Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Anyone missing a Tribune?
From:	piscinus@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:11:23 -0000

Salvete Quirites

Marcus Octavius scripsit:
> >>Tribune Gn. Moravius was absent for medical reasons, by his own
statement.

Priscilla Vedia scripsit:
> I'm afraid I must correct you here. Tribune Gn. Moravius has been
on-line and in personal contact with me Saturday, Sunday and today.
He has, indeed, been ill but he has been on-line and aware of the
general situation at the very least since early Saturday afternoon
when he first approached me.

Respondeo:

Hey, what can I say? I'm getting better. "Tis barely a
scratch ...Just a flesh wound."

Yes, I have been on line more frequently lately. And I am now able
to sit up for more than ten minutes at a time. How *aware* I am at
any given moment...that's a different story. And though I may appear
to be available for AIM, ...well, I have this little problem of
falling over a lot lately. :^)

BTW in case anyone is anticipating needing the services of a Tribune
in the near future, I will be going in for medical tests over the
next few weeks. I will for the time being still be limited in my
time available on line. I do check my emails. My condition does not
allow me enough time on line to reply to all emails I receive, nor
does it enable me to follow the lists as well as I would like. Where
I have been trying to make responses lately has been made by taking
several intervals to complete even a single response. My time is
limited and so I have had to limit my activity. Hey, but I'll get
better, Doc, as soon as I am able!

Valete

Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] Interesting website
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:00:39 -0800

I have been searching the web and found an intersting site.... I hope you all might enjoy.

http://www.dbaol.com/start.htm

Its about Wargaming but they have some cool pics.

*Actually I got this site from a link, on a website from a micronation trying to open diplomatic relations with us.*

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Good news for Nova Roma
From:	pjane@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:20:35 -0000

I received word today that Nova Roma has been approved as a tax-exempt
organization under United States laws. This means that contributions to
the Treasury (gifts, not purchases) are tax-deductible for U.S.
citizens. More importantly, this ruling is an important step forward in
legitimizing Nova Roma in the eyes of macronational authorities
everywhere.

The ruling applies to all contributions made after Jan. 4 of this year.
I encourage our Citizens and magistrates to publicize this status on
our Web site and in any literature we hand out.

And, if you are able to do so, consider making a contribution toward
furthering Nova Roma's goals of education, preservation and
scholarship. There's a handy button on the home page of the Web site so
that you can do so by credit card, or checks and money orders may be
sent to Nova Roma, P.O. Box 1897, Wells, ME 04090.

Patricia Cassia


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Anyone missing a Tribune?
From:	nramos@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:21:58 -0000

Salve Piscinus!

We will offer prayers to the Gods and Goddesses of Roma for your
health and quick restitution. May Iuppiter protect you, and
Aesculapius guide the hands of your physicians in your treatment.

Marius Cornelius Scipio
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma

>
> Yes, I have been on line more frequently lately. And I am now able
> to sit up for more than ten minutes at a time. How *aware* I am at
> any given moment...that's a different story. And though I may
appear
> to be available for AIM, ...well, I have this little problem of
> falling over a lot lately. :^)
>
> BTW in case anyone is anticipating needing the services of a
Tribune
> in the near future, I will be going in for medical tests over the
> next few weeks. I will for the time being still be limited in my
> time available on line. I do check my emails. My condition does
not
> allow me enough time on line to reply to all emails I receive, nor
> does it enable me to follow the lists as well as I would like.
Where
> I have been trying to make responses lately has been made by taking
> several intervals to complete even a single response. My time is
> limited and so I have had to limit my activity. Hey, but I'll get
> better, Doc, as soon as I am able!
>
> Valete
>
> Moravius Piscinus
> Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:32:53 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Ira Adams <iadams@e...> wrote:
SNIP
>
> In the meantime, your defense against discussions you consider
off-topic
> or boring or completed is to ignore them, don't read them, and for the
> gods' sakes don't respond to them. That's your responsibility. Can you
> handle it or do you need a list mommy to take care of it for you?
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

The Constitution (II B 4) 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 would sugset that you check out the Civil laws regarding Nova Roma's
lack of Common carrier status, and the implications of what a lawsuit
could do to the Republic. We are one lawsuit away from having the
Republic destroyed, so what is said here can represent a "clear
danger". I found much of the thread boring, however some were becoming
angry, and words written in anger can spur a suit that would wipe us out.

Also you may want to reread Article 7 of the Articles of
Incorparation, Senator.

Article 7. Provision eliminating or limiting the personal liability of
a director, an officer or both, to the corporation and its
shareholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a
director, an officer or both is:

Directors, officers, magistrates and pontifices of Nova Roma may not
be held personally liable for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary
duty, except with respect to knowing violations of civil law or any
transaction from which the official derived an improper and
substantial personal benefit.

Since I'm speaking about a matter of CIVIL law regarding Common
Carrier Status and Libel, and since Senators are the directors, you
could find yourself personaly named as a defendant in a lawsuit
resulting from actions on this list. I would sugest that you need the
services of a "list mommy" far more than I do.

Vale,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:32:53 -0000


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] VETO]
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:43:47 -0500

novaroma@-------- wrote:

Salvete,

Magister wrote:

> A) Not enough time elapsed between these posts and the Curatrix' action
> for the posts themselves to be met with controversy.

FORTUNATA SCRIPSIT:
How much time needs to elapse, Magister? How long do Cives of our Res
Publica have to endure the violation of their civil rights before a
magistrate whose responsibility it is to restore and safeguard these rights
is expected to act?

And, as far as any of the posts in this matter not having been met with
controversy, I recommend you review the Archives, as your response (above)
suggests that perhaps you've neglected to do so.

B) The action of a magistrate is a different matter from citizen complaint.
> I may complain repeatedly about Bloggs; that is no invasion of anyone's
> legal rights and does not demand a response. If PC Plod chooses, because
> of my complaints, to arrest Bloggs for "walking on the cracks in the
> pavement", that is an illegal action by a public official and demands a
> response.

FORTUNATA SCRIPSIT:
I'm glad you see my point. The action of a magistrate is, indeed a different
matter from a citizen complaint. Were a magistrate arbitrarily to act
outside their scope of responsibility, then that would need to be addressed.
However, when a magistrate reviews Cives' complaints clearly delineating an
imminent and clear danger to our Res Publica and subsequently takes action to
maintain
order and uphold civility in this regard, as is within the purview of their
office, said magistrate is therefore upholding our Constitution and
protecting the welfare of our Res Publica.

Vale bene,
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata

"Magna vis Veritatis quae facile se per se ipsa defendat."
("Great is the poser of Truth that can easily defend itself with its own
force.")

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Books for a younger person?
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:32:43 -0500

Salvete bene!

My son, who's going to be 9 soon, has gotten a lot out of The Handbook to
Life in Ancient Rome and the Dictionary of Roman Religion, both by Adkins &
Adkins, as these supply interesting facts with brevity and clarity; also, he
can pick them up and start under any topic that strikes his fancy on any
given day because of the encyclopedic format. These texts also give suggestions for further reading on the different topics, so it's also a nice springboard for his future literary choices.

Is this young person into mythology as well?

Valete bene,
Lucilla

novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> I'm looking for suggestions for books on Roman history that might be
> appropriate for someone of 13 or 14 who is not ready to read at the
> college level yet, but is developing a real appreciation for that
> history.
>
> Ideas?
>
> Patricia Cassia
>
>
>

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Virus Warning :o(
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:55:40 -0000

Salvete,
I just wanted to post a warning that there is a new Melissa style virus.

The Anna Virus pretends to be a jpg of Anna Kournikova. Since the
default setting for Windows is to hide known extensions the real .vbs
extension is hidden. So far all it does is spread it's self by way of
the outlook addressbook, but someone may modify it to do something
nasty to your computer before it arrives in your inbox. If you are
running Windows you need to update your anti-virus software, and avoid
clicking on any attachments that someone sent you, that you didn't
request.

See
http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/main/0,11415,2684479,00.html
for details.

Curator Sermonem, you may want to watch for people attempting to send
attachments to the list, they may be from someone who has the bug.

Valete
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Virus Warning :o(
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:04:13 -0800

Ahh...yes..that virus has already affected Earthlink! :(

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: <lsicinius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Virus Warning :o(

> Salvete,
> I just wanted to post a warning that there is a new Melissa style virus.
>
> The Anna Virus pretends to be a jpg of Anna Kournikova. Since the
> default setting for Windows is to hide known extensions the real .vbs
> extension is hidden. So far all it does is spread it's self by way of
> the outlook addressbook, but someone may modify it to do something
> nasty to your computer before it arrives in your inbox. If you are
> running Windows you need to update your anti-virus software, and avoid
> clicking on any attachments that someone sent you, that you didn't
> request.
>
> See
> http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/main/0,11415,2684479,00.html
> for details.
>
> Curator Sermonem, you may want to watch for people attempting to send
> attachments to the list, they may be from someone who has the bug.
>
> Valete
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri (was RE: Veto concurred)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:04:58 -0600

Salve Consul Vedi et salvete quirites

I agree with you that this must be considered, though the question
extends beyond the vigintisexviri, and I have some grave misgivings
about the direction of your reasoning.

> I see three questions at issue. How do any of the Vigintsexviri do
> their jobs if not by edicta?

