| Subject: |
[novaroma] There arent regnum |
| From: |
"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:48:37 -0300 |
|
Salvete, Quirites, Plebeians, Patricians.
First of all, lets me to compliment, sincerely, both Tribuni Plebis by the huge effort to elevate the discussion of laws in Nova Roma, by their research and elaboration of new laws, the six proposed laws that we can read in our list.
So, i invite everyone to applaud this wonderful effort.
As Aedilis Plebis, is a pleasure to read those excellent laws, and i will post my commentaries about every law in a subsequent posting.
Let me to say that is better to throw arguments to the Forum than bricks in the Tribunes. Those heavy and resistant terracota bricks are very scarse in current days, and we all want our temples intact.
The accusation of REGNUM, this is, of the Tribunes aspiring to the monarchical power, is without substance. Lets us to remember Spurius Cassius, plebeian Consul of 486 BC, killed by the patricians after proposed one Lex Agraria. It was clearly a patrician reaction to mantain their privileges, and not a destruction of a Tyrant.
However, the majority of our cives responded with good arguments, and not offenses, and so im more optimistical about Nova Roma...
I confess that was with surprise that i saw such apassionate reaction by some cives. To me, it seems generated more by the fear of seeing the tribunes working for the plebs and the people than by the careful reading of the proposed laws.
To me, is very clear that the leges were proposed in a completely legal way, and that our tribunes doesnt want absolute, monarchical power.
So, lets to go ahead. Lest to study the postponed laws and make proposals
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:50:12 -0300 |
|
Salvete, Quirites
There are some confusion about the proposed laws in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. Those laws arent revolutionary as someone can think at first time, but are a better regulation of the rights of the people.
So, as i am the Aedilis Plebis, there are my opinions about the six leges proposed by our Tribunes.
- Lex Ovinia
Is only the continuation with more details of the Lex Vedia Senatoria.
I recommend approval without alterations.
- Lex Canuleia
Only regulates the conuptia (marriage) and their relation with gens afiliation
I recommend approval without alterations.
- Lex Caecilia Didia
This lex is a guarantee of civil rights, a provision against interference of magistrates in the comitiae.
I recommend approval without alterations.
- Lex Icilia
Regulates the work of Comitia Plebis Tributa.
I recommend approval without alterations.
- Lex Publilia
This lex clashes with the Constitution, when put the CPT beyond the reach of the nuntiatio, this is, a possibility of a Augur declare that an unsolicited omen was observed, to justify a delay of a meeting of the Comitias or the Senate. This is, a Augur can block the three comitiae and the Senate, if he wants so, without being blocked by another Augur. The active Augures are Fl Vedius Germanicus, L Equitius Cincinnatus and C Aelius Ericius, all patricians. And two positions are occupied by ex-citizens (M Gladius Saevus and Dm Lucianus Dexippus), since the position of Augur is for life, there arent renounce. By the way, the Collegium Augurum have 9 places, 5 to plebeians and 4 to patricians. From what order are the ex-citizens?
I feel that the regulation of the nuntiatio is necessary, or an ammendment to the Constitution. This is a very delicate situation.
This Lex need more work.
- Lex Labiena Moravia
With this law, i see some problems.
In SEC.I, 1b, it brokes the principle of collegiade between magistrates. In Roma Antiqua, the tribunus X Gracchus forced the removal of the tribunus Octavius, because he blocked their laws
In SEC.II, 1 and 2, it recreates the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes; we need to define the word "sacer" ("cursed"). If im not wrong, it means that who falls in sacer, in Roma Antiqua, can be killed by everyone, or at least, depleted by all their rights.
But there are very good points. This lex defines the auxilia, the help that the tribunes can give to the citizens, and other necessary powers.
This Lex needs some extra work too.
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:58:54 -0500 |
|
At 09:50 PM 20/01/2001 -0300, you wrote:
>- Lex Icilia
>Regulates the work of Comitia Plebis Tributa.
>I recommend approval without alterations.
As I mentioned before, this part of the law needs work:
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.
It might be worth pointing out that all of the magistrates who have
ventured to discuss any of these proposed plebiscita could be construed as
being in violation of this law. Any plebeian who happened to voice a
similar opinion could be branded an a.p.; any citizen who happened to
disagree with a law proposed in the Comitia Plebis could similarly be
branded. Those who have raised the spectre of a tribunician 'regnum' are
not far from the mark ...
mpj
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:12:48 -0300 |
|
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:58:54
Marcus Papirius Justus wrote:
>At 09:50 PM 20/01/2001 -0300, you wrote:
>>- Lex Icilia
>>Regulates the work of Comitia Plebis Tributa.
>>I recommend approval without alterations.
>
>As I mentioned before, this part of the law needs work:
>
> 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.
>
>
>It might be worth pointing out that all of the magistrates who have
>ventured to discuss any of these proposed plebiscita could be construed as
>being in violation of this law. Any plebeian who happened to voice a
>similar opinion could be branded an a.p.; any citizen who happened to
>disagree with a law proposed in the Comitia Plebis could similarly be
>branded. Those who have raised the spectre of a tribunician 'regnum' are
>not far from the mark ...
>
>mpj
No, i dont think so. Anyone can discuss without problems. The point is, no one can prevent the plebs to reunite and discuss in the Comitia. the magistrate that only presents their opinion doesnt interfere with the Comitia.
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1189 |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:40:18 -0500 (EST) |
|
Salvete, Italian Speaking Citizens of Nova Roma;
I have just recieved a personal message from a gentleman in Italian
language. Unfortunately I am not at all good at languages, and I have
no knowledge of Italian. If someone who has fluency in Italian would be
willing to translate this 2 page message and assist me in drafting a
reply, I would be pleased to respond to this very kind attempt to share
information with me.
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:03:11 -0500 |
|
At 10:12 PM 20/01/2001 -0300, you wrote:
>No, i dont think so. Anyone can discuss without problems. The point is, no
>one can prevent the plebs to reunite and discuss in the Comitia. the
>magistrate that only presents their opinion doesnt interfere with the Comitia.
I'm sorry, but I quite adamantly cannot agree. The way the law is currently
worded as "interrupt, interfer, or otherwise inhibit the assembly and/or
voting procedures". Suppose a tribune has proposed a law; suppose a
magistrate or vocal citizen mounts a successful campaign against it. What's
preventing said tribune from claiming said magistrate or other citizen has
not simply "inihibited" the assembly and/or voting procedures? Given that
our comitia exists essentially in cyberspace, if folks don't 'turn up' at
the polls, there really is no way of knowing the genuine reasons why and a
tribune can make much of this if he or she so desired. I can foresee a
tribune using this sort of thing as an excuse to depose a magistrate (why?
because the law doesn't specify any punishment but appears to leave
everything to the jurisdiction of the tribune in question ... that's the
same sort of kangaroo court situation which led to the fall of the
Republic). I can foresee a tribune using this sort of thing as an excuse to
override a veto by a fellow tribune. I can foresee plenty of nastiness and
not a whole lot of benefit here ...
dm
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:20:00 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 4:54 AM
>
> There hasn't been any misues...of any Auspicius...because it has never
> been done! No Augur has interfered with any comitia summoning at all in
> the 3 years NR has existed. Period!
If I may, the second part of your point is untrue. The Augures have indeed
been consulted on the calling of both votes of the Comitiae and the Senate.
No vote has been cancelled because of such, but there have been slight
adjustments of the starting date of votes (usually a day or two either way).
Such requests, and subsequent replies, have to date been handled privately.
But your larger point is entirely correct; there has been no abuse of the
Augurial prerogative in Nova Roma's history. I personally feel more than a
little insulted that the reverse has been implied in the selection of
ancient leges propogated in the recent Plebiscitum. Out of the thousands of
ancient leges from which to choose to emulate, why was this particular one
chosen?
I would add that, while it was left to the Augures to declare nuntatio
(based on unasked-for signs from the Gods), other magistrates did, in Roma
Antiqua, engage in the reading of auspices to determine appropriate times
for various actions; such religious obligations were part of their civil
responsibilities.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:33:07 -0800 |
|
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla [mailto:alexious@--------]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 4:54 AM
> >
> > There hasn't been any misues...of any Auspicius...because it has never
> > been done! No Augur has interfered with any comitia summoning at all in
> > the 3 years NR has existed. Period!
>
> If I may, the second part of your point is untrue. The Augures have indeed
> been consulted on the calling of both votes of the Comitiae and the Senate.
> No vote has been cancelled because of such, but there have been slight
> adjustments of the starting date of votes (usually a day or two either way).
> Such requests, and subsequent replies, have to date been handled privately.
>
Thank you for your correct, I meant it exactly as you have taken it in your
second paragraph. When I was Consul I did consult the Augurs for dates of when
it was Auspicious to summon the Senate and Comitia. I was trying to make a
point that the Auguries was never used to prevent a Senate or Comitia from being
summoned.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> But your larger point is entirely correct; there has been no abuse of the
> Augurial prerogative in Nova Roma's history. I personally feel more than a
> little insulted that the reverse has been implied in the selection of
> ancient leges propogated in the recent Plebiscitum. Out of the thousands of
> ancient leges from which to choose to emulate, why was this particular one
> chosen?
>
> I would add that, while it was left to the Augures to declare nuntatio
> (based on unasked-for signs from the Gods), other magistrates did, in Roma
> Antiqua, engage in the reading of auspices to determine appropriate times
> for various actions; such religious obligations were part of their civil
> responsibilities.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] The Gentes Sentia |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:01:48 -0800 |
|
Salvete and a warm and hearty welcome to all new Sentiae!
Valete bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Stevenson [mailto:dougies@--------]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:31 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] The Gentes Sentia
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]
eGroups Sponsor
Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Upcoming Comitia Populi Vote |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:13:36 -0500 |
|
Salvete Omnes!
This is just an informal notice that the Consuls intend to call the Comitia
Populi Tributa to order on Monday January 23rd, the session ending on
Tuesday January 31st. (The law requires the vote take at least 8 days, and
must be concluded by the 31st.) Rogatores and Curator Araneum please take
note.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR VOTER CODE, PLEASE ASK THE CENSORES
(censors@--------) TO SEND IT TO YOU IMMEDIATELY!
We will be voting on candidates to replace the two vacancies for Quaestor,
as well as the vacant post of Curator Differum (newsletter editor). We will
also be voting on the various leges as posted and discussed earlier on this
email list. A couple of minor details have been altered to reflect input
from the Cives who've commented on the published draft proposals (including
Formosanus' suggestions for latin titles-- many thanks!), but they are
nearly the same as earlier posted.
Of course, if anyone wishes, I can repost all the revised draft proposals
prior to the calling of the Comitia.
The official call to vote will be issued on the 22st, one day before the
voting starts, as stipulated by the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Populi
Tributorum. The official forms of the proposed leges, as well as a listing
of all the candidates for office, will be included in that proclamation.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The halted vote |
| From: |
Christer Edling <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:18:43 +0100 |
|
>I salute the respected Tribunes for their decision to allow more time
>to debate and understand the proposed plebiscita.
>
>While I am not a plebeian and can therefore only speak as an observer,
>it would seem to me a more effective approach to enact one or two
>measures at a time, so as to allow fuller understanding of each. Also,
>as Australicus rightly suggests, full texts and explanations of the
>proposals are necessary, along with supporting historical documentation
>when appropriate.
>
>Also, since the Comitia Plebis has unfortunately sustained a long
>period of inactivity, it might be useful to start the first vote with
>one or two proposals that are fairly clear-cut and obvious, so as to
>get people comfortable with the voting process.
>
>Patricia Cassia
Salve Omnes!
