries of the
Constitution.

> 3) All citizens of Nova Roma who are eligible to vote, without
> exception, shall have the same rights and privileges before the law and
> without prejudice to any immunity conferred by any office they may hold
> in Nova Roma.

This section violates paragraphs III.C., IV.A.5., and IV.A.7. of the
Constitution. Differences in "rights and privileges before the law" are
built into our Constitutional system; for example, the right of Plebeians
(only) to vote in the Comitia Plebis Tributa, or to hold the offices of
Plebeian Aedile or Tribunis Plebis. This provision would seek to overrule
such divisions, and would thus destroy several exclusive rights of the
Plebeian people, outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

> 4) No additional obligations shall be placed on any order, class, or
> otherwise distinguished group of citizens, above those obligations placed
> on all other citizens, save by those obligations incurred by virtue of
> any office or position in Nova Roma that they willing accept.

This section is in violation of paragraph II.C.2. of the Constitution, which
specifies that members of the Ordo Equester are "expected to contribute a
portion of the revenue derived from Nova Roma back to the State". As
membership in the Ordo Equester is neither an "office or position", but
rather an order or class, this proposal would remove an obligation of a
select group of Citizens, contrary to the Constitution.

-----

>From the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Ovinia:

> 2) The Censors shall without exception enroll into the Senate any
> citizen properly elected to assume the offices of consul, censor, or
> praetor, and shall place their names into the Album Senatorum.
> Magistrates shall be regarded as enrolled in the Senate upon taking the
> oath of office, and shall not be required to await on the Censors to
> enter their names in the Album Senatorum in order to be considered
> enrolled in the Senate. Magistrates appointed suffectus shall be entered
> into the Senate as full members with full rights and privileges, for the
> duration of their office alone, and shall not be enrolled in the Senate,
> nor their names entered into the Album Senatorum.

This section is in violation of paragraph V. of the Constitution. The Album
Senatorum is by definition the "list of Senators". To say that one is not on
the "list of Senators" and yet is still a Senator, is contradictory. This
proposal radically redefines the definition of Senate membership, beyond the
boundaries of the Constitution.

> 3) Any citizen elected to the office of curule aedile, aedile plebis,
> quaestor, or appointed as a major magistrate suffectus, or to the office
> of provincial praetor and holding such office for not less than six
> months,

This section is a non-sequitor. The term "major magistrate suffectus" is
nowhere defined in the Constitution. Also, the term "provincial praetor" is
similarly not to be found in the Constitution (the correct term is
"provincial governor" according to paragraph V.C. of the Constitution),
unless the Tribunes really do mean only governors who are also praetors
(which would be redundant, as praetors are automatically elevated to the
Senate anyway).

> 4) The Consuls and the Tribuni Plebis shall nominate citizens to the
> Senate for elevation into the Senate. The Senate may consider for
> elevation those citizens thus nominated by the Consuls and the Tribuni
> Plebis.

This section violates paragraph IV.B.7. of the Constitution. The powers of
the Tribunes are spelled out explicitly, and you cannot add to those powers
without altering the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the
power to the Tribunes to nominate Senate candidates, while powers such as
"To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks which
advance the mission and function of Nova Roma" are explicitly granted in the
case of other magistracies. To do so is an expansion of the powers of the
Tribunes beyond the boundaries of the Constitution.

> Upon issuance of a Senatus Consultum elevating nominated
> citizens into the Senate, those named citizens shall be enrolled as
> Senators. The Censors shall then be bound to enter the names into the
> Album Senatorum. Newly enrolled Senators shall be considered enrolled in
> the Senate at the issuance of the Senatus Consultum, and need not await
> the entry of their names into the Album Senatorum by the Censors before
> assuming their honorum.

This section is in violation of paragraph V. of the Constitution. The Album
Senatorum is by definition the "list of Senators". To say that one is not on
the "list of Senators" and yet is still a Senator, is contradictory. This
proposal radically redefines the definition of Senate membership, beyond the
boundaries of the Constitution.