I would say that they do so by the same mechanism that allows the
tribuni to do their jobs. They do it by announcing things in a manner
that does not have the force of law that an edictum has. To say that
they issue edicta is to give them a power that is not given them by the
constitution. If we accept that, say, the tribuni cannot be given the
power of auxilium by law, then the vigintisexviri likewise cannot be
given any extra powers by law. The constitution does not allow their
powers to be defined by law. Rather, it allows for only their functions
to be assigned. This is one of the places in which I claim that the
constitution is vague and possibly incomplete. (Note that I do not say
that the constitution is a bad document; merely that it can be
improved.)

The full quote is:
"Vigintisexviri (The Twenty-Six). Collectively, the Twenty-Six shall be
minor magistrates elected to fulfill those necessary functions as shall
be assigned to them by law enacted by one of the comitia."

> And if there's some other mechanism by which they do function,
> should that not also be subject to the same sort of time limit
> as regular edicta?

It quite probably should. However, no such blanket limit has been
imposed. In this case, both Cn Moravius and I were battling private
difficulties. I did not see the curatrix sermo's announcement until
Sunday myself. Therefore, I believe that, in this most recent case,
intercessio was proclaimed with a reasonable amount of alacrity. Still,
we ought to prevent vetoes being issued too long after the fact.

> Finally, if the mechanism by which the intercessio power is
> described in relation to edicta, but not for other types of
> magistrates' actions, does it follow that, without any mechanism
> for implementation in place, the power cannot be implemented?

I would say absolutely not, especially with regard to intercessio. You
have just suggested that the major source of checks and balances between
magistrates is currently invalid. Note also that there is no law
defining how new cives are to be entered into the album civium. Are the
censores then incapable of admitting new cives until one is passed? No
law defines how the tribuni are to report on the Senate's doings. Does
the way that intercessio applies to the trina comitia have to be passed
separately in each set of comitia?

Let's go further. The tribuni cannot abide by Lex Vedia de Ratione
Eligium, as it states, "When a vote on a particular subject (whether a
new law, election, or legal case) is either desired or required, the
appropriate magistrate (as outlined in the constitution) shall call the
comitia to order by issuing an edictum for the purpose." Tribuni cannot
issue edicta (unless one accepts the power as implicit). If we follow
your logic, then they cannot even call the Comitia Plebis Tributa to
order to vote upon a plebiscitum that would allow them to call the CPT
to order! Does this mean that the tribuni cannot therefore "call the
Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order"? A power explicitly
stated in the constitution can't be used until and unless a law defines
it? This places leges above the constitution, which is in itself
unconstitutional!

(And you complain when I say that the constitution is vague when it
comes to the honors, powers, and obligations of the tribuni plebis!)

> Allow me to hopefully to get the ball rolling on these questions.
>
> I think that, despite the fact that nowhere is it explicitly stated
> that "Vigintsexviri may issue edicta", it could be argued that such a
> power is implicit because of the principal that magistrates perform
> their actions through edicta (which is why the powers of the
> Tribunicial intercessio are framed in that way).

Though it is nowhere explicitly stated that "Tribuni plebis may issue
edicta", it could be argued that such a power is implicit because of the
principal that magistrates perform their actions through edicta. How
else can they issue intercessio or call the Comitia Plebis Tributa to
order? No language in the constitution explicitly states that
intercessio is used in some fashion other than through edicta, after
all. (Yes, it is most certainly implied that intercessio is different
from an edictum, but there is nothing stopping a consul from issuing an
edictum that announces his use of intercessio. The line is therefore
blurry if one chooses to make it so.)

> Even if one follows this line of reasoning (and although I can see
> its merits I'm not sure I myself accept it entirely) I think it might
> not be a bad idea to make that power explicit (but then again, that
> would compel a LOT more record-keeping in the Tabularium, as
> minor magistrates start issuing edicta to do their day-to-day jobs).

I would suggest a special category of official announcement well below
the level of edictum. I would likewise suggest a law that delineates
the curator sermo's (masc. form used to 'genericize' the conversation)
powers and their relationship to the constitution's guarantee of
participation in public fora. Other members of the vigintisexviri could
possibly do with equal clarification.

> As far as the Tribunicial intercessio goes, I think it's clear that,
> even if it is used against different sorts of actions (and the
> Constitution does indeed allow for its use against "actions" of
> magistrates, not just "edicta"), some sort of time limit needs to be
> put into effect. This is due to the "virtual" nature of our system
> right now; I hardly think it would be fair to require that the
> Tribunes be physically present and physically prevent a magistrate
> from typing a command on a computer!

I agree absolutely. We certainly want intercessio, regardless of the
magistrate using it, to be both useful and reasonable.

> Lastly, I do believe that the question is open whether or not
> magistrates can act in the absence of either a power assigned by
> law or the mechanism by which that power is exercised. Certainly, a
> magistrate cannot simply assume new powers by his own authority. But
> does that principle extend to the mechanisms by which those powers
> are exercised (which in many cases defines the power itself)? Indeed,
> the _lack_ of such an explicitly-specified mechanism may in fact
> prevent its use.

See above, though your point about imperium is not an inconsequential
one.

> For example; as Consul, I am granted the power of Imperium by the
> Constitution. Does this mean I can go around and execute offenders, or
> compell Citizens to join my legion? Of course not. Similarly, I'm not
> sure that a Tribunicial intercessio can be used against magistrates'
> non-edictial (?) actions, precisely because no such mechanism is defined.

I would say that the tribunician intercessio should, above all other
powers, *not* be held to this standard. The tribuni are meant, by your
own words, to be the primary defenders of the constitution. Their
ability to act as such is watered down enough as it is. To say that
they can't use it unless a particular law allows them to do so not only
places such a law above the constitution, it also removes almost the
entirety of the tribunician intercessio's utility.

> Note that the first and third questions are related. If one follows
> the argument that the Vigintsexviri have the power to grant edicta
> implicitly, it is difficult to maintain at the same time that the
> Tribunes do not have the power to issue an intercessio by the same
> implicit reasoning.

Indeed, the door opens for the tribuni to issue edicta themselves.

> Contrarily, if one takes the strict-adherence point of view, it then
> becomes consistent to say that the Vigintsexviri cannot, in fact, issue
> edicta (because such a power is nowhere explicitly granted to them),
> but neither can the Tribunes issue an intercessio against magisterial
> actions that are not edicta (because the mechanism by which such would
> be done is never described). I personally lean towards the latter point
> of view, but my mind is by no means made up on this admittedly complex
> issue.

As stated above, I find this far too dangerous a position.

> This leaves us with two items to consider. Should the power to issue
> edicta be explicitly granted to the Vigintsexviri (thus bringing them
> under the rules for the issuance of Tribunicial intercessio)? And also,
> should a mechanism for the Tribunes to issue their intercessio against
> non-edict actions of magistrates be adopted, and if so what form should
> it take?

Above, I suggest a lesser form of edictum. On second thought, I suggest
that the vigintisexviri be given the power to issue edicta in very tight
language that keeps such edicta entirely restricted to the duties of
each position. Rogatores should not, for example, determine the content
of the Eagle by edictum.

As for intercessio, I suggest that *all* uses of intercessio should be
given a time limit. 72 hours should be the minimum, I would think. I'd
prefer to see 96 or 120 hours, myself, considering how life and
transient net conditions can interfere with one's ability to read and
respond to e-mail promptly.

Valete
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[novaroma] New Gens Address
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:45:31 -0600

Avete Omnes,

The Gens Ulleria has a new email address

gensulleria@--------

courtesy of Google.com eating Deja.com

The Gens home page will be rebuilt at Yahoo/Geocities,
as it has gone POOF!

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Quæstor, legate, Dominus Sodalis


Subject:	Re: RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:48:56 -0500

Salvete omnes,

I absolutely LOVE the ideas expressed thus far -- there are so many exciting directions in which to take these possibilities. And, I believe we can accomplish every one of them.

Priscilla, I think your concept of a traveling educational troupe is a most excellent one. Finally -- a positive note for children's assemblies! Developing this into an umbrella pilot program for two or three different aspects within a Regio to start is doable in the foreseeable future; in this way we can fine tune the project in order to encourage its expansion, not only in terms of aspects of Roma Antiqua presented, but to foster the development of programs on greater levels, up to and including national via successful networking.

A notion occurred to me in conjunction with the education thread: How about an organization with NR for kids, kind of like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of the mundane world? We could have merit badges based on Romanitas; maybe have monthly meetings in conjunction with cyber activities -- the possibilities are endless!

I'm also going to run some of these ideas past my professors -- Germanicus' ideas regarding scholarships to Classics students, archaeological sponsorships, tours of Roman sites right off the bat would be ideas they'd want to hear more about.

And, hey -- the Soup Kitchen/Sports Bar has possibilities, too! :)

And there are LOTS more we can accomplish along these lines. It's great to see us all pulling together to ignite in other the spark that for us has become an all-consuming passion: ROME!