I totally agree with the Illustrus Senator and Quaestor. I think setting up
all the proposals together again will mean that most of us will not be able
sort all the strings out. Even if I am a patrician, I would like to follow
and understand those proposals, especialy those that maybe are in conflict
with the Constitution.
Hoping for an intelligent and knowledgeble discussion
Vale
Christer Edling
alias
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The halted vote |
| From: |
Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:58:56 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
I applaud Senator Patricia Cassia for her statement and must admit that I
have the same feelings and thoughts.
Our esteemed Tribunes deserve our respect for cancelling the vote about
the proposed plebiscita, enabling the whole citizenry to engage in a
debate about the proposals.
Furthermore, I suggest that the proposed plebiscitas should be discussed
one after another. Starting with one plebiscitum, bringing debate to an
end and than discussing about the next one. I think that this makes debate
more accessible and understandable.
I wish us all that we can discuss the proposals in a civilian and
honourable way. Nonone is helped by statements like "those are the bad
guys, we are the good guys". Of course, there may be some doubts about the
accordance of some proposals with the Constitution, but the wrong way is
to denounce the Tribunes as "monarchists" or "enemies of the republic",
Tribunes who only makes their job in a very active way.
Once I read a sentence like "remember the Gracchi". I really hope that
this citizen doesn´t mean that we should solve our disagreements by
stones, clubs and daggers.
Bene Valete, Citizens!
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
"pjane@--------" wrote:
> I salute the respected Tribunes for their decision to allow more time
> to debate and understand the proposed plebiscita.
>
> While I am not a plebeian and can therefore only speak as an observer,
> it would seem to me a more effective approach to enact one or two
> measures at a time, so as to allow fuller understanding of each. Also,
> as Australicus rightly suggests, full texts and explanations of the
> proposals are necessary, along with supporting historical documentation
> when appropriate.
>
> Also, since the Comitia Plebis has unfortunately sustained a long
> period of inactivity, it might be useful to start the first vote with
> one or two proposals that are fairly clear-cut and obvious, so as to
> get people comfortable with the voting process.
>
> Patricia Cassia
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Powers of Tribunes |
| From: |
Gian G Reali <piscinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:10:04 -0800 |
|
Salve Aeternia
Scripsisti:
"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?"
I think the simple answer is that the plebiscita make the Tribunes
accountable to the Comitia Plebis Tributa. They assert the authority of
the comitia over the Tribunes by setting guidelines on how they should
perform their duties. Other plebiscita allow for the comitia to become
more independent. The combination of many of the plebiscita is then to
make the Plebeian officers more responsive to the Plebeians whose
interests they are meant to serve.
Vale
Cn. Moravius Piscinus
Flamen Cerealis
Tribunus Plebis
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Gian G Reali <piscinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:16:11 -0800 |
|
Salvete Quirites
In all that has been said about the plebiscita and the misunderstanding
of their intent, I want to point out this one paragraph by our former
Tribunus Plebis because I believe this is the crux of the present
situation.
Australicus respondet:
"Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune? Whoever
it
would be, they would be given power over the behavior of the Tribune,
which would detract from the essential power of the Tribuni. We must rely
on electing good people to serve in the office of Tribune. There is no
way to put a guard over the conduct of tribunes without taking away from
the essential power of the office. If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls
and Senate can use the "Ultimate Decree" to correct things, but beyond
that I am opposed to giving anyone, including another Tribune, power to
interfere with the Tribuni"
Thr Plebiscitum de Tribunicia Potestates did not increase the powers of
the Tribunes as some have suggested. It placed guidelines on the use of
tribunician powers which in many ways limited their exercise. Whose
power would have been increased by the entire set of plebiscita is the
Comitia Plebis Tributa itself.
"Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune?" The
CPT, under the Constitution, Section III.C, elects the Tribunes, may "try
legal cases solely involving members of the plebeian order," and "enact
plebiscita with the force of law, binding upon the entire citizenry,"
which of course would include the Tribunes. What this plebiscitum does
is place the Tribunes under the authority of the CPT entirely. Who is to
judge whether the behavior of a Tribune is appropriate? The CPT by
III.C.3. Who is to set the standards and guidelines by which a Tribune's
appropriate behavior is to be judged? The CPT by III.C.1. To whom are
the Tribuni Plebis ultimately responsible? to the CPT by III.C.2.
"Whoever it would be, they would be given power over the behavior of the
Tribune, which would detract from the essential power of the Tribuni."
Yes, Sergius, you are exactly right, and you are the only one commenting
on the plebiscita that has managed to see this. The plebiscitum on the
Tribuncia Potestates gives power to the CPT over the Tribunes.
"If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls and Senate can use the "Ultimate
Decree" to correct things..."
And herein lies the real problem of what has been going on in Nova Roma
since its inception. The combination of the plebiscita on the procedures
set for the CPT, the establishment of the authority of the CPT over its
Tribunes, the reaffirmations of the Leges Publilia and Icilia to
establish the autonomy of the CPT as a legislative body within Nova Roma,
all had a singular purpose. Granted it would have been composed of only
a portion of the citizens, but that was a first step of turning authority
in Nova Roma over to all the citizens who compose it. And what is the
alternative to the citizens having the leading role in the organization
they collectively form? A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
a Senatus consultum ultimatum.
For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
authority to one individual to act as a Dictator. Nova Roma is not even
three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
the expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma
politics, because this is becoming an annual event.
There are better ways of resolving conflict. Discussing differences to
resolve conflicts is preferable to clashes that only lead to rifts. But
that assumes both sides equally respect one another. It assumes both
sides do hold a balance. The old Republic first developed when the
Plebeians asserted that they too had a voice in the affairs of Rome. The
Plebeian movement sought to create balance between different sources of
power. When the Comitia Plebis and its Tribunes did eventually gain an
upper hand in the old Republic, the result was a reactionary overthrow of
the legitimate government, the slaughter of the Senate, the elimination
of the censors, the diminishing of the tribunes, and the rule of Sulla
the Dictator. In short, the end of the old Republic. Now Nova Roma is
trying to restore the old Republic. One very small group here wants to
have the form without any content. They want to hold to one very narrow
vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the other side is another small
group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing
the institutions that once formed the old Republic. They are of the
opinion that the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova
Roma collectively and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
so shall choose.
The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma. We have
faith that reasoned discussion in an open forum can resolve differences.
That is why we seek to build and develop forums and committees in Nova
Roma. That is why we are willing to place ourselves under the authority
of the particular assembly of the Plebeians known as the CPT. The
Tribunes promote an ongoing process of an evolving, living community.
Our continued efforts shall be to bring an increasingly broader segment
of our community into participation.
Valete
Cn. Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa. |
| From: |
"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:02:29 -0500 |
|
for the record,
Not this TIBERIUS!!
ATR
>From: "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis
>Tributa.
>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:00:16 -0600
>
>19 jan 2001
>
>salve All
>
>I too, would like to see a delay, as I feel there has been no public
>consultation or input. I want to see our assemblies finally working as much
>as anyone else, but never in Old Roma has there ever been such a
>introduction of Laws! In fact, the Tribunes of Old would plan a strategy,
>then try to pass their Laws throughout their year in office. I can only say
>that I hope this is not the start of such a plan, as it will surly end in
>Monarchy! Remember Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus!
>
>Vale
>
>Quintus Sertorius
>Propraetor
>Canada Occidentalis
>quintus-sertorius@--------
>
>Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:56:13 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salvete Quirites,
> And what is the
> alternative to the citizens having the leading role in the organization
> they collectively form? A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
> a Senatus consultum ultimatum.
No one has "threatened" anything. There have merely been statements that
this option exists in the Constitution, for use in a crisis, and that it
is the Senate's one and only defense against a hostile tribune. There has
been no talk of actually doing so for the current situation, here or
on the Senate list.
And, of course, it would take a majority of the Senate to do this - not
a minority.
> Nova Roma is not even
> three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
> offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
> the expense of others.
Bullshit. There has been exactly one call for a dictator, an event that
happened nearly two years ago. I'm not aware of any other situation where
it's even been proposed, much less voted upon.
> There are better ways of resolving conflict. Discussing differences to
> resolve conflicts is preferable to clashes that only lead to rifts.
That's what we're doing here, is it not?
> Now Nova Roma is
> trying to restore the old Republic. One very small group here wants to
> have the form without any content. They want to hold to one very narrow
> vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the other side is another small
> group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing
> the institutions that once formed the old Republic.
This second small group is holding to yet another very narrow vision,
that of the late Republic, where too-powerful tribunes obstructed the Senate
and every other magistrate in the performance of their duties. Their opponents
are trying to keep power in the hands of those offices elected by *all* the
people, rather than those offices elected by two-thirds of the people.
> They are of the
> opinion that the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova
> Roma collectively and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
> so shall choose.
One of these very small groups proposes its legislation weeks in advance
of the voting, asking all citizens for input, and is quite willing to add
or change proposals as needed. The other faction writes its proposals
in secrecy, withholding them from the citizens until the final day before
voting, keeping the proposals secret as long as possible until compelled
by the law to post them publicly.
How does this "breathe life" into the respublica? How does your secret
legislative program give citizens an opportunity to develop Nova Roma
"collectively and freely"?
> The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma.
You ask them to rubber-stamp proposals that have sprung fully formed from
your forehead, without having time to debate them, or opportunity to
request changes. That is not "trust".
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:01:06 -0000 |
|
>
> But your larger point is entirely correct; there has been no abuse
of the
> Augurial prerogative in Nova Roma's history. I personally feel more
than a
> little insulted that the reverse has been implied in the selection
of
> ancient leges propogated in the recent Plebiscitum. Out of the
thousands of
> ancient leges from which to choose to emulate, why was this
particular one
> chosen?
>
Salve, Consul of Nova Roma,
I don't think our Tribunes meant any disrespect for our current Augers
when they selected the Lex Publilia as one of the Ancient Leges that
they wished to have the Plebes reaffirm. The Lex Publilia was a
milestone in setting up the powers of the Comitia Plebis Tributa of
Roma Antiquita, and I think that the intent was to gaurd against the
possibility that in the future Nova Roma's Augers may lack the
intregity the the present Augers have. Personally I think it's
premature to propose that the CPT be removed from the taking of the
Auspicia. For now I prefer that we protect the Plebes AND the
Patricians by insuring that we don't fall into the habit of the
Ancients, of apointing Augers who only want the postion for personal
glory, rather than seeking out people of the highest intregity who
feel a geuinine calling from the gods to perform these essential
rites.
Vale,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:05:19 EST |
|
EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
> The active Augures are Fl Vedius Germanicus, L Equitius Cincinnatus and C
> Aelius Ericius, all patricians. And two positions are occupied by
> ex-citizens (M Gladius Saevus and Dm Lucianus Dexippus), since the position
> of Augur is for life, there arent renounce. By the way, the Collegium
> Augurum have 9 places, 5 to plebeians and 4 to patricians. From what order
>
So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will never be changed
again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will still be in post even
though they may be dead in real life.
Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced dead? In most
macronational socities there is a provision for the courts to declare someone
legally dead in order to settle their affairs.
Bicurratus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
The value of truth (was: RE: [novaroma] Who is to decide?) |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:22:38 -0500 |
|
Salve,
>>Nova Roma is not even three years old yet and every time some disagreement
arises, the solution offered is to call for a dictator to save the
privileges of a select at the expense of others.>>
I find this statement to be outrageously incorrect. If, as you claim,
"every time a disagreement arises..." a call is made for dictatorship,
please be so good as to point out for me where this was done in the current
CPT/leges discussions. Certainly there was much disagreement, from both
Plebeians and Patricians, pointing g out the errors of your proposals, yet
there was no call for, suggestion of, or even discussion of dictatorship. To
say that there was, or even that there is "every time" a problem arise is no
more than irresponsible cage-rattling on your part. Not to mention it is
blatantly untrue, hardly a point I favor of your personal honor to say such
untrue things.