-----

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

Subject:	[novaroma] The Sky is Falling! (was ATTN: The power of the Tribunes is not the power of the people)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:07:50 US/Central

Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Quiritibus SPD

Considering the rather histrionic note recently posted by Antonius Gryllus
Graecus, along with more reasoned and reasonable concerns raised by others, I
felt that I ought to address some of those concerns.

We tribuni are not trying to amass great power. We are not trying to cut
patricians off from the affairs of state. And, we most certainly are not
trying to do any of the ridiculous things Antonius Gryllus accuses us of.

Now, let's look at the "true net of laws... with the sole objective of usurping
all the power in Nova Roma..."

PdAL Ovinia: Expands upon Lex Vedia Senatoria and specifies more firmly how
Senatores are enrolled into the Senate. It does allow the tribuni to recommend
candidates, but nothing more.

PdIAL Caecila Didia: Attempts to guarantee equality between the orders, making
exceptions for religious considerations.

PdIAL Publilia: Allows the CPT to meet without obtaining prior permission. No
prior permission is currently required to assemble the CPT; this plebiscitum
merely makes that lack of requirement official.

PdIAL Canuleia de Conuptia: Allows cives of all orders to enter into
partnerships that are officially recognized by the state.

PdIAL Icilia: Simply says that the CPT may not be stopped from assembling and
voting. This is a reality as it is, since the acts of tribuni are immune from
the intercessio of all magistrates (including tribuni, if this plebiscitum does
not pass). It also allows tribuni to issue an intercessio against other
tribuni who call the CPT together, which they *can't* do now, and which is a
major hole in the checks and balances inherent in the constitution. It also
forbids the tribuni from interfering with any of the comitia after they have
been assembled to vote upon laws and magisterial elections.

PL-Md Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum: Defines procedures for the CPT,
with the exception of legal proceedings, which will be defined either by the
plebiscitum on tribunicia potestates or at a later date.

PL-Md Tribunicia Potestates: I expect this is the one plebiscitum that has
everyone so upset. Therefore, I will spend more time with it.

In general, it defines the powers of the tribuni and how they are to be used.
It also adds to the responsibilities of the tribuni.

It establishes a senior tribunus position, in order that some precedence may be
made between the tribunes in issuing a veto, allowing the tribunus who received
more tribes in the elections to act as a check upon the actions of other
tribuni (we may someday have more than two).

It grants the tribuni the right to have viatores precede them. This is
negligible. Nobody actually expects viatores, lictores, or even freed
gladiators to actually beat anyone, I would hope.

It establishes the possibility of a penalty for violating a veto, but leaves
such penalty to the courts priests to define.

It demands that the tribuni should behave appropriately; merely an extension
and reinforcement of the oath of office with the possibility of punishment.

It addresses intercessio and defines 'collegially' to mean 'without
disagreement', allowing a tribunus to use this vital power when the other(s) is
somehow unavailable. However, it goes on to specifically define exactly what
criteria are to be used when issuing an intercessio. It also suggests that
legal reasoning should be provided when issuing an intercessio, which is not a
necessity currently, and enumerates times when such explanation must be given.

It reaffirms powers already given by the constitution, and defines the limits
of the tribuni's ability to report on the Senate's business.

It requires tribuni to make themselves available to the people they serve.

It allows tribuni to halt a legal trial and send it up to a higher authority,
which is simply a slight twist upon the power of intercessio.

It allows tribuni to issue an opinion as a friend of the court in a legal
proceeding.

It allows tribuni to call plebeians to stand for trial before the CPT, a power
the constitution implies, and gives some procedures for doing so. It also
explicitly defines a means for appeal to a higher court.

It allows tribuni to issue several kinds of public statements so that they may
perform their duties, and defines them. This is not explicitly stated
anywhere, as the constitution does not allow them to issue edicta.