Vale bene,
Lucilla
novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> As a teacher I would add that developing some form of traveling educational
> troupe would be wonderful. Something that could be sent out for assembly
> programs would be fantastic. Believe me when I say there are not nearly
> enough programs available and the ones that are available focus almost
> exclusively on social ills (drug abuse, etc).
>
> Granted, it is a long way off I am sure, but if we could present a 45 minute
> to an hour long program devoted to exposing the children to Rome in all her
> glory, would that not be wonderful?? I could even envision different troupe
> with different emphases. Some might be more educational, some could focus
> on entertainment (songs and poems of Ancient Rome), some might focus on
> specific periods or battles......the possibilities are endless.
>
> It is an interesting idea and a terrific potential to turn children on to
> the wonders of Rome. When the day comes that we start pulling this one
> together count me in!!
>
> :) Priscilla Vedia Serena
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:54 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th
> Anniversary
>
>
> Salvete;
>
> Oh, believe me, there're a LOT of things we could add to such a list:
>
> * sponsoring archaeological digs
> * participating in ancient site preservation
> * setting up our own publishing house and putting out books, a
> mass-distribution magazine, and a more scholarly journal
> * sponsoring Latin composition contests for high school students
> * setting up our own real-world storefront selling books and artifacts
> * putting together our own guided tours of Roman sites
> * giving scholarships to Classics students
> * underwriting academics authoring books
> * etc. etc. etc.
>
> And my personal favorite; starting a combination soup kitchen/sports bar.
> Our own version of "Bread and Circuses". :-)
>
> Naturally, many of these are things that can be done at the national,
> provincial, and local level as well. I'm sure others can think of scores
> of
> more real-world projects we can aim for. How about it? Who can add to the
> list?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> "For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such
> a
> bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 15:28
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Subject: Re: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th
> > Anniversary
> >
> >
> >
> > --- VMoeller@-------- wrote:
> > > Salve Consul Germanicus et Cives Nova Roma:
> > >
> > > Not a bad set of goals for eight or so years
> > > down the road - says I.
> > > Perhaps we should consider turning fiction into a
> > > list of goals...just a
> > > thought? Vale ---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Quaestor
> >
> >
> > Excellent idea!
> >
> > L Aetius Dalmaticus
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
--
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Good news for Nova Roma
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:38:22 -0800

Salvete Patricia et Quiritibus;

This is most fortuitous news! Truly a day worthy
of celebration in our great and glorious Respublica!
Many new possibilities now open to us. Am most especially
intrigued by the opportunities for our Religio.

Bona Fortuna!

Oppius Flaccus Severus,
Sacerdos Neptunus
-----Original Message-----
From: pjane@-------- [mailto:pjane@--------]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 5:21 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Good news for Nova Roma

I received word today that Nova Roma has been approved as a tax-exempt
organization under United States laws. This means that contributions to
the Treasury (gifts, not purchases) are tax-deductible for U.S.
citizens. More importantly, this ruling is an important step forward in
legitimizing Nova Roma in the eyes of macronational authorities
everywhere.

The ruling applies to all contributions made after Jan. 4 of this year.
I encourage our Citizens and magistrates to publicize this status on
our Web site and in any literature we hand out.

And, if you are able to do so, consider making a contribution toward
furthering Nova Roma's goals of education, preservation and
scholarship. There's a handy button on the home page of the Web site so
that you can do so by credit card, or checks and money orders may be
sent to Nova Roma, P.O. Box 1897, Wells, ME 04090.

Patricia Cassia


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] New Gens Address
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:31:32 -0800

Salve Venator! Will be looking forward to seeing
the rebuilt site.

Bene vale,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Piparskegg UllRsson [mailto:catamount_grange@--------]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:46 PM
To: Nova Roman Forum; NR Brewers and Cooks; GreatLakesNovaRoma
Subject: [novaroma] New Gens Address

Avete Omnes,

The Gens Ulleria has a new email address

gensulleria@--------

courtesy of Google.com eating Deja.com

The Gens home page will be rebuilt at Yahoo/Geocities,
as it has gone POOF!

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Quæstor, legate, Dominus Sodalis


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Good news for Nova Roma
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:21:06 -0500

Salvete!

This is indeed a wonderous day! My heartfelt thanks to Marcus Cassius and
Patricia Cassia for pursuing our tax-exempt status with the Federal
Government. I believe this is a vital step in preparing for Nova Roma's
financial future.

In celebration, I will send out a gift of a Nova Roma T-Shirt to the first
five people who make a (now) Tax Exempt donation to the treasury of $50 or
more. These are the same T-Shirts that were for sale at Roman Days back in
1998, so you're getting a piece of history! (I recently discovered five
extras in a box in my home.)

If you want to make such a donation, just let me know in an email (so I can
know who the first five people are), and I'll send out the t-shirt when the
Quaestors get your check (or Paypal authorization). I know that $250 isn't a
lot of money, but it's a beginning.

Wonderful news indeed!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pjane@-------- [mailto:pjane@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 20:21
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Good news for Nova Roma
>
>
> I received word today that Nova Roma has been approved as a tax-exempt
> organization under United States laws. This means that contributions to
> the Treasury (gifts, not purchases) are tax-deductible for U.S.
> citizens. More importantly, this ruling is an important step forward in
> legitimizing Nova Roma in the eyes of macronational authorities
> everywhere.
>
> The ruling applies to all contributions made after Jan. 4 of this year.
> I encourage our Citizens and magistrates to publicize this status on
> our Web site and in any literature we hand out.
>
> And, if you are able to do so, consider making a contribution toward
> furthering Nova Roma's goals of education, preservation and
> scholarship. There's a handy button on the home page of the Web site so
> that you can do so by credit card, or checks and money orders may be
> sent to Nova Roma, P.O. Box 1897, Wells, ME 04090.
>
> Patricia Cassia
>
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Upcoming Comitia Populi vote
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:01:46 -0500

Fl Vedius Germanicus novaromanis S.P.D.

Pending the taking of the auguries, the Consuls intend to convene the
Comitia Populi to a vote beginning Sunday, February 18th, continuing through
Monday, February 26th.

Currently, the following topics have come up for discussion here, and this
is what I've gleaned of their status for inclusion in the vote (I'm
including things I'm not planning on including, because some of them are
still works-in-progress, but haven't been forgotten). I'll post the exact
wording of the draft leges tomorrow or Thursday for review prior to the
start of the vote.

I. "Age And Citizenship". (Basically, changing the Constitution to allow
people of all ages to be Citizens, but restricting the right to vote et al
to people 17 or older.) Consensus seemed to be in favor (with a possible
changing of the age limit to 18), but it is a job for the Comitia
Centuriata, and is thus put off until that body is convened (probably in a
month or two).

II. "Rescaling Century Points". (Basically, multiplying current century
point totals and awards by 10, to allow us to create future awards for
smaller-scale efforts.) Consensus seemed to be that this was a good idea.
This will be on the upcoming vote.

III. "Adding New Century Point Awards". (Basically, delineated new CP awards
for several positions that don't currently yield such awards.) Consensus
seemed to be in favor, but in private consultation with Lucius Cornelius
Sulla, it was agreed to table this idea pending the passage of II, above.

IV. "Shortening the Length of Elections". (Basically, a general idea to have
elections in the various Comitiae go 3-4 days instead of 8+ days.) Consensus
seemed to be this was unnecessary; it will not be included in the upcoming
vote.

V. "Creation of Military Tribunes". (Basically, creating a new set of
Vigintsexviri to oversee the various sponsored reenactment legions, handle
recruiting of new legions, etc.) Consensus has been neutral on this issue,
and no specific legislation has been forthcoming. In addition, there seem to
be issues with this item within the Sodalitas Militarium that warrant
tabling it for the time being. It will not be included in the upcoming vote.

VI. "The Cursus Honorum". (Basically, requiring that most magistrates be
Citizens for at least a year before taking office, and that major
magistrates be required to have been elected to at least one previous
office.) Consensus seems to be that this was a good idea, with the possible
exception that Praetors should not have to serve in prior offices. It will
be included in the upcoming vote.

VII. "Publicani and State Industries". (Basically, creating a new set of
Vigintsexviri to oversee money-making projects for Nova Roma.) Neither was
consensus reached nor was specific legislation put forth; this will not be
included in the upcoming vote.

VIII. "Voting Procedures". (Basically, changing the way votes are made and
tallied, with multiple votes per tribe and ties broken by lot.) Neither was
consensus reached nor was specific legislation put forth; this will not be
included in the upcoming vote.

In addition, there will be an election to fill two vacant rogatores
positions (they were created last month when the number of rogatores was
increased from two to four). So far two individuals have come forth to run
(my apologies; I don't have their names handy as I'm at work and their
emails are at home). If anyone else wants to run for the office of
rogatorus, let the consuls know right away! (consuls@--------).

If I have forgotten any proposals that have come up recently that should be
included in the upcoming vote, please let me know. Please also note that
there's still time if specific legislation is written up and a general
consensus reached for things to be included in the vote that aren't
scheduled to be now. But time is running out; I usually like to see at least
some discussion on particulars and some positive consensus before putting
something up on the ballot.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

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


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] Idibus Februaris (on February 13th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:30:45 -0000

Salvete omnes

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

The Idus of every month are sacred to Iuppiter. An white ewe is
sacrificed to Iuppiter by the Flamen Dialis.

Today is the celebration of Faunus at his temple on the Tiberine Island. The
sacrifice consists of an ewe-lamb or a kid (Horatius, Odes, 1.4.11 seq.).

Today is the first day of the Parentalia, a festival dedicated to the Manes.
According to Ovidius (Ovidius, Fasti, 2.535-540 seq.), the Manes prefer
piety to costly presents. As such, in order to appease ("placo") the souls
of the dead, one must only bring a small offering of a tile wreathed with
votive garlands, a sprikling of corn, a few grains of salt, bread soaked in
wine and some loose violets, all that in a potsherd which is to be left in
the middle of the track inside the graveyard. During this period, the dead
walk freely and harmlessly around the tombs to receive the offerings.
Nevertheless, the doors of the temples remain closed.