I would also like to comment on your audacity in claiming that a Dictator
serves only a select few at the "expense" of others. I realize you are a
mere neophyte here in many ways, having less than 8 months among us as a
citizen, but rest assured that the ONE use of the Dictatorship here was an
unfortunate necessity that proved to serve ALL of the nation. I would
strongly suggest you get your facts in order about what it, for you, history
you did not personally live through before making such inflammatory and,
once again, untrue statements.
>>For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma politics, because this is
becoming an annual event.>>
How dare you? This kind of posturing and blatant falsehood does much to
damage your honor sir! You arrived here in our fair nation slightly less
than one full YEAR after the ONE Dictatorship we have had. You *are*, in
terms of the issues you so erroneously attempt to address here, one of those
"newer citizens". You would do well to speak to some of us who lived
through those events, rather than simply attempt to scare people into
believing the outright lie you state above.
I rarely give voice to emotion here on the list, preferring to keep my own
counsel on matters that are opinion. However, when it comes to blatant lies
being told to the citizens, I feel it is imperative that all those who know
better speak out against such scare tactics. Your statements are false,
whether due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to frighten the uninformed,
it matters little. Unless you can provide documentation of this alleged
frequent threat of dictatorship (not to mention it being an annual event), I
strongly suggest you retract your comments and refrain from making similar
ones in the future.
I must say that I had been quite impressed with your wilingness to halt the
vote and take into account the various concerns of the people before
proceeding. I saw that as a testament to your fair-minded ways and saw it
as a very hopeful start to the coming year. To see that act followed by the
kind of irresponsible and immoral behavior as seen above shakes my
confidence to the core. It is up to you to repair the damage done, and Gods
willing, you will conduct yourself in a more truthful manner going forward.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1190 |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:49:37 -0500 |
|
Ex Manu Augur Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus Salutem
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:43:55 -0000
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Subject: Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia
> > In Ancient Rome impius men were allowed to become Augers for
> > polictical reasons. These men would then allways find the auspicia
> > prevented a meeting that was likely to pass a measure that thier
> > policital foes favored. In effect they used the taking of the
> > auspicia as an intersessio substituting thier personal feelings for the
will of the gods.
> >
> > This law was passed to prevent Patrician Augers from thwarting the
> > will of the Plebes through the use of this "auspicia intercessio".
It refered to an abuse of power by some Augers. I'm not aware of any
> > misuse of the auspicia in Nova Roma, and before I could consider
> > voting for a measure like this one, I'd like some examples of
misuse of the auspicia.
> >
>
> There hasn't been any misues...of any Auspicius...because it has
never been done! No Augur has interfered with any comitia summoning at
all in the 3 years NR has existed. Period!
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma
Lucius Cornelius,
Thank you for clearing up this point. Since the Augers of Nova Roma
haven't misused the taking of the auspicia to interfere in the
workings of the Comitiae, then I can see no reason to pass this
pleblecita at this time.
Lucius Equitius: This is really interesting, no one seems to question the
motives that would be used for any magistrate that has the power to 'veto'
should *they* use it! Also, there have been slight delays on account of
'inauspicia' in the calling of various votes.
Let us wait until we see an "auspicia intercessio" before we consider
placing limits on the taking of the
auspicia.
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
Lucius Equitius: "intercessio" is another term for Veto and 'nuntiatio' is
something else.
Subject: Halting the vote in the CPT
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>SNIP<
I do have some quibbles: (1) I tend to wonder if Censor Cincinnatus might
not be right about confarreatio. It was originally a patrician institution,
and this has a connection with the Religio. Should we, that being the case,
really extend it to plebeians?
Lucius Euqitius: I find this question even more interesting considering that
citizen can chose to join a Patrician gens and adoption is not unheard of.
(2) We might alsoquestion with Cincinnatus whether the default gens
affiliation should
really pass to the mother's gens, when traditionally Rome was a patriarchal
society. Indeed, is not the anthropological difference between a gens and a
clan the fact that in the gens membership is
reckoned in all cases through the father?
Lucius Equitius: Yes, but I don't have the term for a matrilineal clan. Clan
being the term for "A division of a tribe tracing descent from a common
ancestor."
3) Isn't the trinum nundinum rule for providing for adequate discussion of
legislation in
the comitia a good one?
Lucius Equitius: I think so!
>SNIP<
Valete!
Candidate for Plebeian Aedile
M.A. Formosanus
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:50:12 -0300
From: "Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Subject: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis
Salvete, Quirites
- Lex Publilia
This lex clashes with the Constitution, when put the CPT beyond the reach of
the nuntiatio, this is, a possibility of a Augur declare that an unsolicited
omen was observed, to justify a delay of a meeting of the Comitias or the
Senate. This is, a Augur can block the three comitiae and the Senate, if he
wants so, without being blocked by another Augur. The active Augures are Fl
Vedius Germanicus, L Equitius Cincinnatus and C Aelius Ericius, all
patricians.
Lucius Equitius: I will say this right now, no one wanted the Comitia formed
more than me.
Ask anyone who has been in Nova Roma what happened when I was Consul.
Never mind that, Flavius Vedius formed the Tribes and Centuries, so now we
have them *to* summon!
As for Augur Ericius, if not for the Religio I believe he would not be a
Novi Romani.
We were citizens before there were Comitia in other then name, we joined to
build the New Rome and the Pax Deorum!
I am sorry, but you have offened me personally by this insinuation. I will
tell you something else though, when I got up yesterday morning I read the
list digest and saw that the Tribunes had delayed the voting of their
proposals, then I went out on my balcony and I saw a propitious sign from
the birds. Ask Consul Germanicus, as I reported this to him.
And two positions are occupied by ex-citizens (M Gladius Saevus and Dm
Lucianus Dexippus), since the position of Augur is for life, there arent
renounce. By the way, the Collegium Augurum have 9 places, 5 to plebeians
and 4 to patricians. From what order are the ex-citizens?
Lucius Equitius: Ex cives.
I feel that the regulation of the nuntiatio is necessary, or an ammendment
to the Constitution. This is a very delicate situation.
This Lex need more work.
Lucius Equitius: No, it needs to be thrown out! Are we in such a hurry that
a delay cannot be tolerated.!?
A 'nuntiatio' is not a veto, it is only a delay. Also, it can be ignored,
but then when things blowup in your face, you just might hear whispered, "I
(we)
told you so."
- Lex Labiena Moravia
With this law, i see some problems.
In SEC.II, 1 and 2, it recreates the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes; we need
to define the word "sacer" ("cursed").
If im not wrong, it means that who falls in sacer, in Roma Antiqua, can be
killed by everyone, or at least, depleted by all their rights.
Lucius Equitius: Yes they could then be killed by anyone with impunity
because they belonged to the Gods.
This Lex needs some extra work too.
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Lucius Equitius: What I believe the Tribunes were trying to do is... Jeez. I
don't know. Tribunes 'were' "sacrosanct", what I mean by that is that they
could not have hands laid upon them in anger or violence done to them during
the duration of their term as Tribune. However, I have not ever seen that
Tribunes could declare anyone 'sacer'. I suppose that they could, to anyone
who laid hands upon them while they were doing their duty... but then I
don't know if it would have any validity. Certainly not under our
constitution, This is something that the College Pontificium should
determine in conjunction with the Comitia Centuriata, not the Comitia
Plebis.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia |
| From: |
"Razenna " <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:50:19 -0000 |
|
Thank you for your faith and confidence in the Collegium Augurum, the
Augurs [correct spelling] individually and the deities of Roma.
C. Aelius Ericius.
--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@b...> wrote:
> Salve, Consul of Nova Roma,
>
> I don't think our Tribunes meant any disrespect for our current
Augers
> when they selected the Lex Publilia as one of the Ancient Leges that
> they wished to have the Plebes reaffirm. The Lex Publilia was a
> milestone in setting up the powers of the Comitia Plebis Tributa of
> Roma Antiquita, and I think that the intent was to gaurd against the
> possibility that in the future Nova Roma's Augers may lack the
> intregity the the present Augers have. Personally I think it's
> premature to propose that the CPT be removed from the taking of the
> Auspicia. For now I prefer that we protect the Plebes AND the
> Patricians by insuring that we don't fall into the habit of the
> Ancients, of apointing Augers who only want the postion for personal
> glory, rather than seeking out people of the highest intregity who
> feel a geuinine calling from the gods to perform these essential
> rites.
>
> Vale,
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1190 |
| From: |
Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:32:33 -0500 |
|
At 11:49 AM 21/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>I do have some quibbles: (1) I tend to wonder if Censor Cincinnatus might
>not be right about confarreatio. It was originally a patrician institution,
>and this has a connection with the Religio. Should we, that being the case,
>really extend it to plebeians?
I'm not sure that historically we can say that only patricians were so wed.
All we can say for sure is that it was *required* of patricians for a
certain time and definitely a requirement for enrolment in certain
priesthoods. I have a difficult time thinking that, by the end of the
Republic, there wasn't some sort of blend of marriage rites ...
mpj
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:33:25 -0000 |
|
> ******************************
>
> Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfimatio Lex Icilia
>
> In accordance with Sections I, III, and IV of the Constitution
of Nova
> Roma, under the authority of Sections I.B and III.C.1, the following
> plebiscitum is enacted as a reaffirmation of the Lex Icilia, 282
AUC, to
> ensure Sections II.B.3, and III.B.C. and D., with provision made
in
> accord with Section IV.A.7a
>
> 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.
Salvete Quirites
Section 1 of this Lex has stiried up a lot of debate, and some fear
it's an attempt by the Tribunes to silince debate on proposed
Pleblicitae. In Roma Antiquita there were attempts to break up
meetings of the Plebes by hiring gladiators to disrupt a meeting. Even
if the gladiators failed to disperse the meeting, it could later be
claimed the pleblicita was passed per vim, with violance, and was
invalid.
Some argue that holding our meetings on the internet makes it
impossible to attempt to break a meeting. This is incorrect. I've done
some Computer Security work, And I'd like to remind you that there are
some Hacker tricks that could be used to disrupt a meeting.
1)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against the
eGroups server making it impossible for citizens to comment on a
proposal.
2)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against Nova
Roma's server making it impossible for citizens to vote.
3)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against the board
where discussion is taking place by spamming hundreds of offtopic
posts that make it difficult to find the real posts (Low siginal to
Noise ratio)
4)"Troll Posts" who's only intent is to goad as many people as
possible into making angry replies can be made, shifting the debate
away from the proposal.
Besides my examples I'm sure an inovative hacker could find other ways
to disrupt a meeting. This pleblicita provides a means of punishing
those who attempt this kind of action against a meeting of the Plebes.
II.B.4 of the constitution states
* The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining
order and civility
I maintain that someone who attempted to disrupt a meeting in example
1 or 3 has violated citizens right to participate in a meeting, and
should be punished.
That someone who attempted example 4 has violated the last sentance of
II.B.4 and should be punished.
II.B.3 of the constitution states
* The right to vote in elections as members of their various comitia
on matters brought before the People in such manner as described in
this Constitution
I maintain that someone who attempted to disrupt a meeting in example
2 has violated this right and should be punished.
Valete
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Upcoming Comitia Populi Vote |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:44:11 -0700 |
|
Salve, Germanicus:
Please repost the proposals.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete Omnes!
>
> This is just an informal notice that the Consuls intend to call the Comitia
> Populi Tributa to order on Monday January 23rd, the session ending on
> Tuesday January 31st. (The law requires the vote take at least 8 days, and
> must be concluded by the 31st.) Rogatores and Curator Araneum please take
> note.