Finally, it allows tribuni to appoint aides and whatever ancillary apparitores
may be necessary to run the CPT. This is not stated as one of their powers in
the constitution, but it is a rather minor thing.

Now, would someone please tell me how any of the above is going to make me or
anyone else the king of Rome? You may dislike the method in which this vote is
being carried out. You may disagree with the specifics of a given plebiscitum.
But, please, could we avoid crying wolf and accusing people of amassing
power or trying to take over the state.

Valete

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:20:39 +0100

Salvete Flavi Vedi et alii,

I have one question. Despite all the problems those plebiscita seem to
raise, I believe they were all based on old laws in Roma Antiqua (well, all
but one). If they worked in RA, why wouldn't they in NR? They violate the
Constitution, you say, but I do think that installing plebiscita that have
to do with the Tribuni is something for the plebs to vote on. I wouldn't say
their nature is disturbing. Some of them are merely social niceties, and
others are very important. Collegial intercessio was not necessary in
ancient Rome, and I think that if our good Tribunes were to veto anything,
they wouldn't get elected next year. Piscinus and Fortunatus are men I
consider both wise and sane enough not to come playing tyrant here in this
micronation.

Do you feel that magistrates should be allowed to disrupt meetings? Do you
think that the Senatorial elevation process doesn't need clarification? Or
that citizen's rights shouldn't be protected? Of course these are meant to
be rhetorical questions, but all I want to say is that there's no real
reason, in my opinion, to "cry murder and fire" (Dutch expression) when
there's not much to cry about. If the Constitution is being violated,
something must be wrong, of course. Should these plebiscita change then, or
should the Constitution? And this is not a rhetorical question.

Another issue that has been raised is how these plebiscita serve the
interests of the plebs. I think they do. If the Tribunes can regain their
powers of old, they can do much more for the plebs than they can do now. I
believe the role of the Tribuni is not to protect the constitution, but to
serve the plebs. At least these Tribuni are awake, alive and well, which
cannot be said about all Tribuni (or other magistrates) NR has had in the
past.

Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum,
Musaeus Collegii Eratus,
Musaeus Collegii Uraniae
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:34 PM
Subject: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita


> Salvete, omnes;
>
> Having now had time to read through all of the proposed plebiscita from
the
> Tribunes, I see I was in error in my previous assessment based on the
> summaries that were earlier posted. These proposals are not basically
sound
> ideas in need of tinkering. They are complete and utter disasters, riddled
> with errors and showing a complete disregard for our Constitution.
>
> These proposals would allow the Comitia Populi to set the rules by which
the
> other Comitiae operate, infringe on the rights of ordinary Cives to speak
> their mind or do so on someone else's behalf, do away with rights
possessed
> by various magistrates and priests, redefine or ignore basic
Constitutional
> concepts and institutions, take away sovereign rights held by
paterfamiliae,
> and various other abominations too numerous to detail here. And to what
end?
> To increase the power of the Tribunes at the expense of everyone and
> everything else.
>
> My friends, the gross and contemptious disregard for the letter, spirit,
and
> intentions of our Constitution is chilling. It demonstrates nothing less
> than a clear and deliberate pattern of subverting the Constitution to
> aggrandize the personal power of the Tribunes. That the appointed
guardians
> of the Constitution are themselves responsible for propagating it is
simply
> monstrous, and a violation not only of their oath of office but of their
> sacred duty as Tribuni Plebis.
>
> This is nothing less than attempt to foment a coup detat, with the
Tribunes
> in absolute authority, the Comitia Plebis as "supreme Comitia", and our
> Constitution being trampled whenever it was inconvenient to the Tribunes'
> ambitions.
>
> This sad and sorry episode goes to show the danger of such "hidden"
> legislation, conceived outside of the inclusive and fair debate of the
main
> email list. I daresay that few of these proposals would have ever been
heard
> from again, had the People-- all the People-- been allowed to discuss them
> before they were rammed down the throats of the voters in the Comitia
Plebis
> Tributa. But who needs that? Piscinus and Fortunatus know better; with
their
> vast intellects there is no need for them to consult anyone else! They
wish
> to remold Nova Roma in their own image, and they fully expect the
Plebeians
> to simply roll over and obey.
>
> I urge everyone to reject these proposals and the Tribunal Monarchy they
> would create, and I urge the Tribunes to withdraw their call for a vote at
> this time.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Tribune
From:	Seigneur Funk <plunder@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:24:59 -0600