The month of February is sacred to Iuno Februa.

Pax Deorum vobiscum
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	[novaroma] Pervigilium Veneris (long)
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:36:32 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

An offering from Roman Antiquity, entitled The Dance of Venus, or
Pervigilium Veneris.

The author's identity has never been established.

Valete,
Pompeia

Pervigilium Veneris

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love anew.

Spring is young now, spring is singing, in the spring
the world first grew;

In the spring the birds are wedded, in the springtime
true hearts pair,

Under the rain of her lover's kisses loose the forest
flings her hair.

Now in the shadows of the woodland She that binds all
true love's vows,

She shall build them bowers tomorrow of Her own
green myrthle-boughs.

The Dione high entroned on her lovers lays her
law -

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have loved shall love once
more.

She it is that paints the springtide, flower-be-
jeweled, purple-drest,

She that swells the young bud's bosom with low
whispers from the west,

Til it breaks in balmy blossom; She that in the
wake of night,

O'er the fields where darkness flung them, spreads
the dewdrops's liquid light.

See how, tembling, all but falling, each one glitters
like a tear!

Yet they fall not - in its station clings so fast each
tiny sphere.

See the Rose comes forth in crimson, shows her
blush of maiden shame!

Dew that through the windless midnight from the
starry Heavens came,

Bathes tomorrow morn her bosom, strips its mantle
dank and green;

Venus bids at morn tomorrow wed shall every Rose
be seen.

Child of kisses Love hath given, born of blood the
Cyprian shed,

Bred of gem's and flame's regulgence, of the sun's
own crimson bred,

Then the Rose shall rend the splendour of the
bridal veil she wore

And her life's one wedlock show her flushed with
the beauty no man saw.

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love once more.

Now her nymphs Love's Lady biddeth muster
where her myrtles sway;

There's a boy shall be their playmate - "Yet can
Love keep holiday?

Can Love play among Her maidens, if his hand
still hold the bow?"

"Maidens, fear not. Love comes maying. Weaponless
he comes, your foe.

He is bidden to disarm him, bidden some with
limbs laid bare.

Lest his firebrand, or his arrows, or his bow
make mischief there.

And yet, maidens, watch and ward ye! Cupid hath
a comely hue.

And when Loves comes bare and naked, Love wears
all his armour too.

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love anew."

But to thee, O Maid of Delos, Venus sends maids
chaste as though,

For this single boon to beg thee - grant through
all they woodlands now

That no wild thing's blood tomorrow stain the
grasses of the glade,

That in peace o'er its young blossoms green may
glide the westering shade.

She Herself would come to pray thee, might She
move thy maiden heart;

She Herself wold bid thee join us, were it but a
maiden's part -

Bid thee gaze while we do dancing through our
three nights' revelry,

Dance with miltitudes about us down the glens
that honour thee,

Dance amid a rain of garlands down the lanes of
myrtle-bowers,

With us Ceres, with us Bacchus - yea, the Lord of
Song is ours.

Up now, wake the dark with revel, sing aloud the
long night through!

Bow, ye forests, to Dione! Thou, Diana, shun our
view!

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love anew.

Lo, Love's Lady comes to judgement. At Her side
the Graces meet.

Fair with all the flowers of Hybla deck today Her
judgement-seat.

Hybla, broadcast fling they blossoms, all that Spring
bears in her hands;

Of thy flowers make thee a mantle, wide as AEtna's
meadowlands.

Nymphs of meadow, nymphs of mountain, hither
all are gathering,

Nymphs of coppice and of forest, nymphs that
haunt the hidden spring.

She hath bid them all draw highter, She whose
womb the wing'd Love bore:

"Maids" She laughs, "though Love come naked, no
more trust him than before."

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love once more.

For tomorrrow is the morning when high Heaven
first was wed

and the cycle of the seasons from the clouds of
spring was bred.

Soft in showers His love descended on the gentle
lap of Earth,

Quickened all Her mighty body, brought all living
things to birth.

But the Sea's far-circling surges, quickened by far
other rain,

Red with blood that streamed from heaven, where
sea-horses shook their mane

And the blue sea-monsters gambolled, tossed Dione
from the foam -

Her the Mother, Her the Mighty, Her whose spirit
hath its home

In the inmost mind of all things, in the blood Her
power sways

While through earth, through sea, through heaven
onward wind Her hidden ways.

That day first the paths She fashioned for Life's seed
the wide world o'er,

All the roads of birth reevealing, procreation's mystic
lore.

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love once more.

She it was that brought Her Trojans hither to the
Latin land,

She that gave Her son AEneas the Laurentine
maiden's hand,

Gave to Mars that other maidens, virgin guard of
Vesta's fire,

Gave the daughters of the Sabine to the Roman
youths' desire.

So sprang Ramnes and Quirites; so at last She
raised to reign

Both our Caesars, sire and nephew, lest the race of
Rome should wane.

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love again.

Love bids all our fields grown fruitful; well the fields
Love's Lady know;

Love Himself was born, 'tis whispered, in the
meadows, long ago.

Him, when all was spring and blossom, Venus
to her bosom drew,

On soft kisses of the flowers there She nursed him,
till he grew.

Loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love anew.

Look, beneath the broomy shadows now the great
bulls lie apart,

Each at ease beside his chosen, who hath won and
bound his heart;

In the shadows, look, are lying, mated now, the
bleating sheep;

Yeah, today Dione biddeth all the birds their carols
keep.

Hark, the chattering swans are calling hoarse across
the mirrored mere,

While the tragic bride of Tereus through the poplars
answer clear -

Sings as clear as happy lover, sings as if forgot at
last

Savage lord and ravished sister, all the anguish of
the past.

Ah, she sings. But we are silent. When shall "my"
spring come to me?

When shall "I" grow as a swallow, and my lips at last
be free?

For my silence Phoebus scorns me and the Muse
her face withdrew:

So it was that its own silence old Amyclae
overthrew -

Yet, loveless hearts shall love tomorrow, hearts that have
loved shall love anew.

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Virus Warning :o(
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:31:10 +0100

Salvete,

time to use Linux. No VBS problems with this OS.

Thank you for the warning. I think it´s a good service for all citizens.

Caius Flavius Diocletianus

Isicinius@-------- wrote:

> Salvete,
> I just wanted to post a warning that there is a new Melissa style virus.
>
> The Anna Virus pretends to be a jpg of Anna Kournikova. Since the
> default setting for Windows is to hide known extensions the real .vbs
> extension is hidden. So far all it does is spread it's self by way of
> the outlook addressbook, but someone may modify it to do something
> nasty to your computer before it arrives in your inbox. If you are
> running Windows you need to update your anti-virus software, and avoid
> clicking on any attachments that someone sent you, that you didn't
> request.
>
> See
> http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/main/0,11415,2684479,00.html
> for details.
>
> Curator Sermonem, you may want to watch for people attempting to send
> attachments to the list, they may be from someone who has the bug.
>
> Valete
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri (was RE: Veto concurred)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:18:34 -0500

Salvete;

Apologies to all for the great length and, at times, complexity of this
post. There's an 11-line "executive summary" at the bottom which summarizes
my major points, for those who want to get to the meat. :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 22:05
>
> > I see three questions at issue. How do any of the Vigintsexviri do
> > their jobs if not by edicta?
>
> I would say that they do so by the same mechanism that allows the
> tribuni to do their jobs. They do it by announcing things in a manner
> that does not have the force of law that an edictum has. To say that
> they issue edicta is to give them a power that is not given them by the
> constitution.

Okay, I think we're in agreement on that point. Powers are derived from the
Constitution.

> If we accept that, say, the tribuni cannot be given the
> power of auxilium by law, then the vigintisexviri likewise cannot be
> given any extra powers by law. The constitution does not allow their
> powers to be defined by law. Rather, it allows for only their functions
> to be assigned.

Actually, this is incorrect. The Constitution says they are "elected to
fulfill those necessary functions as shall be assigned to them by law". To
my mind, as they are elected to fullfill the functions, it implies the power
to act. Unless you know of a way to "fulfill" a function without actually
_doing_ anything? (Unless of course that function is to simply keep the seat
warm, but by your reasoning, they wouldn't even have the power to do that!)

> > Finally, if the mechanism by which the intercessio power is
> > described in relation to edicta, but not for other types of
> > magistrates' actions, does it follow that, without any mechanism
> > for implementation in place, the power cannot be implemented?
>
> I would say absolutely not, especially with regard to intercessio. You
> have just suggested that the major source of checks and balances between
> magistrates is currently invalid. Note also that there is no law
> defining how new cives are to be entered into the album civium. Are the
> censores then incapable of admitting new cives until one is passed? No
> law defines how the tribuni are to report on the Senate's doings. Does
> the way that intercessio applies to the trina comitia have to be passed
> separately in each set of comitia?

Actually, that's not entirely true. There is indeed a Senatus Consultum
which regulates how the Tribunes are to report the business of the Senate.
Plus, the way that intercessio is applied to the comitiae is indeed already
explicitly spelled out in the three different laws that describe their
voting procedures (24 hours within the publication of its being convened).
In the case of the Censors, they are also granted the power to issue edicta
to get their various jobs done, and since edicta have the force of law--
albeit below the level of a lex-- your use of them for your example is
ill-advised.