>
> IF YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR VOTER CODE, PLEASE ASK THE CENSORES
> (censors@--------) TO SEND IT TO YOU IMMEDIATELY!
>
> We will be voting on candidates to replace the two vacancies for Quaestor,
> as well as the vacant post of Curator Differum (newsletter editor). We will
> also be voting on the various leges as posted and discussed earlier on this
> email list. A couple of minor details have been altered to reflect input
> from the Cives who've commented on the published draft proposals (including
> Formosanus' suggestions for latin titles-- many thanks!), but they are
> nearly the same as earlier posted.
>
> Of course, if anyone wishes, I can repost all the revised draft proposals
> prior to the calling of the Comitia.
>
> The official call to vote will be issued on the 22st, one day before the
> voting starts, as stipulated by the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Populi
> Tributorum. The official forms of the proposed leges, as well as a listing
> of all the candidates for office, will be included in that proclamation.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR TWO |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:41:04 -0800 |
|
Salvete Quirites!
I come to humbly lend my support to Quintus Sertorius' bid for Quaestor.
Though I have concerns regarding his vastly large territory and seemingly
endless designs on acquiring even more territory, (just kidding here :-)
he has shown himself to be a gifted and active cive and administrator.
Quintus has been extremely active in provincial matters and is a
major contributor to other provincial lists as well. Additionally,
his knowledgeable and well-researched contributions to the Sodalitas
Militarum have been excellent. He has also brought in a lot of new
citizens to Nova Roma.
I mean no disrespect to the other candidates in publicly supporting
Quintus Sertorius. We are blessed with some excellent choices for
Quaestor this election. Bona Fortuna!
Valete bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Quintus Sertorius [mailto:quintus-sertorius@--------]
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 6:29 AM
To: NR_CanOcc@--------; novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR TWO
SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR TWO
20 Jan 2001
Salve All
I would like to thank those that have pledged their support, both publicly
and privately, for my run for a Quaestorship for Nova Roma. I feel I will be
needing all the help I can get in order to get in, so please let me know
where you stand in these elections. If I do not here from you, I can assure
up that they will be hearing from me. I am very keen on obtaining this
office, and feel my experience will be a great asset, but I can only make
this happen if as many Nova Romans as possible come out and vote!
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]
eGroups Sponsor
Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1190 |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:47:35 -0000 |
|
>
> Let us wait until we see an "auspicia intercessio" before we
consider
> placing limits on the taking of the
> auspicia.
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
> Lucius Equitius: "intercessio" is another term for Veto and
'nuntiatio' is
> something else.
>
The reason I used as strong a term as "auspicia intercessio" was
because the Augurs of Roma Antiquita who misused thier powers would
call a nuntiatio at EVERY meeting until the tribune either gave up on
his efforts or left office. This repeated calling of Nuntiatio in
effect amounted to an Intercessio.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:46:04 -0800 |
|
Ave
Are most of those DOS illegal in our macronations? If so....then it is
not necessary...all one needs to do is to contact that particular
macronation. Plus if anything happens to Egroups-Yahoo (since they have
merged). That person responsible is going to get sued and probably
jailed. Therefore your attempt to validate this law still isn't
sufficient. :)
As for the Troll posts. I see that from Tribune Piscinus's post called
"Who is to decide?" Not from any citizen. If we want to be equal
enforcement on this then we all should remember the words of Tribune
Piscinus and never forget this attempted plebiscite! You cant have it
both way.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> > ******************************
> >
> > Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfimatio Lex Icilia
> >
> > In accordance with Sections I, III, and IV of the Constitution
> of Nova
> > Roma, under the authority of Sections I.B and III.C.1, the following
> > plebiscitum is enacted as a reaffirmation of the Lex Icilia, 282
> AUC, to
> > ensure Sections II.B.3, and III.B.C. and D., with provision made
> in
> > accord with Section IV.A.7a
> >
> > 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.
>
> Salvete Quirites
>
> Section 1 of this Lex has stiried up a lot of debate, and some fear
> it's an attempt by the Tribunes to silince debate on proposed
> Pleblicitae. In Roma Antiquita there were attempts to break up
> meetings of the Plebes by hiring gladiators to disrupt a meeting. Even
> if the gladiators failed to disperse the meeting, it could later be
> claimed the pleblicita was passed per vim, with violance, and was
> invalid.
>
> Some argue that holding our meetings on the internet makes it
> impossible to attempt to break a meeting. This is incorrect. I've done
> some Computer Security work, And I'd like to remind you that there are
> some Hacker tricks that could be used to disrupt a meeting.
>
> 1)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against the
> eGroups server making it impossible for citizens to comment on a
> proposal.
>
> 2)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against Nova
> Roma's server making it impossible for citizens to vote.
>
> 3)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against the board
> where discussion is taking place by spamming hundreds of offtopic
> posts that make it difficult to find the real posts (Low siginal to
> Noise ratio)
>
> 4)"Troll Posts" who's only intent is to goad as many people as
> possible into making angry replies can be made, shifting the debate
> away from the proposal.
>
> Besides my examples I'm sure an inovative hacker could find other ways
> to disrupt a meeting. This pleblicita provides a means of punishing
> those who attempt this kind of action against a meeting of the Plebes.
>
> II.B.4 of the constitution states
> * The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
> the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
> State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
> restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
> clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
> expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining
> order and civility
>
> I maintain that someone who attempted to disrupt a meeting in example
> 1 or 3 has violated citizens right to participate in a meeting, and
> should be punished.
>
> That someone who attempted example 4 has violated the last sentance of
> II.B.4 and should be punished.
>
> II.B.3 of the constitution states
> * The right to vote in elections as members of their various comitia
> on matters brought before the People in such manner as described in
> this Constitution
>
> I maintain that someone who attempted to disrupt a meeting in example
> 2 has violated this right and should be punished.
>
> Valete
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae |
| From: |
"Marcus Darius Ursus" <marcus_darius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:21:24 -0700 |
|
Why take what Brittania has rightfully stolen? :)
(In jest, I know the rightful ownership of the Falkland Islands (Islas
Malvinas) has been in question for over 400 years.)
Marcus Darius Ursus
Paterfamilias Daria
Legatus for the Regio of Athabasca
Provincia of Canada Occidentalis
--------------------------
marcus_darius@--------
Bellerophon@--------
ICQ: 83821138
>From: gmvick32@--------
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:51:42 -0700
>
>Actually, I think Quintus Sertorius has his eyes on the Falklands for his
>growing empire.
>
>Livia
>
>
>
>Pompeia Cornelia wrote:
>
> > Salve Amicus et Propraetor Argentina Lucius Pompeius:
> >
> > Please forget about who has claim to the Falklands......leave that to us
> > back here in Nova Roma :). You have planned this trip for a while, and
>I
> > wish you a wonderful and restful time.
> >
> > Buona Fortuna!
> > Pompeia Cornelia
> >
> > >From: gmvick32@--------
> > >Reply-To: novaroma@--------
> > >To: novaroma@--------
> > >Subject: Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
> > >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:29:04 -0700
> > >
> > >No Brit worth their salt would want to go to the Falklands.
> > >
> > >Livia
> > >
> > >"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ave, are you saying you dont want to go on a fully expense payed
> > >expedition to the
> > > > Falklands!?! :)
> > > >
> > > > Sulla Felix
> > > >
> > > > BICURRATUS@-------- wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > EX DOMO PROCURATORIS BRITANNIAE
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now
> > >recognize the
> > > > > > Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you
>still
> > >have the
> > > > > > Quintqureme base there?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you trying to do to me, QFM? Propraetor Vado is already
>planning
> > >to send
> > > > > me to Thule Ultima to pick up bird crap and seaweed for his palace
> > >vegetable
> > > > > garden. I can see another trip to count penguins looming before my
> > >eyes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you ever seen a quinquerieme in South Atlantic storm?
>Exactly.
> > >The
> > > > > blasted things sink like a brick.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
> > > > > Procurator Britanniae
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>http://www.hotmail.com.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:39:54 -0300 |
|
Salve Quirites, salve M Papirius Justus
Marcus Papirius Justus wrote:
>At 10:12 PM 20/01/2001 -0300, you wrote:
>>No, i dont think so. Anyone can discuss without problems. The point is, no
>>one can prevent the plebs to reunite and discuss in the Comitia. the
>>magistrate that only presents their opinion doesnt interfere with the Comitia.
>
>I'm sorry, but I quite adamantly cannot agree. The way the law is currently
>worded as "interrupt, interfer, or otherwise inhibit the assembly and/or
>voting procedures". Suppose a tribune has proposed a law; suppose a
>magistrate or vocal citizen mounts a successful campaign against it. What's
>preventing said tribune from claiming said magistrate or other citizen has
>not simply "inihibited" the assembly and/or voting procedures? Given that
>our comitia exists essentially in cyberspace, if folks don't 'turn up' at
>the polls, there really is no way of knowing the genuine reasons why and a
>tribune can make much of this if he or she so desired. I can foresee a
>tribune using this sort of thing as an excuse to depose a magistrate (why?
>because the law doesn't specify any punishment but appears to leave
>everything to the jurisdiction of the tribune in question ... that's the
>same sort of kangaroo court situation which led to the fall of the
>Republic). I can foresee a tribune using this sort of thing as an excuse to
>override a veto by a fellow tribune. I can foresee plenty of nastiness and
>not a whole lot of benefit here ...
A successful campaign gainst a law? Except in use of military force, i think that is only the use of the capacity of persuasion, and this isnt interruption, interference or inhibition of the comitia or voting.
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:39:15 -0800 |
|
Salvete Drusus et omnes,
-----Original Message-----
From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@--------]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:33 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia
> ******************************
>
> Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfimatio Lex Icilia
>
> In accordance with Sections I, III, and IV of the Constitution
of Nova
> Roma, under the authority of Sections I.B and III.C.1, the following
> plebiscitum is enacted as a reaffirmation of the Lex Icilia, 282
AUC, to
> ensure Sections II.B.3, and III.B.C. and D., with provision made
in
> accord with Section IV.A.7a
>
> 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.
Salvete Quirites
Section 1 of this Lex has stiried up a lot of debate, and some fear
it's an attempt by the Tribunes to silince debate on proposed
Pleblicitae. In Roma Antiquita there were attempts to break up
meetings of the Plebes by hiring gladiators to disrupt a meeting. Even
if the gladiators failed to disperse the meeting, it could later be
claimed the pleblicita was passed per vim, with violance, and was
invalid.
<<OFS: I'm with you here...to a point. It should be noted that
most if not all of the exceptions to this section of the Lex
is *specifically* due to its extremely broad wording. As the Tribunes
and others have stated to their defense, the reasoning behind
many of the proposed Leges are for clarifying the 'open' areas
of the current Constitution. The initial Lex; *as proposed*, is
extremely broad and leaves too many areas open to interpretation.
One could interpret this Lex as simply saying: "A tribune has
determined that he/she doesn't like your post, or has suspicions
that forces might be working together in a spirit of 'collusion'
to thwart the noble law-making efforts of the Tribunes." Bad
civus for disagreeing with us...you are in contempt...I think
you see where this is going.
Now, IF there seems to be some public support from the Plebeians
(and I do not just mean Amici Dignitas Plebeians, but the *majority*
of the Plebeians,) that there is some legitimate concern that
our Plebian assemblies will be violated, THEN it makes sense
to get very specific and craft Leges that deal with specific
abuses.