Greeting:

What are the requirements to become a tribune? I will be interested in
it
once I become a citizen.

Cordially,
KIT

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:07:41 EST

Salvete Sextus Apollonius Draco, and the citizens of Rome
<< Another issue that has been raised is how these plebiscita serve the
interests of the plebs. I think they do. If the Tribunes can regain their
powers of old, they can do much more for the plebs than they can do now. I
believe the role of the Tribuni is not to protect the constitution, but to
serve the plebs. At least these Tribuni are awake, alive and well, which
cannot be said about all Tribuni (or other magistrates) NR has had in the
past.<<
And I agree with you. However a Plebeiscite cannot change the wording of the
constitution, which these almost all do. We don't have a court system yet.
Our basic recourse is to try a citizen before the Comitia of the Centuria.
So where are the good Tribs going to yank the citizen to, if we don't have a
higher court?
Many of these are premature.
If Moravia wants the old titles and distinctions of 466 back, that OK with me
as long as it is voted for and passed in the Centuries as authorized in 1
Section D of the Vedian Constitution. If that happens, then the constitution
could legally be revised to include these. I really don't believe they are
needed. The time was much much different then. For one thing the Patricians
do not control the courts like in the 500s. We don't have any courts.
Next, Plebeians are allowed in the Senate, (There are 7 I believe.) and we
could have a Plebeian Consul, just not one has been elected yet. So the Lex
of Licia/Sextia is already in-force via the Vedian Constitution.
Finally, the Plebeians are allowed to hold priestly offices here, which was
the last bastion of Patrician power in Rome that was maintained for over two
centuries. But it was opened by the Lex Ogulia in 300.

My point interested citizens? All this is already available to you Romans.
You don't need the Tribunes to give it to you. And again the Patricians
cannot take it way from you unless major revisions to the constitution are
made, that must be approved by the Comitia Centuria. You. Otherwise no
changes are possible.
I think I speak for the most of the Senate when I say, compromise is possible
with the Tribunes, but this vote must be halted until the unconstitutional
items be altered or removed from the ballot. What say you, citizens?

Valete!
Q. Fabius Maximus
Praetor Urbanus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:40:49 -0500

Salve,

>>Another issue that has been raised is how these plebiscita serve the
interests of the plebs.>>

And it is a very fair and necessary issue *to* raise in light of the
proposed items. As I read them, it appears as though all of them seek to
benefit the *offices* and *powers* of the Tribunes directly, while none of
them improve the lot of the plebs in any way.

>>If the Tribunes can regain their powers of old, they can do much more for
the plebs than they can do now.>>

I must admit, this argument troubles me greatly. It amounts to "give me
lots of power now so I can help you later". Trouble being that, once that
power is given, there is no guarantee that any help will be forthcoming. In
point of fact, if many of these changes are accomplished, the Tribunes will
be under no obligation to render help and will have made themselves
virtually immune to any actions against them. The fact that the very first
actions of the Tribunes is completely self-involved is ominous.

>>I believe the role of the Tribuni is not to protect the constitution, but
to serve the plebs.>>

Beliefs aside, their constitutional duty is limited to protection of the
constitution as needed. That being said, I do not see why the two duties
should be in opposition. Can they not serve the plebs BY protecting the
constitution? The attitude that they must do one or the other starts us off
with the proposition that they will do ONLY one or the other, when they are
mandated to do the former. That they would question, or seek to alter, that
mandate as the very FIRST step they take in office, is disturbing.