Also, I would question why intercessio would "especially" be different, as
opposed to, say, imperium. (More on that below.)

> Let's go further. The tribuni cannot abide by Lex Vedia de Ratione
> Eligium, as it states, "When a vote on a particular subject (whether a
> new law, election, or legal case) is either desired or required, the
> appropriate magistrate (as outlined in the constitution) shall call the
> comitia to order by issuing an edictum for the purpose." Tribuni cannot
> issue edicta (unless one accepts the power as implicit). If we follow
> your logic, then they cannot even call the Comitia Plebis Tributa to
> order to vote upon a plebiscitum that would allow them to call the CPT
> to order!

Please remember; it's not _my_ logic. I was simply bringing up some other
possibilities for consideration. I happen to agree with you on this point.

> Does this mean that the tribuni cannot therefore "call the
> Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order"? A power explicitly
> stated in the constitution can't be used until and unless a law defines
> it?

Correct. In the case you cited, the power explicitly given to the tribunes
to call the Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order is "enabled"
(i.e., the mechanism by which it may be exercised is described) by the
Senatus Consultum De Ratione Senatus and the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum
Plebis Tributorum, respectively.

> This places leges above the constitution, which is in itself
> unconstitutional!

I disagree; it does not place the leges above the constitution in the
slightest. It does, however, give an orderly means by which the powers
granted in the Constitution are exercised by individual magistrates. Or are
you of the opinion that my inability to utilize my Constitutionally-granted
power of imperium, because no legal mechanism has been implemented for its
use, is unconstitutional? In that case, I want my lictors; just see the
tribune to get your axes...

If nothing else, having such powers described by law sets a valuable
precident; magistrates must not be allowed to usurp new (or newly expanded)
powers unto themselves.

And as it stands, the tribunicial power of intercessio is indeed enabled and
its mechanisms are indeed described by law. These mechanisms cover (thusfar)
its use against magisterial edicta and the calling of the comitiae and
Senate to vote. We have now discovered another instance in which its
mechanism should be described; non-edict magisterial actions. The solution
is to simply pass a lex covering the omission; not establishing the
precident that magistrates can just expand their own powers as they please.

> (And you complain when I say that the constitution is vague when it
> comes to the honors, powers, and obligations of the tribuni plebis!)

I do. It is intentionally so, and the vagarities are clarified by laws.

> > I think that, despite the fact that nowhere is it explicitly stated
> > that "Vigintsexviri may issue edicta", it could be argued that such a
> > power is implicit because of the principal that magistrates perform
> > their actions through edicta (which is why the powers of the
> > Tribunicial intercessio are framed in that way).
>
> Though it is nowhere explicitly stated that "Tribuni plebis may issue
> edicta", it could be argued that such a power is implicit because of the
> principal that magistrates perform their actions through edicta. How
> else can they issue intercessio or call the Comitia Plebis Tributa to
> order? No language in the constitution explicitly states that
> intercessio is used in some fashion other than through edicta, after
> all.

You raise a good point. However, I think that when taken in the context of
all that various powers of the magistrates, it can be seen that the power to
call the comitiae is in fact distinct from the power to issue edicta. That
distinction is there because, for those magistrates who have both powers,
they are listed as separate and distinct items (and in every case the scope
of the edicts is explicitly defined).

Indeed, if you look at the Constitutional powers of the Censors, they alone
are granted the power "To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to carry out
those tasks in which they are mandated by this Constitution and the law to
engage" Why then would such a power be explicitly given to one set of
magistrates, but not another, unless it was intended that the other not use
edicta to perform their other tasks?

Also, I should point out that there is legal precident already for such
differentiation; the power of tribunician intercessio must be exercised
within 72 hours for a magisterial edictum, but the time limit is 24 hours
for calling the comitiae to a vote. (That, I think, illustrates the
difference between the application of the power to issue an edictum, and the
power to take other actions.)

> (Yes, it is most certainly implied that intercessio is different
> from an edictum, but there is nothing stopping a consul from issuing an
> edictum that announces his use of intercessio. The line is therefore
> blurry if one chooses to make it so.)

In the case of a Consul, you are correct, but only because the Consuls' may
issue edicta "necessary to engage in those tasks which advance the mission
and function of Nova Roma" and it could be argued that a Consular
intercessio does just that. (Personally, I don't see the need to issue an
edict to employ intercessio.)

> I would suggest a special category of official announcement well below
> the level of edictum.

Honestly, I don't see the need for such, as long as the scope of the edicta
which Vigintsexviri may issue is well defined. (And besides, since
magisterial edicta are _already_ on the lowest level of legal precidence,
how does one get "well below" the bottom?) ;-)

> I would likewise suggest a law that delineates
> the curator sermo's (masc. form used to 'genericize' the conversation)
> powers and their relationship to the constitution's guarantee of
> participation in public fora. Other members of the vigintisexviri could
> possibly do with equal clarification.

I believe that to single out the "curator sermo" from the rest is
disingenuous, and just brings up the recent unpleasantness. Let's try to
keep this discussion a little more abstract for the moment. I see no reason
why all the vigintisexviri would not be treated equally in this way; after
all, the newsletter editor and the webmaster could have just as much impact
on public participation in state communications fora.

> > For example; as Consul, I am granted the power of Imperium by the
> > Constitution. Does this mean I can go around and execute offenders, or
> > compell Citizens to join my legion? Of course not. Similarly, I'm not
> > sure that a Tribunicial intercessio can be used against magistrates'
> > non-edictial (?) actions, precisely because no such mechanism
> > is defined.
>
> I would say that the tribunician intercessio should, above all other
> powers, *not* be held to this standard. The tribuni are meant, by your
> own words, to be the primary defenders of the constitution. Their
> ability to act as such is watered down enough as it is. To say that
> they can't use it unless a particular law allows them to do so not only
> places such a law above the constitution, it also removes almost the
> entirety of the tribunician intercessio's utility.

I disagree. First of all, while the Tribunician role as guardians of
Constitutional integrity is indeed a vital one, I disagree with your
implication that it somehow places them in a special category above all and
sundry. It's important, certainly. But is it singularly vital? Is the role
of watchdog quantiatively more important than the role of, say, supreme
policy-making body? Can the Republic function without either? No, and thus
the delicate balance of powers is maintained. The tribunes, and the
tribunicial intercessio, are not on some higher plane of importance, and
should be kept to the same standard as any other magisterial (or other
Constitutionally mandated) power. Constitutionally, the power of intercessio
is no more important than the power of imperium; it's simply better defined
by law.

I also disagree that requiring the tribunicial intercessio to follow forms
described by law "removes almost the entirety" of its utility. It simply
means that it cannot be applied at the whim of the tribunes, and extended
into areas for which the law has made no provision.

That having been said, I do believe that some sort of law describing a
mechanism for the use of the tribunicial intercessio against non-edict
actions should be discussed and enacted. However, I'm not so sure it's going
to be quite as easy as it sounds...

> > Note that the first and third questions are related. If one follows
> > the argument that the Vigintsexviri have the power to grant edicta
> > implicitly, it is difficult to maintain at the same time that the
> > Tribunes do not have the power to issue an intercessio by the same
> > implicit reasoning.
>
> Indeed, the door opens for the tribuni to issue edicta themselves.

Indeed; one reason I don't support it.

> > Contrarily, if one takes the strict-adherence point of view, it then
> > becomes consistent to say that the Vigintsexviri cannot, in fact, issue
> > edicta (because such a power is nowhere explicitly granted to them),
> > but neither can the Tribunes issue an intercessio against magisterial
> > actions that are not edicta (because the mechanism by which such would
> > be done is never described). I personally lean towards the latter point
> > of view, but my mind is by no means made up on this admittedly complex
> > issue.
>
> As stated above, I find this far too dangerous a position.

No doubt, because it has an impact on your powers! However, as I stated
above, it is admittedly a problem, and I think the solution is to get down
to a discussion of just how the tribunes would go about issuing such an
intercessio, and promulgating legislation for it. I certainly do NOT think
the solution is to simply assume that magistrates can start expanding their
powers beyond the limits described by law, simply on their own authority and
because they perceive an omission.

If we accept that principal, it's a slipperly slope to a Consul saying "I
have Imperium, you're out of Nova Roma because I 'killed' you." Magistrates
must not be allowed to define their own powers without the check of having
those powers voted on by the assemblies.

> > This leaves us with two items to consider. Should the power to issue
> > edicta be explicitly granted to the Vigintsexviri (thus bringing them
> > under the rules for the issuance of Tribunicial intercessio)? And also,
> > should a mechanism for the Tribunes to issue their intercessio against
> > non-edict actions of magistrates be adopted, and if so what form should
> > it take?
>
> Above, I suggest a lesser form of edictum. On second thought, I suggest
> that the vigintisexviri be given the power to issue edicta in very tight
> language that keeps such edicta entirely restricted to the duties of
> each position. Rogatores should not, for example, determine the content
> of the Eagle by edictum.

Absolutely. I completely agree with your thoughts here. I think if we follow
the precident already found in the Constitution, the power to issue edicta
can reasonably be limited to certain areas. However, I don't think it's
practical that the vigintisexviri should do _every_ aspect of their jobs by
edicta. Such would be chaos, and completely impractical. (Can you imagine
the Eagle editor having to publically issue an edictum saying "the Eagle
shall be printed in landscape, with 10 point Times New Roman font..."?)