Further, in the reworking of the Leges that the Tribunes have
promised (which I commend them for!) if the reworked Lex
would include specifically your point regarding Gladiators,
armed slaves or 'bully boys', then NOW we're talking about
a very *specific* instance of disruption. In other words,
proposing Leges that are even more ambiguous than the problems
they are purported to solve is not a good solution.>>
Some argue that holding our meetings on the internet makes it
impossible to attempt to break a meeting. This is incorrect. I've done
some Computer Security work, And I'd like to remind you that there are
some Hacker tricks that could be used to disrupt a meeting.
OFS: I've done a good deal of security work as well and in fact
work for an international security products vendor. My responses below:
1)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against the
eGroups server making it impossible for citizens to comment on a
proposal.
<<OFS: Yes, you make a great point here and are to be commended
for listing a *specific* instance in which this Lex might have
merit; IF it was very specific. There are macronational laws
that already address this. However, there are areas of the world
that we know *do not* possess effective macronational legislation
to punish these individuals. This is the second *specific* instance
which you have proposed, and this is adds much to the discussion
of crafting a worthwhile Lex. Thank you!
It *should* be noted though, that here we also delve into the realm
of what I would call 'practical enforcement.' Many of the most notorious
DOS attacks go unpunished, either because the individual(s) are never
caught, or because the nation in which their attacks originated do
not have a legal structure to punish them. Thus, we would have to
get even further specific in how we would actually *detect* AND punish
DOS violators. Without specifics, I could further see a scenario
in which the Tribunes could just *decide* that a civus that disagreed
with them launched a malicious attack and extract punishment
against said individual. NOTE: I'm not saying that the Tribunes
*would* ever do this, but you again can see where this is going...
broad wording leads to *subjective* interpretation.
2)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against Nova
Roma's server making it impossible for citizens to vote.
<<OFS: See above. Same response applies.>>
3)A Denial Of Service (DOS) attack could be launched against the board
where discussion is taking place by spamming hundreds of offtopic
posts that make it difficult to find the real posts (Low siginal to
Noise ratio)
<<OFS: Ditto here. Same response applies.>>
4)"Troll Posts" who's only intent is to goad as many people as
possible into making angry replies can be made, shifting the debate
away from the proposal.
<<OFS: Ah, the DOS line of reasoning was going really well. Now
we're back to raw subjectiveness. This idea treads on way too many
important rights:
-The rights of the list moderators to be the one to determine
what posts are appropriate and which are not.
-The rights of cives to respond and disagree with proposed legislation
and the opinions of others, even in a 'heated' manner.
-General 'Freedom of Speech' which we ALL enjoy here in Nova Roma.
Adding a clause pertaining to 'Troll Posts' would be even MORE
subjective. Now, that being said, I could certainly understand
*proposing* a Lex or portion of a Lex that made Plebeian assemblies
subject to the well-published list guidelines for the Nova Roma
main list. However, since we are ALL bound by this anyways, it would
hardly seem necessary.>>
Besides my examples I'm sure an inovative hacker could find other ways
to disrupt a meeting. This pleblicita provides a means of punishing
those who attempt this kind of action against a meeting of the Plebes.
<<OFS: Ditto here. Same response applies.>>
II.B.4 of the constitution states
* The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining
order and civility
I maintain that someone who attempted to disrupt a meeting in example
1 or 3 has violated citizens right to participate in a meeting, and
should be punished.
<<OFS: Yes, the violation of 1 and 3, IN the appropriate context,
spelled out appropriately, could indeed be punishable. Though
some of my replies here may construed to be a bit strong, I'll
again make it clear that your points regarding DOS are excellent;
whether or not they are ever incorporated as part of an explicit
Lex.>>
That someone who attempted example 4 has violated the last sentance of
II.B.4 and should be punished.
<<OFS: Lost me here. I disagree with this provision. Please note
comments above.>>
II.B.3 of the constitution states
* The right to vote in elections as members of their various comitia
on matters brought before the People in such manner as described in
this Constitution
I maintain that someone who attempted to disrupt a meeting in example
2 has violated this right and should be punished.
<<OFS: Agreed. Some of the *specific* provisions you state here Drusus
are excellent and commendable and in and of themselves, would warrant
strong consideration. I don't believe that they actually would fall under
the vast breadth of the Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfimatio Lex Icilia, *as
currently proposed,* however.>>
Valete
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
<snippage>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Tribunal Leges -Voter's guide |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:52:11 -0800 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
For the benefit of some of the newer cives, or those
that may not have read Livy's Roman History, a link
to a good English translation is provided here. We have
seen much debate about the Leges, the proposed roles
of the Tribunes, Constitutionality, Plebeians and
Patricians, etc. I'd highly recommend anyone who hasn't
read a good translation of Livy to do so at their
earliest convenience. It will help clarify the discussions
and also where many of the proposed Leges originate.
"http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Aphi%2C0914%2
C001&query=init"
Valete bene,
-Oppius
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A Senatus consultum ultimatum |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:07:29 -0500 |
|
Salvete, Quirites
Cn. Moravius Piscinus Tribunus Plebis:
"For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
authority to one individual to act as a Dictator."
Lucius Equitius: WRONG! A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives power to the (two) Consules, and in both cases cited below there are limits to their power. Check this out for your selves, Cives.
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
"V. The Senate.
E.The Senate shall have the power to issue the Senatus consultum ultimum (the ultimate decree of the Senate). When in effect, this decree will supercede all other govermental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the dictator) and allow the Senate to invest the consuls with absolute powers to deal with a specific situation, subject only to their collegial veto and review by the Senate. Even under the authority of the Senatus consultum ultimum, the consuls may only temporarily suspend this Constitution; they may not enact any permanent changes hereto."
"IV. Magistrates.
B.The extraordinarii are as follow:
1.. Dictator. In times of emergency, the Senate may appoint a dictator to serve a term not to exceed six months. At the time of such appointment, the Senate may prescribe a given task or boundaries within which the dictator is obliged to remain. The edicts of the dictator are absolute within his sphere of influence, and subject to neither intercessio or provocato. The dictator shall hold Imperium and have the honor of being preceeded by twenty-four lictors. At the end of his term the actions of the dictator shall be subject to final confirmation by the Senate."
Lucius Equitius: As has been previously pointed out by others neither of these clauses has been proposed nor considered since the one and only instance of a Dictator. I suggest that the Tribune check the facts before he loses all credibility.
Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:15:45 -0700 |
|
To the tribunes and people of Nova Roma, from Livia Cornelia Aurelia:
Gian G Reali wrote:
> Salvete Quirites
>
> In all that has been said about the plebiscita and the misunderstanding
> of their intent, I want to point out this one paragraph by our former
> Tribunus Plebis because I believe this is the crux of the present
> situation.
>
> Thr Plebiscitum de Tribunicia Potestates did not increase the powers of
> the Tribunes as some have suggested. It placed guidelines on the use of
> tribunician powers which in many ways limited their exercise. Whose
> power would have been increased by the entire set of plebiscita is the
> Comitia Plebis Tributa itself.
>
> "Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune?" The
> CPT, under the Constitution, Section III.C, elects the Tribunes, may "try
> legal cases solely involving members of the plebeian order," and "enact
> plebiscita with the force of law, binding upon the entire citizenry,"
> which of course would include the Tribunes. What this plebiscitum does
> is place the Tribunes under the authority of the CPT entirely. Who is to
> judge whether the behavior of a Tribune is appropriate? The CPT by
> III.C.3. Who is to set the standards and guidelines by which a Tribune's
> appropriate behavior is to be judged? The CPT by III.C.1. To whom are
> the Tribuni Plebis ultimately responsible? to the CPT by III.C.2.
The problem which I believe the tribunes were trying to correct, is that the Comitia
Plebius Tributa -- as evidenced by earlier arguments -- is intended by the
Constitution to only be assembled to vote or judge laws, and therefore isn't always
a standing assembly. The tribunes saw a problem with that, in that it doesn't allow
for a formal mechanism by which they could know the will of the plebians they
serve. And the same statements can be made about the censors and praetors, and
their relationship to the Comitia Centuriata and Comitia Populus Tributa.
The assumption in Nova Roma to date has been that contacting a
Tribune/Consul/Praetor with an issue is sufficient recourse for any member of the
given assembly to bring an issue in front of them. This works contingent on two
things (1) the individual's understanding that they have such a right, and 2) the
magistrate's willingness to consider the issue and give it full treatment. Item 2)
is subject to abuse depending on the magistrate......but of course that's true of
many political systems.
The problem as I see it is that all the magistrates involved with drafting
leges.....Tribunes, Consuls, and Praetors......have no good measure by which to
gauge the temperature of the people. That means we are at their discretion (unless
we speak up and get their attention) about what leges are needed. It means we are
still at their mercy in whether they are a proactive magistrate and solicit opinion,
or whether they get their own idea and draft legislation without a full slate of
input.
I have a few pieces of criticism for Piscinus and Fortunatus, whom I otherwise hold
in high esteem:
1. While I support the idea of having a separate CPT chat room to build community,
I think in retrospect that the public discussions of the proposed leges needed to be
in this forum -- for practicality.
2. While you were correct in the letter of the law about the time period to
comment, I think in retrospect that the need to build consensus for your proposals
wasn't served by that approach. Since we don't have a formal mechanism for guaging
the will of the people, I think the leges needed to be exposed to a greater group
earlier. I support your right to conduct affairs the way you did vis-a-vis the
CPT. You followed the letter of the law. However, your own interests were
disserved that way, and so I urge a new method.
NOTE: Since the letter of the law was followed procedurally, the question
becomes.....have the tribunes performed a service to us in showing us how we DON'T
want things to work in the future? Is this an area where we need to consider a
change to the law.
3. I have reviewed your leges as requested and forwarded comments to you
privately. Publicly I state that some of what you were doing was fine with me, and
some of it really does affect a change to the Constitution. Rather than have you
pursue those changes (specifically around the role of the Tribune to the CPT) via
the CPT, I think you need to lobby for a change to the Constitution.
NOTE: This criticism has to be levelled two ways. I believe the tribunes were
going for a change to the powers of the tribune via the CPT for the practical
consideration that the notable trend is when someone points to something in the
Constitituion that they think needs clarification or revision, there IS indeed a
contingent that cries foul and wants to hear nothing about changing the
Constitution. So they were trying to seek a path where they might actually affect
the change they feel is needed, rather than a seemingly hopeless option. My
recommendation is that those two sides need to be in direct communiciation with each
other, and I urge those who feel most protective of the current Constitution to at
least consider whether there is merit to the suggestions before immediately
defending the letter of that document.
I am sworn to uphold the Constitution, and I will. To me, that means I am sworn not
to suffer any misapplication of the current Constitution, or any illegal attempt to
modify or place impositions on the Constitution. I try my best to do that. I do
not think that means I resist, unthinkingly, a reasonable change to the
constitution, adopted by legal means through the Comitia Centuriata plus 2/3rds
approval of the Senate. I also submit that like any nation's Constitution, ours is
not immune from being improved through the process of identifying, debating, and
properly approvings reasonable changes.
My CALL is for the Tribunes to separate out all measures of the leges which needed
to be considered as a change to the Constitutuion, sort through them for what is
important, and present them to the consuls et praetors to be opened to the Comitia
Centuriata for debate. This course of action locks the Tribunes out from being able
to present them directly to the Comitia Centuriata, and they must get support of the
consuls et praetors first, so I also call on that body of gentlemen to be open to
the proposals of the tribunes and make sure they are well and fairly discussed by
the people comprising the Comitia.
> A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
> a Senatus consultum ultimatum.
>
> For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
> Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
> authority to one individual to act as a Dictator.