>>At least these Tribuni are awake, alive and well, which cannot be said
about all Tribuni (or other magistrates) NR has had in the past.>>

Oh come now Draco! That is a ridiculous argument. :) Taken to an equally
extreme point, one could also laud the *active natures* of such people as
Ted Bundy and Adolph Hitler himself. (Note I am NOT stating that either
Tribune is a serial killer or a Nazi LOL). Activity does not necessarily
equal "quality". If the point of view the people are taking on this issue
is that "any action is better than the inaction of the past", I am even more
troubled and concerned than when I began this reply.

I do thank you for your thoughts, and while we clearly do not agree on many
issues, I feel the discussion of such differences is vital to our nation.
This type of discourse is so much more beneficial than the rushing pell-mell
into changes that our Tribunes seem bent on.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena


Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco,

>

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:52:22 -0500

Salve,

>>I think I speak for the most of the Senate when I say, compromise is
possible with the Tribunes,>>

I agree 100% with this statement. The posting by Fortunatus himself points
out that there *are* some good and valid aspects to these proposals.

>>but this vote must be halted until the unconstitutional items be altered
or removed from the ballot.>>

Again, agreed 100%. TO allow a vote to go forward on proposals that contain
so very many Constitutional violations would be absurd. I would cal upon the
Tribunes to see this as true and hold off on voting until such time as
corrections can be made that will bring their proposals in line with our
Constitution.

>>What say you, citizens?>>

Well, *this* citizen says halt the vote. :) I say the Tribunes, while I
admire their zeal, need to take a step back, slow down their approach and
take a long look at the problems involved in the proposals.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

Valete!
Q. Fabius Maximus

>

Subject:	[novaroma] Plebian Representation-Who's interests are being served?
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:30:01 -0600

Salvete Quirites and fellow Plebeians,

After having read the posted legislation from our Tribunes,
I have to honestly say that I am OUTRAGED! I share many
many of the concerns so elegantly stated in Aeternia's
mail, but intend to be a bit more vocal. It's *imperative,*
that all Plebeians, new and old have a full understanding
of the legislation that is now before us.

Why the outrage? The Tribunes are looking to promulgate
a series of sweeping Leges that subvert Nova Roma's
Constitution to their own ends. As I shall further question below,
this proposed legislation is a *blatant* attempt at amalgamating
all central power around the Tribunal office. It is resentful
that such an important and supposedly 'representative' office
of the people would think so little of its constituents
as to use them as pawns in their power struggles against
the "Establishment." (i.e., the Consuls, Senate, non-AD affiliated
Plebeians, those with a difference of opinion, the Censors, the
Constitution, etc., etc.)

For starters, in agreement with Aeternia; I fully fail
to realize how ANY of the legislation put before us benefits
any of us Plebeians, aside from the Tribunes and certain members of the
Amici Dignitas. Below the issues will be enumerated more
fully. It is my sincere hope that anyone sharing these
same concerns will be every bit as vocal or more so in
spreading the word to the people the true danger and
unrepresentative nature of the proposed Plebiscites.

1-I contend that the only *legitimate* and *representative* item up for vote
in the assembly is for the Plebian Aedile. This does indeed
affect us all. I openly question how any other of the other
items are going to be beneficial to Plebeians as a class.

2-I would like to know who among the Plebian class was truly
consulted in the promulgation of *any* of the proposed
Plebiscites. No members of my gens were; and it's hard to
imagine any situation in which any of the proposed changes
to the constitution will benefit anyone but the Tribunes
*directly*, and to a lesser extent, current members of the Amici
Dignitas. So Tribunes, may we have a list of Plebian cives
that actually helped propose and suggest the sweeping
changes to the Constitution that you propose? Would such
a list include *anyone* but yourselves and some fellow
Amici members?