> As for intercessio, I suggest that *all* uses of intercessio should be
> given a time limit. 72 hours should be the minimum, I would think. I'd
> prefer to see 96 or 120 hours, myself, considering how life and
> transient net conditions can interfere with one's ability to read and
> respond to e-mail promptly.

Personally, I think 120 hours is a ludicrously long time. You yourself, in
the "Plebiscitum Labiena Morvia de Tribunicia Potestates" wanted to mandate
that tribunes check their mail every 48 hours...

I would also point out that we already have laws on the books that specify
different time-limits when applied in different situation. 24 hours when
vetoing the calling of a comitia or the Senate, 72 hours when vetoing a
magisterial edictum. I might be in favor of making the time-limit uniform in
all cases, but first let's see exactly how such a thing could be worded.

-----EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-----

1. I think the powers of all the vigintisexviri (Curator Sermo, Curator
Araneum, Curator Differum, and Rogatores) should be amended to explicitly
give them the power to issue edicta within the narrow confines of their job
descriptions, but this doesn't mean that their every action must be done by
edictum.

2. I think the tribunicial intercessio cannot be used in instances where no
legal mechanism describes the process, just as the power of imperium cannot
simply be defined by the magistrates who possess it. Such things must be
spelled out by law.

3. I do believe that the inability of the tribunes to employ intercessio
against non-edict actions of magistrates is something that should be
addressed, and a law should be passed describing the mechanism by which such
an intercessio could be made. I also believe the wording of such a law must
be looked at extremely closely.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:51:08 -0500

Salvete!

Germanicus is correct on the construction of the Constitution.

However, in the light of this constructional issue, it is now time for
Germanicus to admit that the combination of

BOTH

(A) a short time limit for the Veto, (given that email is not instantaneous
communication and that NR citizens may live in different time zones)

AND

(B) A requirement that the Tribunes act collegially (which is completely
foreign to the practice of Roma Antiqua and applies to no other magistracy)

has the effect that the Tribunician veto is impotent, and that there is no
constitutional remedy for an illegal act by a magistrate.

It is therefore urgent that the Comitia Centuriata should be summoned to
reform the Constitutional provisions affecting the Tribunes.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Administrative Announcement
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:59:04 -0500

Salve,

I am more than pleased to announce that three scribes have "come aboard" to
assist in the smooth running of this list. They are:

Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
Caius Citius Catus
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

I am very much looking forward to working with the fine cives and I am sure
they will do a wonderful job here! My thanks to each of them for stepping
forward and volunteering, and my thanks in advance for what is certain to be
a fine job!

Vale,

Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Common Carrier Status
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:02:39 -0500

Salvete,

L. Sicinius Drusus draws our attention to the law relating to common
carrier status in defamation in US law, and its implications for editing/
removal of posts.

Although I am not in general in favour of the editing/ removal of posts, I
regret to say that the issue is immaterial. The reason is that (1) the
English courts claim jurisdiction over any defamatory matter readable in
England, whether or not there is any other connection with England -
Berezovsky v Michaels, where a Russian politician sued Forbes magazine,
which is published in the US, about allegations concerning his conduct in
Russia;

and

(2) English law does not recognise common carrier status at all except in
so far as it is provided by statute for the Post Office: Godfrey v Demon
Internet, where A flamed other participants on various lists, in order to
be able to sue the ISPs when someone flamed him back; the ISP's defense was
rejected and they were forced to settle.

Both these decisions were in 1999-2000, so this is not obsolete law.

There is therefore nothing NR can do in its policy to protect itself from
someone who was sufficiently determined to sue us for defamation to use the
English courts.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] VETO]
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:16:50 -0500

Salvete!

Fortunata wrote, inter alia,

>How long do Cives of our Res Publica have to endure the violation of their
civil rights before a
>magistrate whose responsibility it is to restore and safeguard these
rights is expected to act?

I have yet to have it explained to me why the continued storm in an egg-cup
over language policy amounted to a violation of anyone's civil rights.
No-one violates your civil rights by addressing the crowd in a public
forum.

>And, as far as any of the posts in this matter not having been met with
controversy,

I think you misunderstood me here. All I was saying was that posts on the
list, <EMPH>calling for the discussion to be closed<EMPH> had not been up
long enough before the Curatrix acted to have attracted controversy. Nor, I
think, can one infer assent from silence (though this is another
discussion...)

>when a magistrate reviews Cives' complaints clearly delineating an
>imminent and clear danger to our Res Publica and subsequently takes action
...

I am pretty confident that the continued argument about language policy did
not meet the "clear and present danger" test in the US Supreme Court's
First Amendment jurisprudence, to which I assume this refers.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Vetoes are Impotent? (was RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:18:11 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 14:51
>
> Germanicus is correct on the construction of the Constitution.
>
> However, in the light of this constructional issue, it is now time for
> Germanicus to admit that the combination of
>
> BOTH
>
> (A) a short time limit for the Veto, (given that email is not
instantaneous
> communication and that NR citizens may live in different time zones)
>
> AND
>
> (B) A requirement that the Tribunes act collegially (which is completely
> foreign to the practice of Roma Antiqua and applies to no other
> magistracy)
>
> has the effect that the Tribunician veto is impotent, and that there is no
> constitutional remedy for an illegal act by a magistrate.
>
> It is therefore urgent that the Comitia Centuriata should be summoned to
> reform the Constitutional provisions affecting the Tribunes.

Well, no, I won't admit any such thing. :-) The Tribunicial veto is by no
means impotent. It simply requires a little coordination on the part of the
Tribunes. It is my understanding that, in the most recent case, such
coordination was lacking.

While I actually agree with (B), (A) is completely incorrect. The time limit
imposed on the tribunicial veto is not Constitutionally imposed; it is
defined by various laws for various situations. If it is felt to be too
short (a belief I do not happen to share, as it was the tribunes themselves
who recently wanted to mandate that they be required to check email every 48
hours!), then it's the laws describing its use, not the Constitution, which
should be changed.

In regards to your first point, I do think it would be possible to remove
the requirement that the tribunicial veto be made collegially. Indeed, the
Consuls and the Tribunes have already been communicating on this very topic
privately. However, I do not believe it should be done until and unless its
abuse can be reasonably prevented. In Roma Antiqua, recalcitrant Tribunes
could simply be run through with a sword. We don't have that remedy here,
and thus some gentler means of checking the power must be found. If you have
some ideas, by all means let's hear them!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Change of info
From:	Kyrene Ariadne <kyrene@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:19:07 -0800 (PST)

Salvete,

I'll be changing my email over to andrea_gladia@-------- effective
immediately. All of my email concerning my gens, the priesthood of Apollo, and
Nova Roma and its Religio should be delivered there, and I've subbed onto all
of the lists that I've been on with the new email address.

Also, I will be starting my new job next Monday. I have been blessed with a
wonderful career opportunity that will get my life back on track, and get it
towards the stability I've been so craving. No more unstable dot coms for me!

I am looking forward to participating in the discussions and becoming more
active within Nova Roma. I expect the next few weeks to bring about many new
changes for me, and I welcome them.

Valete,

Andrea Gladia Kyrinia
Apollinis Templi Sacerdos
Materfamilas of Gladia

=====
* Kyrene Ariadne/Andrea Gladia Kyrinia *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Hellenion: http://pagan.drak.net/hellenion *
* The Tholos: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1527 *
* ICQ:6663573 Yahoo:KyreneAriadne AIM:Kyrene Ariadne *

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Common Carrier Status
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:29:36 -0200

Mike Macnair wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus draws our attention to the law relating to common
> carrier status in defamation in US law, and its implications for editing/
> removal of posts.
>
> Although I am not in general in favour of the editing/ removal of posts, I
> regret to say that the issue is immaterial. The reason is that (1) the
> English courts claim jurisdiction over any defamatory matter readable in
> England, whether or not there is any other connection with England -
> Berezovsky v Michaels, where a Russian politician sued Forbes magazine,
> which is published in the US, about allegations concerning his conduct in
> Russia;
>
> and
>
> (2) English law does not recognise common carrier status at all except in
> so far as it is provided by statute for the Post Office: Godfrey v Demon
> Internet, where A flamed other participants on various lists, in order to
> be able to sue the ISPs when someone flamed him back; the ISP's defense was
> rejected and they were forced to settle.
>
> Both these decisions were in 1999-2000, so this is not obsolete law.
>
> There is therefore nothing NR can do in its policy to protect itself from
> someone who was sufficiently determined to sue us for defamation to use the
> English courts.
>

Not using english :) Or is this true even in they can t read it ?

M' Villius Limitanus

> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri (was RE: Veto concurred)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:01:14 -0600

Salvete

This is as long as Consul Vedius' post, if not longer. I've kept his
executive summary at the bottom and attempted to use it as an
opportunity to sum up my own position as well.

> Okay, I think we're in agreement on that point. Powers are derived
> from the Constitution.

Absolutely.

> Actually, this is incorrect. The Constitution says they are "elected
> to fulfill those necessary functions as shall be assigned to them by
> law". To my mind, as they are elected to fullfill the functions, it
> implies the power to act. Unless you know of a way to "fulfill" a
> function without actually _doing_ anything? (Unless of course that
> function is to simply keep the seat warm, but by your reasoning, they
> wouldn't even have the power to do that!)

Well, I am in part arguing from a "devil's advocate" position in order
to attempt to better both our thinking. I agree that being mandated by
law to perform a function does imply that one has the power to actually
fulfill that mandate. However, it is going to far, IMO, to allow such
implication to include such legislative abilities as issuing edicta, as
that power is expressly given to certain magistrates and not to others
by the constitution.