It's my understand that a Senatus Consultum Ultimatum was being discussed. It's
also my understanding that the Senatus Consultum Ultimatum would have only extended
to cancelling the vote, and not imposing a full Dictatorship. I'd like
clarification on this issue.
> Nova Roma is not even
> three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
> offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
> the expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma
> politics, because this is becoming an annual event.
Sorry, amice Pisci, but I do think you're overstating here. Every time some
disagreement rises, a lot of ridiculous posturing on both sides occurs, but not
necessarily a call for dictator.
> There are better ways of resolving conflict. Discussing differences to
> resolve conflicts is preferable to clashes that only lead to rifts. But
> that assumes both sides equally respect one another.
Yes, it does assume respect.......but where does the respect originate??? My
side/your side??? Patricians/Plebians??? Tribunes/Senate???? My observation is
that there is a great willingness on the part of two groups.......and mostly a few
people in both groups.....to gleefully look for signs the other is being
disrespectful and to repay in kind.
I propose a different approach. I look to the Tribunes to lay aside that method,
and give respect to your naysayers without expecting respect in return. I look to
the Tribunes to be graceful in the face of the events of this election, to consider
wisely how to proceed, and to figure out a way to work with the interests that you
need to work with next time you need to summon the CPT. In short: don't lay
yourself open to charges of fomenting disrespect.
> Now Nova Roma is
> trying to restore the old Republic. One very small group here wants to
> have the form without any content. They want to hold to one very narrow
> vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the other side is another small
> group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing
> the institutions that once formed the old Republic. They are of the
> opinion that the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova
> Roma collectively and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
> so shall choose.
Respectfully, I don't think it serves your interests to polarize the situation as
you did in the above paragraph, Pisci.
> The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma. We have
> faith that reasoned discussion in an open forum can resolve differences.
> That is why we seek to build and develop forums and committees in Nova
> Roma. That is why we are willing to place ourselves under the authority
> of the particular assembly of the Plebeians known as the CPT. The
> Tribunes promote an ongoing process of an evolving, living community.
> Our continued efforts shall be to bring an increasingly broader segment
> of our community into participation.
Tribunes, I support your goals. If I can do anything, personally, to open up
discussions between you and the Consuls/Praetors on the issues you feel need to be
addressed through legislation, let me know. Otherwise, I urge you to gather
comments from the entire community on the changes proposed, decide what things are
most important to pursue, and give the process another try.
Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1190 |
| From: |
"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:11:30 -0300 |
|
Salvete Quirites
> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:50:12 -0300
> From: "Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
>Subject: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis
>
>Salvete, Quirites
>
>- Lex Publilia
>This lex clashes with the Constitution, when put the CPT beyond the reach of
>the nuntiatio, this is, a possibility of a Augur declare that an unsolicited
>omen was observed, to justify a delay of a meeting of the Comitias or the
>Senate. This is, a Augur can block the three comitiae and the Senate, if he
>wants so, without being blocked by another Augur. The active Augures are Fl
>Vedius Germanicus, L Equitius Cincinnatus and C Aelius Ericius, all
>patricians.
>
>Lucius Equitius: I will say this right now, no one wanted the Comitia formed
>more than me.
>Ask anyone who has been in Nova Roma what happened when I was Consul.
>Never mind that, Flavius Vedius formed the Tribes and Centuries, so now we
>have them *to* summon!
>As for Augur Ericius, if not for the Religio I believe he would not be a
>Novi Romani.
>We were citizens before there were Comitia in other then name, we joined to
>build the New Rome and the Pax Deorum!
>I am sorry, but you have offened me personally by this insinuation. I will
>tell you something else though, when I got up yesterday morning I read the
>list digest and saw that the Tribunes had delayed the voting of their
>proposals, then I went out on my balcony and I saw a propitious sign from
>the birds. Ask Consul Germanicus, as I reported this to him.
-----------------------
After reading again my posting, i realized that it can be offensive to the augures. So, i want apologize not only augur Cincinnatus, but augures Ericius and Germanicus too. I firmly believe that they doesnt want to use their augurial powers to political purposes, but only to religious ones, to the better of Nova Roma and Religio Romana.
------------------------
>And two positions are occupied by ex-citizens (M Gladius Saevus and Dm
>Lucianus Dexippus), since the position of Augur is for life, there arent
>renounce. By the way, the Collegium Augurum have 9 places, 5 to plebeians
>and 4 to patricians. From what order are the ex-citizens?
>
>Lucius Equitius: Ex cives.
---------------------------
Well, lets to explain better. If the Collegium Augurum have 9 seats; 5 for plebeian, 4 for patricians; and 3 are occupied by patricians; and 2 "occupied" by ex cives; if both ex cives were plebeian, are there room
only for 3 more plebeian augures and one patrician augur?
Please, help me to understand, the situation of a ex cive confuses me.
----------------------------
>I feel that the regulation of the nuntiatio is necessary, or an ammendment
>to the Constitution
>
>Lucius Equitius: No, it needs to be thrown out! Are we in such a hurry that
>a delay cannot be tolerated.!?
>A 'nuntiatio' is not a veto, it is only a delay. Also, it can be ignored,
>but then when things blowup in your face, you just might hear whispered, "I
>(we)
>told you so."
-----------------------
Can the nuntiatio be pronouced more than one time
to the same Comitia? How the nuntiatio is pronounced?
I believed that the nuntiatio cannot be ignored by the Comitiae and Senate.
Im really and sincerely interested in learn more, since never a nuntiatio have been pronounced before in Nova Roma, and their effects can be different from Roma Antiqua
-----------------------
Thank you.
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A Senatus consultum ultimatum |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:25:51 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Luci Equiti,
> Lucius Equitius: WRONG! A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives power to the
> (two) Consules, and in both cases cited below there are limits to their
> power. Check this out for your selves, Cives.
Indeed - the Senatus Consultum Ultimum and the appointment of a Dictator
are two different things, although there are some similarities. Consuls
acting under the Senatus Consultum Ultimum more limited in their powers
than a Dictator is.
There is historical precedent for this. Gaius Marius, during his
sixth Consulship, was given power under the Senatus Consultum Ultimum
(although I don't think it was called that at the time) to deal with
Saturninus; but he was not a Dictator.
(Note that we are *not* calling for a S.C.U. or a Dictator now,
there is no crisis that would warrant one, this is just a discussion
about the Constitution. I regret that this disclaimer is necessary.)
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis |
| From: |
Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:31:37 -0500 |
|
At 03:39 PM 21/01/2001 -0300, you wrote:
>A successful campaign gainst a law? Except in use of military force, i
>think that is only the use of the capacity of persuasion, and this isnt
>interruption, interference or inhibition of the comitia or voting.
Yes, but the terms of the lex do not specify such ... *you* might behave
honourably with this law, but can you guarantee that everyone else will as
well? The history of Roman law is essentially a long history of closing
loopholes ... I'm simply trying to give NovaRoma the benefit of my
experience in both ancient history and Roman legal history. If you're
comfortable with the notion that every tribune who will ever stand will
behave honourably, let the law stand.
The Trojans didn't believe Cassandra either ...
mpj
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:31:05 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave
>
> Are most of those DOS illegal in our macronations? If so....then it
is
> not necessary...all one needs to do is to contact that particular
> macronation. Plus if anything happens to Egroups-Yahoo (since they
have
> merged). That person responsible is going to get sued and probably
> jailed. Therefore your attempt to validate this law still isn't
> sufficient. :)
>
> As for the Troll posts. I see that from Tribune Piscinus's post
called
> "Who is to decide?" Not from any citizen. If we want to be equal
> enforcement on this then we all should remember the words of Tribune
> Piscinus and never forget this attempted plebiscite! You cant have
it
> both way.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
Salve Lucius Cornelius,
Not all Macro-Nations have laws against DOS attacks, and in the case
of international attacks they are reluctant to extradite those who
engage in them. I assume that servers I mentioned are located in The
United States, so an attck originating from the US could be punished
under US Law, but an attack originating outside the US would likely go
unpunished. As for Cival action, there is even less chance that a
lawsuit would be recognized as binding by a court outside the US.
There is an attempt to remady this through the proposed treaty on
"Cyberterrorism" but the treaty is badly flawed, violating the US bill
of rights, and is opposed by most Cival Liberties groups and Internet
rights groups. Chances of it being ratified by the US are slim,
meaning little or no protection for attacks originating outside the
US.
Troll posts are rather tricky. There is a grey area here. While there
are some posts that allmost everyone would agree are only intended to
spur angry replies, Others are a matter of opinion. There is also a
point of US Law involved here. If everything that is submited is
posted, then a public forum is considered as a common carrier, and is
NOT liable under US Laws regarding slander, only the person who made
the post is liable. However if the forum uses moderation to remove
posts, then common carrier status is lost, and they CAN be sued for
failing to use editorial discrestion and removing the post.
Vale
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:32:19 -0800 |
|
"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave
> >
> > Are most of those DOS illegal in our macronations? If so....then it
> is
> > not necessary...all one needs to do is to contact that particular
> > macronation. Plus if anything happens to Egroups-Yahoo (since they
> have
> > merged). That person responsible is going to get sued and probably
> > jailed. Therefore your attempt to validate this law still isn't
> > sufficient. :)
> >
> > As for the Troll posts. I see that from Tribune Piscinus's post
> called
> > "Who is to decide?" Not from any citizen. If we want to be equal
> > enforcement on this then we all should remember the words of Tribune
> > Piscinus and never forget this attempted plebiscite! You cant have
> it
> > both way.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> Salve Lucius Cornelius,
> Not all Macro-Nations have laws against DOS attacks, and in the case
> of international attacks they are reluctant to extradite those who
> engage in them. I assume that servers I mentioned are located in The
> United States, so an attck originating from the US could be punished
> under US Law, but an attack originating outside the US would likely go
> unpunished. As for Cival action, there is even less chance that a
> lawsuit would be recognized as binding by a court outside the US.
> There is an attempt to remady this through the proposed treaty on
> "Cyberterrorism" but the treaty is badly flawed, violating the US bill
> of rights, and is opposed by most Cival Liberties groups and Internet
> rights groups. Chances of it being ratified by the US are slim,
> meaning little or no protection for attacks originating outside the
> US.
>
Thank you for this. So what you are saying is that despite ALL of the
resources that the US has....it is still unable to enforce DOS attacks.
How do you expect Nova Roma to do any better? Keeping in mind..that
unlike the US which has Trillions of dollars in budget...NR has about 2
Thousand! I say leave it to our macronations. They have the ability to
prosecute. I do believe that NR should report any issues to the
appropriate macronation. Because that is feasible.
>
> Troll posts are rather tricky. There is a grey area here. While there
> are some posts that allmost everyone would agree are only intended to
> spur angry replies, Others are a matter of opinion. There is also a
> point of US Law involved here. If everything that is submited is
> posted, then a public forum is considered as a common carrier, and is
> NOT liable under US Laws regarding slander, only the person who made
> the post is liable. However if the forum uses moderation to remove
> posts, then common carrier status is lost, and they CAN be sued for
> failing to use editorial discrestion and removing the post.
>
Yes. But the proposed law is very vague. If its going to be very vague,
I say bring up Tribune Piscinus on charges of a Troll post. You cant have
it both ways. He has gone from using Hyperbole to outright inaccuracies
(see the correction of L. Equitius and others) in his posts.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Vale
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:24:18 EST |
|
Salve Tribune
On 1/21/01 10:16 AM Gian G Reali (piscinus@--------) wrote:
>Salvete Quirites
>
>
> "If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls and Senate can use the "Ultimate
>Decree" to correct things..."