3-Obviously, you have spent a significant amount of time and research
in crafting these sweeping proposed changes to the Constitution.
Apparently, the "Official Voter's Guide" in this election seems
to be Livy. Though I commend your research efforts and knowledge
of ancient texts and obscure Leges, I request that you demonstrate
specifically how any of these Leges are even remotely pertinent
to Nova Roman life as it now exists; or even feasibly *would*
exist into the future. We obviously have a composite Constitution.
We obviously know that it is a solid mix of the old and new.
If not to gather pure unadulterated power around the office
of Tribune of the Plebs, then to what end?

4-Some clauses of the proposed Leges are strictly revolutionary
as they exist. What is more disturbing to me personally, is the
crafty way in which you conveniently mixed your language between
perfect colloquial English and obscure ancient Latin. You have
purposely put obfuscated Leges in front of the Committee at the
last possible minute. I will address additional comments to the
specific areas in the proposed Leges that fall under that
category.

5-As has been mentioned (so it will not be belabored here,) there
has been NO time prior to the official start of the voting
period in which to discuss these Leges. In fact, depending on
where one lives in the world, they weren't even posted 24 HOURS
prior to execution. My copies arrived at 8pm CST. Many parts
of the world and zones within provinces would have in effect
received these the 'day of,' so to speak.

6-I would like further clarification on why you Piscinus, the Flamen
Cerealis are proposing that you the Plebiscites are not bound by
the auspices? It seems to fly in the face of your always (perhaps
extreme) defense of the religio at all costs. It also smacks of special
interest and could be assumed to be quite hypocritical coming from
you. Furthermore, why do we as the Plebian people, need to support
10 lictors for the Tribunes? Please explain why this is necessary.
Especially in our growing Respublica where the already Constitutionally
sanctioned offices go unfulfilled. Do the Patricians really
threaten you THAT MUCH?

7-Tell us truthfully:
Are we REALLY encountering issues of confarreatio marriage? Are we
REALLY dealing issues of cross-order marriages? Are we REALLY dealing
with issues of children of intra-marriages between Patricians and
Plebeians? Where did this come from? Should we not wait until some of
your supposed erroneous areas of Constitutional law come to the test
before throwing 2500 year old laws at it?

You complain much about the clarification and detail of our Constitution.
Did you not take an oath to uphold the Constitution? How about the
Religio?
Are your sacred concepts of the Religio now null and void as a Tribune?
Perhaps you switch hats between the two whenever the mood suits you.
You can not seriously intend to mix concepts and language in a manner
likely only understood by yourself in some elements of your proposed
Leges, shove it very quickly under the noses of the people and not giving
them time AND reason to sniff it? And then hoping to ram it through in
Committee?

So, my humble Tribunes, as supposed representatives of the two Plebeian
members of
gens Flacca, This is ALL I would ask of you for now:

1-Call the vote as already scheduled for Plebian Aedile. We have two good
candidates for the position who are each well qualified in their
respective
ways. Let's complete that vote now.

2-Let's take ALL your other proposed legislation back to the drawing board
and call off the rest of the election.

Show us WHY we need it. Simply quoting textual references to our
Constitution
and inserting arcane 2500 year old ancient law in its place, and mixing
the linguistic
definitions to your own ends is simply NOT sufficient. To quote a phrase:
"Show us the money." Let's have specific examples. Let's hammer each new
proposed Lex out in the main list. Yes, the scary Patricians might
actually
be able to read and participate in the discussion, but still they could
not vote on the results. So my humble Tribunes, you are protected. Call
off
the vote on all the other issues.

Now, as proud Plebeian whom sees things to be quite fine with his situation,
thank you very much...explain why we don't actually need protection from
you!

Valete!
-Oppius Flaccus Severus,
Plebian, Tribe: IXX, Votinia