> > I would say absolutely not, especially with regard to intercessio.
> You
> > have just suggested that the major source of checks and balances
> between
> > magistrates is currently invalid. Note also that there is no law
> > defining how new cives are to be entered into the album civium. Are
> the
> > censores then incapable of admitting new cives until one is passed?
> No
> > law defines how the tribuni are to report on the Senate's doings.
> Does
> > the way that intercessio applies to the trina comitia have to be
> passed
> > separately in each set of comitia?
>
> Actually, that's not entirely true. There is indeed a Senatus
> Consultum which regulates how the Tribunes are to report the business
> of the Senate.

So, prior to that senatusconsultum, the tribuni could not fulfill their
constitutional mandate to report on the Senate's business? But the
mandate implies the power to perform, as above.

> Plus, the way that intercessio is applied to the comitiae is indeed
> already explicitly spelled out in the three different laws that
> describe their voting procedures (24 hours within the publication of
> its being convened).

The same question with regard to the senatusconsultum applies here. I
do not argue against the law being used to define *how* the intercessio
is used. I only take exception to the argument that without a law a
power and *obligation* defined in the constitution can't be used.

> In the case of the Censors, they are also granted the power to issue
> edicta to get their various jobs done, and since edicta have the force
> of law--albeit below the level of a lex-- your use of them for your
> example is ill-advised.

Not so much ill-advised as incorrect. However, we should note that no
censor has yet issued an edictum in accordance with Lex Vedia de Ratione
Edictum announcing a new civis. Are most of the people who claim to be
citizens then doing so illegally, as no edictum has been issued to that
effect?

> Also, I would question why intercessio would "especially" be
> different, as opposed to, say, imperium. (More on that below.)

I would say so because intercessio is the specific power by which the
government's checks and balances are upheld.

> Please remember; it's not _my_ logic. I was simply bringing up some
> other possibilities for consideration. I happen to agree with you on
> this point.

Please remember; it doesn't matter to me whether it's _your_ logic or
not. I'm just attempting to provide more ideas and thoughts into the
mix. I'm not arguing with you because the argument comes from you.

> > Does this mean that the tribuni cannot therefore "call the
> > Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order"? A power explicitly
> > stated in the constitution can't be used until and unless a law
> defines
> > it?
>
> Correct. In the case you cited, the power explicitly given to the
> tribunes to call the Senate and the comitia plebis tributa to order
> is "enabled" (i.e., the mechanism by which it may be exercised is
> described) by the Senatus Consultum De Ratione Senatus and the Lex
> Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum, respectively.

And so, should the Senate ever grow tired of being assembled, all the
Senatores must do is issue a senatusconsultum nullifying the Senatus
Consultum de Ratione Senatus? Of course, they then could not be called
to assemble ever again by your logic, as nobody would be "enabled" to do
so.

> > This places leges above the constitution, which is in itself
> > unconstitutional!
>
> I disagree; it does not place the leges above the constitution in the
> slightest.

No law, no "enabling". Therefore, the lack of the law negates the
constitution's mandate. This places the law above the constitution.

> It does, however, give an orderly means by which the powers
> granted in the Constitution are exercised by individual magistrates.

I have no argument with the idea that the law may be used to provide
such an orderly means. Once again, I only disagree that the lack of a
law negates a magistrate's ability to use his or her powers.

> Or are you of the opinion that my inability to utilize my
> Constitutionally-granted power of imperium, because no legal
> mechanism has been implemented for its use, is unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

> In that case, I want my lictors; just see the tribune to get your axes...

Imperium, as defined by the constitution, allows you "to employ
coercitio (the power to compel obedience to his edicts), interpret and
execute law, and possess the honor of being preceeded by lictors as a
symbol of office." Feel free to compel obedience to your edicta. Of
course, as I have "the right and obligation to remain subject to the
civil rights and laws of the countries in which [I] reside and/or hold
citizenship, regardless of [my] status as dual citizens of Nova Roma,"
and "the right to remain sovereign and secure within [my] own home,
person, and property," please do expect me to a) have anyone waving an
axe at me arrested by my macronational authorites and b) "explain" why
one shouldn't bring an axe to a gunfight.

In other words, the constitution does contain protection from the abuse
of magisterial powers, and current realities also protect us from the
kind of abuse you suggest.

> If nothing else, having such powers described by law sets a valuable
> precident; magistrates must not be allowed to usurp new (or newly
> expanded) powers unto themselves.

Agreed. However, we do not need this "enabling" interpretation in order
to claim this.

> And as it stands, the tribunicial power of intercessio is indeed
> enabled and its mechanisms are indeed described by law. These
> mechanisms cover (thusfar) its use against magisterial edicta and the
> calling of the comitiae and Senate to vote. We have now discovered
> another instance in which its mechanism should be described; non-edict
> magisterial actions. The solution is to simply pass a lex covering the
> omission; not establishing the precident that magistrates can just
> expand their own powers as they please.

How is it expanding the tribuni's powers to issue intercessio against
the actions of another magistrate? The power is explicit in the
constitution. If we really choose to interpret constitutional powers as
being invalid without an enabling law, and if you do promulgate such a
law covering tribunician intercessio, please make sure it also covers
laws passed by the comitia (as opposed to the edictum calling the
comitia to order--is that 24 hours to intercede against the calling to
order AND 72 hours to intercede against the edictum that actually does
the calling? A case of contradictory leges.) and senatusconsulta
(Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus does not cover intercessio applied
to senatusconsulta after the Senate's vote).

> > (And you complain when I say that the constitution is vague when it
> > comes to the honors, powers, and obligations of the tribuni plebis!)
>
> I do. It is intentionally so, and the vagarities are clarified by
> laws.

You also repeatedly state that the role of the tribuni is readily
apparent with a careful reading of the constitution, yet the role you
claim for the tribuni is not the role suggested by the constitution.

> You raise a good point. However, I think that when taken in the
> context of all that various powers of the magistrates, it can be
> seen that the power to call the comitiae is in fact distinct from
> the power to issue edicta. That distinction is there because, for
> those magistrates who have both powers, they are listed as separate
> and distinct items (and in every case the scope of the edicts is
> explicitly defined).

Agreed. And yet, the law says that the comitia are to be called by
edictum.

> Indeed, if you look at the Constitutional powers of the Censors, they
> alone are granted the power "To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary
> to carry out those tasks in which they are mandated by this Constitution
> and the law to engage" Why then would such a power be explicitly given
> to one set of magistrates, but not another, unless it was intended that
> the other not use edicta to perform their other tasks?

And yet, you argue earlier that the vigintisexviri can be said to
operate through edicta because that is the accepted way in which
magistrates perform their duties. You have just reversed yourself here.

> Also, I should point out that there is legal precident already for
> such differentiation; the power of tribunician intercessio must be
> exercised within 72 hours for a magisterial edictum, but the time
> limit is 24 hours for calling the comitiae to a vote. (That, I think,
> illustrates the difference between the application of the power to
> issue an edictum, and the power to take other actions.)

The law is, as I pointed out, contradictory. Lex Vedia de Ratione
Eligium states that an edictum must be issued stating the issues to be
voted upon in one of the various sets of comitia, and that intercessio
may be employed within three days of such issuance. Yet, the Leges
Vediae concerning the trina comitia specify 24 hours for intercessio to
be used. (This portion is likely to turn into a very long and somewhat
tangential conversation of its own.)

> In the case of a Consul, you are correct, but only because the
> Consuls' may issue edicta "necessary to engage in those tasks which
> advance the mission and function of Nova Roma" and it could be argued
> that a Consular intercessio does just that. (Personally, I don't see
> the need to issue an edict to employ intercessio.)

So, for that matter does the praetorian intercessio. In any case, my
point was that the line between intercessio and edictum is blurry if one
chooses to make it so. Nothing more.

In any case, we agree that the power to issue edicta and the power of
intercessio are separate entities.

> I believe that to single out the "curator sermo" from the rest is
> disingenuous, and just brings up the recent unpleasantness. Let's try
> to keep this discussion a little more abstract for the moment. I see
> no reason why all the vigintisexviri would not be treated equally in this
> way; after all, the newsletter editor and the webmaster could have just
> as much impact on public participation in state communications fora.

No disingenuous; just on my mind at the time. To suggest that it is
disingenuous does, however, point to an apparent belief on your part
that I am coming at this issue from a partisan standpoint. I am not. I
agree that the case can and should be extended to cover most, if not
all, of the vigintisexviri.

> I disagree. First of all, while the Tribunician role as guardians of
> Constitutional integrity is indeed a vital one, I disagree with your
> implication that it somehow places them in a special category above
> all and sundry. It's important, certainly. But is it singularly vital?

Yes. If the constitution is to be the highest authority, then
guardianship of that authority is paramount.

> Is the role of watchdog quantiatively more important than the role of,
> say, supreme policy-making body?

Quite likely not. However, no law seems to be required to enable the
Senate to conduct its business. Otherwise, how the heck did Senatus
Consultum de Ratione Senatus come into existence?

> Can the Republic function without either? No, and thus the delicate
> balance of powers is maintained. The tribunes, and the tribunicial
> intercessio, are not on some higher plane of importance, and should
> be kept to the same standard as any other magisterial (or other
> Constitutionally mandated) power. Constitutionally, the power of
> intercessio is no more important than the power of imperium; it's
> simply better defined by law.