In saying this, if it was unclear, I was only stating that we already
have a safeguard against a Tribune or Tribunes "gone mad" so to speak,
and thus additional safeguards are not needed, IMHO. This was not a call
for any action to be taken. I really don't believe you are
misunderstanding this, but I knew you were going to seize upon it as soon
as mention was made of it.
And, for the record, I was confusing this with the appointment of a
Dictator, a confusion which you apparently shared. (So, we're actually
together on something! :-) )
>
> And herein lies the real problem of what has been going on in Nova Roma
>since its inception. The combination of the plebiscita on the procedures
>set for the CPT, the establishment of the authority of the CPT over its
>Tribunes, the reaffirmations of the Leges Publilia and Icilia to
>establish the autonomy of the CPT as a legislative body within Nova Roma,
>all had a singular purpose. Granted it would have been composed of only
>a portion of the citizens, but that was a first step of turning authority
>in Nova Roma over to all the citizens who compose it. And what is the
>alternative to the citizens having the leading role in the organization
>they collectively form? A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
>a Senatus consultum ultimatum.
The citizens now have a leading role in the government - the government
is made up entirely of citizens, and participation is free and unhindered.
*Nobody* to my knowledge has issued a call for the Ultimate Decree in
this debate, and Nova Roma has *never* employed the Ultimate Decree. The
*only instance* in which a Dictator has been appointed was in the case
where it was feared by some magistrates that one of the Consules was
organizing the impeachment of the Censores through a secret conspiracy -
hardly related to anything you're claiming here, Piscinus.
>
> For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
>Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
>authority to one individual to act as a Dictator. Nova Roma is not even
>three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
>offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
>the expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma
>politics, because this is becoming an annual event.
Gn. Moravius Piscinus, this is simply untrue and you know it. In the
spirit of Concordia I call upon you to retract this misstatement if you
have not already done so.
>
> There are better ways of resolving conflict. Discussing differences to
>resolve conflicts is preferable to clashes that only lead to rifts. But
>that assumes both sides equally respect one another. It assumes both
>sides do hold a balance. The old Republic first developed when the
>Plebeians asserted that they too had a voice in the affairs of Rome. The
>Plebeian movement sought to create balance between different sources of
>power. When the Comitia Plebis and its Tribunes did eventually gain an
>upper hand in the old Republic, the result was a reactionary overthrow of
>the legitimate government, the slaughter of the Senate, the elimination
>of the censors, the diminishing of the tribunes, and the rule of Sulla
>the Dictator. In short, the end of the old Republic. Now Nova Roma is
>trying to restore the old Republic. One very small group here wants to
>have the form without any content. They want to hold to one very narrow
>vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the other side is another small
>group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing
>the institutions that once formed the old Republic. They are of the
>opinion that the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova
>Roma collectively and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
>so shall choose.
>
> The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma.
This also is patently untrue, but I won't ask you to correct it because I
know it is a the basis for your whole faction and so there's no chance
you'll withdraw it. That it is false is completely proven by the fact
that you want only *plebian* citizens to decide these matters.
Think clearly, Gn. Moravius - "citizens of Nova Roma" does not equate to
"plebian citizens of Nova Roma.* And you don't even trust the plebian
citizens, or else you would have posted your proposal in the Forum here,
well in advance of a vote, so that all of the plebians could discuss and
debate them.
>We have
>faith that reasoned discussion in an open forum can resolve differences.
How is it then that you seek to railroad complex and obscure laws through
one fraction of the citizenry, in an out-of-the-way meeting place to
which I doubt more than a fraction of us are subscribed? Was this just a
mistake in judgement by Tribuni too eager to get things rolling?
>That is why we seek to build and develop forums and committees in Nova
>Roma. That is why we are willing to place ourselves under the authority
>of the particular assembly of the Plebeians known as the CPT. The
>Tribunes promote an ongoing process of an evolving, living community.
>Our continued efforts shall be to bring an increasingly broader segment
>of our community into participation.
That last statement doesn't seem at all congruent with the actions you've
been taking. Perhaps you should re-examine the way you are going about
bringing a broader segment of our community into participation. Maybe you
should even allow for the participation of the *whole* community, or is
that too radical a concept for you?
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>Valete
>
>Cn. Moravius Piscinus
>Tribunus Plebis
>
>
>
>
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide? |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:23:35 -0800 |
|
Ave.
With all this criticism of Tribune Pisicnus I think we all would like to know
the opinion of our other Tribune T. Labienus. Tribune T. Labienus....would you
please comment on this speech made by your colleague?
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
LSergAust@-------- wrote:
> Salve Tribune
>
> On 1/21/01 10:16 AM Gian G Reali (piscinus@--------) wrote:
>
> >Salvete Quirites
> >
> >
> > "If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls and Senate can use the "Ultimate
> >Decree" to correct things..."
> In saying this, if it was unclear, I was only stating that we already
> have a safeguard against a Tribune or Tribunes "gone mad" so to speak,
> and thus additional safeguards are not needed, IMHO. This was not a call
> for any action to be taken. I really don't believe you are
> misunderstanding this, but I knew you were going to seize upon it as soon
> as mention was made of it.
>
> And, for the record, I was confusing this with the appointment of a
> Dictator, a confusion which you apparently shared. (So, we're actually
> together on something! :-) )
> >
> > And herein lies the real problem of what has been going on in Nova Roma
> >since its inception. The combination of the plebiscita on the procedures
> >set for the CPT, the establishment of the authority of the CPT over its
> >Tribunes, the reaffirmations of the Leges Publilia and Icilia to
> >establish the autonomy of the CPT as a legislative body within Nova Roma,
> >all had a singular purpose. Granted it would have been composed of only
> >a portion of the citizens, but that was a first step of turning authority
> >in Nova Roma over to all the citizens who compose it. And what is the
> >alternative to the citizens having the leading role in the organization
> >they collectively form? A minority within the Senate threatens to issue
> >a Senatus consultum ultimatum.
> The citizens now have a leading role in the government - the government
> is made up entirely of citizens, and participation is free and unhindered.
>
> *Nobody* to my knowledge has issued a call for the Ultimate Decree in
> this debate, and Nova Roma has *never* employed the Ultimate Decree. The
> *only instance* in which a Dictator has been appointed was in the case
> where it was feared by some magistrates that one of the Consules was
> organizing the impeachment of the Censores through a secret conspiracy -
> hardly related to anything you're claiming here, Piscinus.
> >
> > For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
> >Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
> >authority to one individual to act as a Dictator. Nova Roma is not even
> >three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the solution
> >offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
> >the expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma
> >politics, because this is becoming an annual event.
>
> Gn. Moravius Piscinus, this is simply untrue and you know it. In the
> spirit of Concordia I call upon you to retract this misstatement if you
> have not already done so.
> >
> > There are better ways of resolving conflict. Discussing differences to
> >resolve conflicts is preferable to clashes that only lead to rifts. But
> >that assumes both sides equally respect one another. It assumes both
> >sides do hold a balance. The old Republic first developed when the
> >Plebeians asserted that they too had a voice in the affairs of Rome. The
> >Plebeian movement sought to create balance between different sources of
> >power. When the Comitia Plebis and its Tribunes did eventually gain an
> >upper hand in the old Republic, the result was a reactionary overthrow of
> >the legitimate government, the slaughter of the Senate, the elimination
> >of the censors, the diminishing of the tribunes, and the rule of Sulla
> >the Dictator. In short, the end of the old Republic. Now Nova Roma is
> >trying to restore the old Republic. One very small group here wants to
> >have the form without any content. They want to hold to one very narrow
> >vision of what Roma Antiqua was like. On the other side is another small
> >group, one which wants to breath life into our res publica by developing
> >the institutions that once formed the old Republic. They are of the
> >opinion that the citizens should be given an opportunity to develop Nova
> >Roma collectively and freely, allowing our community to evolve however it
> >so shall choose.
> >
> > The Tribunes place their trust in the citizens of Nova Roma.
> This also is patently untrue, but I won't ask you to correct it because I
> know it is a the basis for your whole faction and so there's no chance
> you'll withdraw it. That it is false is completely proven by the fact
> that you want only *plebian* citizens to decide these matters.
> Think clearly, Gn. Moravius - "citizens of Nova Roma" does not equate to
> "plebian citizens of Nova Roma.* And you don't even trust the plebian
> citizens, or else you would have posted your proposal in the Forum here,
> well in advance of a vote, so that all of the plebians could discuss and
> debate them.
> >We have
> >faith that reasoned discussion in an open forum can resolve differences.
> How is it then that you seek to railroad complex and obscure laws through
> one fraction of the citizenry, in an out-of-the-way meeting place to
> which I doubt more than a fraction of us are subscribed? Was this just a
> mistake in judgement by Tribuni too eager to get things rolling?
>
> >That is why we seek to build and develop forums and committees in Nova
> >Roma. That is why we are willing to place ourselves under the authority
> >of the particular assembly of the Plebeians known as the CPT. The
> >Tribunes promote an ongoing process of an evolving, living community.
> >Our continued efforts shall be to bring an increasingly broader segment
> >of our community into participation.
> That last statement doesn't seem at all congruent with the actions you've
> been taking. Perhaps you should re-examine the way you are going about
> bringing a broader segment of our community into participation. Maybe you
> should even allow for the participation of the *whole* community, or is
> that too radical a concept for you?
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
> >
> >Valete
> >
> >Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> >Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Augurs - (Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia) |
| From: |
cassius622@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:39:39 EST |
|
Salvete,
The Collegium Pontificum is reviewing this aspect of this Lex Publilia, and
will be issuing an official statement on the subject this week.
In the meantime, I reply on a personal and unofficial level:
Lucius Sicinius Drusus writes:
I don't think our Tribunes meant any disrespect for our current Augers
when they selected the Lex Publilia as one of the Ancient Leges that
they wished to have the Plebes reaffirm.
Cassius respondit:
I also do not believe that the Tribunes intended disrespect for the Augurs by
proposing this lex. My personal concern is whether they intended to
"disregard" the Augurs with this lex... by declaring legal indifference to
any and all auguries concerning the Comitia Plebis Tributa. If such a
precedent is set, might the door not be opened for other possible secular
decisions concerning aspects of the Religio Romana?
Lucius Sicinius Drusus:
The Lex Publilia was a
milestone in setting up the powers of the Comitia Plebis Tributa of
Roma Antiquita, and I think that the intent was to gaurd against the
possibility that in the future Nova Roma's Augers may lack the
intregity the the present Augers have.
Cassius:
The position of Augur was much more social and political in Roma Antiqua than
it is in Nova Roma. Cicero, for example, was an Augur even though he did not
believe in the auspices whatever! In Nova Roma the Collegium Pontificum does
everything possible to ensure that those chosen as Augurs have real religious
interest and feeling - and are committed to the integrity of the office.
While nothing can be a complete guarantee, it's certainly better than
rubber-stamping approval for the position on terms of social status, making
it a part of the Cursus Honorum.
Lucius Sicinius Drusus:
Personally I think it's
premature to propose that the CPT be removed from the taking of the
Auspicia. For now I prefer that we protect the Plebes AND the
Patricians by insuring that we don't fall into the habit of the
Ancients, of apointing Augers who only want the postion for personal
glory, rather than seeking out people of the highest intregity who
feel a geuinine calling from the gods to perform these essential
rites.
Cassius:
This is exactly what is being done. And, because it IS being done, I am as
concerned that the proposed lex would be as (or more) likely to mandate the
deliberate disregard of genuine signs from the Gods as it might be to protect
against the possibility of false signs. I'm not sure of the point of having
a Religio if we're going to start setting up legal precedents for ignoring
various aspects of it.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A Bid Farewell.... |
| From: |
Publius Gramatinicus Albinus <syphax_venaliccii@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:50:55 -0800 (PST) |
|
Of sorts that is.... Unfortunately, I must remove
myself from this mailing list. it is too much mail for
my needs. If anyone does need me, for any reason, do
not hesitate to mail me here.
=====
pax et lux,
Publius Gramatinicus Albinus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
cassius622@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:11:33 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a few
positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone leaves NR
and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
longer than they might actually live physically.
We might well want to consider a period after which a person would be
considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of contact.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul
--- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
>
> So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will never be
changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will still be
in post even though they may be dead in real life.
>
> Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for the
courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
affairs.
>
> Bicurratus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
cassius622@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:20:45 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a few
positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone leaves NR
and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
longer than they might actually live physically.
We might well want to consider a period after which a person would be
considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of contact.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul
--- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
>
> So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will never be
changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will still be
in post even though they may be dead in real life.
>
> Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for the
courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
affairs.
>
> Bicurratus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Open Invitation to Romans on the Green |
| From: |
LucillaCornelia@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:25:58 -0500 |
|
Salvete Bene Omnes!
On behalf of Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus, Praefectus Legionis et Tribuni
Militium, and the members of Legio VI, we extend an open invitation to all
Quirites of NR to join us for an evening of fun, revelry and general mayhem
at the inaugural gathering of ROMANS ON THE GREEN.
MARK YOUR CALENDARS! We invite all Cives who will be in the greater New York
metropolitan area on Friday, 23 February 2001 to join us at 7:00 p.m. EDT
for what promises to be a new low in entertainment -- there's no end-time for
THIS party!
We are in the process of selecting an establishment in which to fashionably
ensconce ourselves, but rest assured it will be close and convenient to Mass
Transit. Details to follow shortly. Check all weapons at the door. Please
leave all onagers, catapaults and other engines at camp.
RSVP APPRECIATED NO LATER THAN 16 FEBRUARY 2001 -- PLEASE!!!
Thank you on behalf of Legio VI Victrix. We look forward to seeing as many
as possible on the 23rd for the first of what we plan to host as a monthly
event.
Any questions? Feel free to e-mail me.
Valete bene,
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
Scriba Militaria,
A. Tiberius Ronanus, Praefectus Legionis, Legio VI Victrix
Medica Vulneraria, Legio VI Victrix
FIRMITAS et HONESTAS
"Nos Sumus Romae Milites, Parati Stamus ad Potestatem et Gloriam Eius.
Roma est Lux."
--
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:55:41 -0700 |
|
For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after which
if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they be removed
from the citizenship rolls altogether?
Livia
cassius622@-------- wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a few
> positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone leaves NR
> and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
> longer than they might actually live physically.
>
> We might well want to consider a period after which a person would be
> considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of contact.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Consul
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
> >
> > So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will never be
> changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will still be
> in post even though they may be dead in real life.
> >
> > Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
> dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for the
> courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
> affairs.
> >
> > Bicurratus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:48:59 -0800 |
|
Ave,
That is an excellent suggestion.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
gmvick32@-------- wrote:
> For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after which
> if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they be removed
> from the citizenship rolls altogether?
>
> Livia
>
> cassius622@-------- wrote:
>
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a few
> > positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone leaves NR
> > and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
> > longer than they might actually live physically.
> >
> > We might well want to consider a period after which a person would be
> > considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of contact.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Consul
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
> > >
> > > So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will never be
> > changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will still be
> > in post even though they may be dead in real life.
> > >
> > > Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
> > dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for the
> > courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
> > affairs.
> > >
> > > Bicurratus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] information on NR citizens within a province |
| From: |
Tom Nicolas <fixt@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:20:07 -0800 |
|
dont send anymore emails to this address
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Hello |
| From: |
Tom Nicolas <fixt@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:19:38 -0800 |
|
dont send anymore emails to this address
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:31:53 -0000 |
|
>
> Thank you for this. So what you are saying is that despite ALL of
the
> resources that the US has....it is still unable to enforce DOS
attacks.
> How do you expect Nova Roma to do any better? Keeping in
mind..that
> unlike the US which has Trillions of dollars in budget...NR has
about 2
> Thousand! I say leave it to our macronations. They have the
ability to
> prosecute. I do believe that NR should report any issues to the
> appropriate macronation. Because that is feasible.
>
That is an excellent idea.
The Lex Cornelia de Privitis Rebus, however prevents turning over
information the Censors have until a formal request is made from the
Macro-nation's law enforcement agency. The request won't be made until
Nova Roma makes the complaint, and the information the Censors have is
an essentil part of the complaint. I would suggest the trial processes
mentioned in the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia be replaced with
empowering the Censors and the Curator Araneae to turn over all
information they may have as part of filing a formal complaint with
the legal authorities of the Macro-Nation the attack comes from.
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:31:24 -0800 |
|
"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for this. So what you are saying is that despite ALL of
> the
> > resources that the US has....it is still unable to enforce DOS
> attacks.
> > How do you expect Nova Roma to do any better? Keeping in
> mind..that
> > unlike the US which has Trillions of dollars in budget...NR has
> about 2
> > Thousand! I say leave it to our macronations. They have the
> ability to
> > prosecute. I do believe that NR should report any issues to the
> > appropriate macronation. Because that is feasible.
> >
> That is an excellent idea.
> The Lex Cornelia de Privitis Rebus, however prevents turning over
> information the Censors have until a formal request is made from the
> Macro-nation's law enforcement agency. The request won't be made until
> Nova Roma makes the complaint, and the information the Censors have is
> an essentil part of the complaint. I would suggest the trial processes
> mentioned in the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia be replaced with
> empowering the Censors and the Curator Araneae to turn over all
> information they may have as part of filing a formal complaint with
> the legal authorities of the Macro-Nation the attack comes from.
>
Not necessarily. We could turn over non-confidental information that is
not covered under the Lex Cornelia. Like if our servers were
hacked.....the hacking would leave information in its wake. That
information is not protected under the lex Cornelia. Only personal
information is protected under the Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:58:08 -0000 |
|
Ave,
Does Nova Roma have any program that attempts to contact the inactive
citizens? They had enough intrest to apply for citizenship at some
point in the past, and it would be nice to attempt to get them to
return to active particptation before we consider removing them from
the rolls.
Also, Allthough I'm a very new citizen I've read some of the older
messages on this board. There were some periods of tension that may
have resulted in someone resigning thier citizenship because of a
dispute that was settled a long time ago, and perhaps even settled in
thier favor after they left. Has there been any effort to contact
these former citizens?
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> That is an excellent suggestion.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> > For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after
which
> > if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they be
removed
> > from the citizenship rolls altogether?
> >
> > Livia
> >
> > c--------us622@-------- wrote:
> >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a
few
> > > positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone
leaves NR
> > > and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
> > > longer than they might actually live physically.
> > >
> > > We might well want to consider a period after which a person
would be
> > > considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of
contact.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > Consul
> > >
> > > --- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will
never be
> > > changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will
still be
> > > in post even though they may be dead in real life.
> > > >
> > > > Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
> > > dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for
the
> > > courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
> > > affairs.
> > > >
> > > > Bicurratus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal death? (Re: The six laws, opinion of Aedilis Plebis) |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:01:45 -0800 |
|
"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> Ave,
>
Ave! My comments below.
>
> Does Nova Roma have any program that attempts to contact the inactive
> citizens? They had enough intrest to apply for citizenship at some
> point in the past, and it would be nice to attempt to get them to
> return to active particptation before we consider removing them from
> the rolls.
>
Yes, I have informally adopted a few methods to contact inactive
citizens. From mass mailings to having my scribes and myself individually
contact citizens via emails and phone calls. I don't remove citizens
unless I have not gotten contact after at least 10 attempts or if they
ask.
>
> Also, Allthough I'm a very new citizen I've read some of the older
> messages on this board. There were some periods of tension that may
> have resulted in someone resigning thier citizenship because of a
> dispute that was settled a long time ago, and perhaps even settled in
> thier favor after they left. Has there been any effort to contact
> these former citizens?
>
No, I do not contact citizens who have resigned. However, there is a
resignation edict that C. Marius Merullus and I promulgated to establish
procedures in the event of resignation. It is located in the Tabularium
if you want to view it.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave,
> >
> > That is an excellent suggestion.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor
> >
> > gmvick32@-------- wrote:
> >
> > > For that matter, is it not wise to consider a period of time after
> which
> > > if a person is not responding to contacts, etc., that they be
> removed
> > > from the citizenship rolls altogether?
> > >
> > > Livia
> > >
> > > c--------us622@-------- wrote:
> > >
> > > > Salvete,
> > > >
> > > > Bicurratus, I do believe you've hit on something here! We have a
> few
> > > > positions in Nova Roma that are "for life", but if someone
> leaves NR
> > > > and never contacts us again, we might keep them on the books far
> > > > longer than they might actually live physically.
> > > >
> > > > We might well want to consider a period after which a person
> would be
> > > > considered "legally dead" if they stay completely out of
> contact.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > > > Consul
> > > >
> > > > --- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So what is being said here is that 2 of the positions will
> never be
> > > > changed again? If NR exists in 50 years Saevus and Dex will
> still be
> > > > in post even though they may be dead in real life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there no time limit on when an ex-citizen can be pronounced
> > > > dead? In most macronational socities there is a provision for
> the
> > > > courts to declare someone legally dead in order to settle their
> > > > affairs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bicurratus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Disputed Islands |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:48:27 -0000 |
|
EX DOMO PROPRAETORIS BRITANNIAE
Quiritibus salutem
Sic scripsit L. Pompeius Octavianus:
>From Jan. 28th to Feb 12th I will be absent because I will be
>travelling by sea to the southern tip of the continent and the
>disputed Malvinas/Falklands Islands .
>So I won´t find any Internet connection at sea. LOL
Post haec inquit Q. Fabius Maximus:
>Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now recognize
the
>Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you still have the
>Quintqureme base there?
>(We have to have a little levity on this list otherwise we will all go
>bonkers!)
Respondeo:
I sometimes think that some of us have already gone barking mad. However...
The accepted territorial delimitation by Nova Roma of Provincia Insulae
Britanniae does not include, among its offshore islands, the Insulae
Malvinae (or Insulae Georgiae). Nor, as far as I am aware, are they included
within the limes of Provincia Argentiniae.
For the record, it is my considered opinion that the Insulae Malvinae et
Georgiae should, for complex and rather sensitive cultural and political
reasons, be ceded neither to Argentinia or Britannia, but should enjoy an
independent provincial status, unless the citizens vote otherwise. They are
not what you would call "near" anywhere else, and the mere fact that the
majority of (human) inhabitants speak English, or the fact that they have
been under the British Crown for centuries, is hardly a persuasive case for
them to be regarded as part of Britannia (since the argument would apply
almost equally well to the U.S.A.). My illustrious precursor Q. Claudia
Lucentia Aprica decided, with similar logic, that Northern Ireland should be
regarded as part of a future provincia of Hibernia, a decision with which I
agree completely.
If the propraetor of Argentinia wishes to argue the case of the Insulae
Malvinae however, I shall respond by championing the rights of
self-determination of the Welsh-speaking population of the de facto regio
of Patagonia as well. That, I'm afraid, is the best I can do for levity on
this particular subject. I think you can all guess why. If you can't, feel
free to e-mail me privately.
But seriously: one of the nice things about Nova Roma, to my mind, is that
with our republican empire of which every land is a province sharing equal
status with all the others, is that we cut through the Gordian knot of
provincial macronational affiliation, which would otherwise be the cause of
much unpleasantness. We've already got plenty for a very turbulent
political year ahead, as things stand.
Bene valete
N. Moravius Vado
Propraetor Britanniae.
|