Constitutionally, the power of intercessio, as used by the tribuni,
assuming the tribuni are to be the guardians of the constitution, should
be on a higher plane of importance. Note that I do not say that the
tribuni themselves should be on such a plane, or that any other power of
the tribuni should be on such a plane.

Note that I have never argued that the tribuni are more important than
any other magistrate. It is an error to think that I hold that opinion.

> I also disagree that requiring the tribunicial intercessio to follow
> forms described by law "removes almost the entirety" of its utility.
> It simply means that it cannot be applied at the whim of the tribunes,
> and extended into areas for which the law has made no provision.

First, it already cannot be applied at the whim of the tribuni, as the
constitution defines when and how it is to be used quite stringently.
Second, requiring a law to enable intercessio means that all a body
needs to do to be immune from the tribunician intercessio (read,
constitutional oversight) is to never enact (or repaeal) any form of law
that defines how such intercessio is to be used. Indeed, by carefully
omitting all mention of intercessio from such laws, intercessio could be
made nearly ineffective across the board.

This is unlikely to happen via the comitia without some subterfuge, but
the Senate could easily replace Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus
with a version that failed to mention intercessio and make that body
immune to such constitutionally mandated action. Once again, I say that
this places the law above the constitution.

> That having been said, I do believe that some sort of law describing a
> mechanism for the use of the tribunicial intercessio against non-edict
> actions should be discussed and enacted. However, I'm not so sure it's
> going to be quite as easy as it sounds...

A blanket law stating a statute of limitations upon any usage of
intercessio would not be too terribly complex. Only if you start trying
to define what constitutes an act of a magistrate will you get into
complications.

> > As stated above, I find this far too dangerous a position.
>
> No doubt, because it has an impact on your powers!

No. I will only be a tribunus for the rest of this year. I am thinking
further ahead than that, and I do not want to leave behind a tribunate
that is detrimental to the state simply so I can be more powerful for a
few months.

> However, as I stated above, it is admittedly a problem, and I think
> the solution is to get down to a discussion of just how the tribunes
> would go about issuing such an intercessio, and promulgating legislation
> for it. I certainly do NOT think the solution is to simply assume that
> magistrates can start expanding their powers beyond the limits described
> by law, simply on their own authority and because they perceive an omission.

Again, in what way does issuing intercessio against an official action
taken by another magistrate expand upon the powers of the tribunate?
This is exactly one of their honors, powers, and obligations as defined
by the constitution.

> If we accept that principal, it's a slipperly slope to a Consul saying
> "I have Imperium, you're out of Nova Roma because I 'killed' you."

No it is not. Nova Roma is not a role-playing game. If you are going
to kill me, you will need to *kill* me. And, you cannot cast someone
out of Nova Roma, as revocation of citizenship can only be performed by
the Comitia Centuriata.

> Magistrates must not be allowed to define their own powers without
> the check of having those powers voted on by the assemblies.

Agreed, except where those powers have already been defined by the
constitution. The lack of a law defining intercessio or imperium only
calls for such a law, it does not negate such powers.

> Absolutely. I completely agree with your thoughts here. I think if we
> follow the precident already found in the Constitution, the power to
> issue edicta can reasonably be limited to certain areas. However, I
> don't think it's practical that the vigintisexviri should do _every_
> aspect of their jobs by edicta. Such would be chaos, and completely
> impractical. (Can you imagine the Eagle editor having to publically
> issue an edictum saying "the Eagle shall be printed in landscape, with
> 10 point Times New Roman font..."?)

I agree entirely. One of the reasons I assumed that the vigintisexviri
could not issue edicta was that, for the most part, they don't need to.
One of the reasons why I singled out the curator sermo before was
because, unlike most of the other vigintisexviri, he or she can directly
and immediately impact cives' ability to use a constitutionally
guaranteed right. The curator differum falls into the same category,
though with less immediacy.

> Personally, I think 120 hours is a ludicrously long time. You
> yourself, in the "Plebiscitum Labiena Morvia de Tribunicia Potestates"
> wanted to mandate that tribunes check their mail every 48 hours...

True enough, though I wouldn't call 5 days ludicrous.

> I would also point out that we already have laws on the books that
> specify different time-limits when applied in different situation.
> 24 hours when vetoing the calling of a comitia or the Senate, 72
> hours when vetoing a magisterial edictum. I might be in favor of
> making the time-limit uniform in all cases, but first let's see
> exactly how such a thing could be worded.

Agreed entirely. The disparity in time limits is unnecessarily
confusing.

> -----EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-----
>
> 1. I think the powers of all the vigintisexviri (Curator Sermo,
> Curator Araneum, Curator Differum, and Rogatores) should be amended
> to explicitly give them the power to issue edicta within the narrow
> confines of their job descriptions, but this doesn't mean that their
> every action must be done by edictum.

I agree entirely.

> 2. I think the tribunicial intercessio cannot be used in instances
> where no legal mechanism describes the process, just as the power of
> imperium cannot simply be defined by the magistrates who possess it.
> Such things must be spelled out by law.

I absolutely disagree. To require that a law "enable" a costitutionally
mandated power places the law above the constitution, as the lack of
such a law can be used to negate the constitution's mandate. The
constitution's protections and definitions are sufficient in the case of
the tribunician intercessio. I do agree that laws may be used to define
the powers mandated by the constitution, and that such definition is
beneficial.

> 3. I do believe that the inability of the tribunes to employ
> intercessio against non-edict actions of magistrates is something
> that should be addressed, and a law should be passed describing the
> mechanism by which such an intercessio could be made. I also believe
> the wording of such a law must be looked at extremely closely.

I do not agree that the tribuni have such an inability. I do, however,
agree that such a law or laws would probably be beneficial, with proper
wording.

Valete
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Books for a younger person?
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:50:30 -0800 (PST)

For those of you looking for a book for kids a little
younger (my son is 9 and is just starting to get
interested in Rome ... mainly as an off-shoot of
playing Civilization II), there is a book called
ANCIENT ROME (catchy title), published by START ME UP
(English translations of the excellent German WAS IST
WAS series). He loves it and reads me a chapter every
night. It retails at US $12.95.

L Aetius Dalmaticus

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

"The cemeteries are full of indispensible men." --Charles de Gaulle

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Roman archaeology conference
From:	"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:49:54 -0500

Avete omnes!
This may be of interest to some of you!
Valete,
S. Ambrosia Fulvia

> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:18:50 GMT
> From: "Peter van Dommelen" <p.vandommelen@-------->
> Subject: #2: [rome-arch] 4th Roman Archaeology Conference (30 lines)
>
> The 4th Roman Archaeology Conference 2001 takes place in
> Glasgow (Scotland) from Thursday 28 March until Sunday 1 April
> 2001. It is organised in conjunction with the 11th Theoretical
> Roman Archaeology Conference and bookings give access to both
> conferences.
>
> The program of the conferences consists of two full days of up to
> four parallel academic sessions (Friday-Saturday), a plenary
> lecture by professor Greg Woolf (Thursday afternoon) and an
> excursion to the Antonine Wall and a visit to the National Museum
> of Scotland (Sunday).
>
> The website of the conference
> (http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/RAC2001) now offers the full program of
> the conference, including paper abstracts. Information about
> accommodation and registration can is also available at this
> website.
>
> Dr. Peter van Dommelen
>
> Department of Archaeology
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ
> Scotland
>
> http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/RAC2001
>
> Fax: ++ 141-330 3544
> Tel: ++ 141-330 6862
> http://www.gla.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/pvd/
>
> ------------------------------


Subject:	[novaroma] test
From:	Andrea Gladia Kyrinia <andrea_gladia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:57:57 -0800 (PST)

Another test, 5th try is the charm, maybe.

=====
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia
Apollinis Templi Sacerdos
Materfamilias of Gladia
*******************************************
Yahoo: kyreneariadne / andrea_gladia
AIM: Kyrene Ariadne ICQ: 6663573
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1527

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] test
From:	"Andrea Gladia Kyrinia" <andrea_gladia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:46:10 -0000

Another test, please ignore


Subject:	[novaroma] test
From:	Andrea Gladia Kyrinia <andrea_gladia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:21:57 -0800 (PST)

Just a test. Please ignore.

=====
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia
Apollinis Templi Sacerdos
Materfamilias of Gladia
*******************************************
Yahoo: kyreneariadne / andrea_gladia
AIM: Kyrene Ariadne ICQ: 6663573
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1527

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Common Carrier Status
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:55:41 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
> Mike Macnair wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus draws our attention to the law relating to common
> > carrier status in defamation in US law, and its implications for
editing/
> > removal of posts.
> >
> > Although I am not in general in favour of the editing/ removal of
posts, I
> > regret to say that the issue is immaterial. The reason is that (1) the
> > English courts claim jurisdiction over any defamatory matter
readable in
> > England, whether or not there is any other connection with England -
> > Berezovsky v Michaels, where a Russian politician sued Forbes
magazine,
> > which is published in the US, about allegations concerning his
conduct in
> > Russia;
> >
> > and
> >
> > (2) English law does not recognise common carrier status at all
except in
> > so far as it is provided by statute for the Post Office: Godfrey v
Demon
> > Internet, where A flamed other participants on various lists, in
order to
> > be able to sue the ISPs when someone flamed him back; the ISP's
defense was
> > rejected and they were forced to settle.
> >
> > Both these decisions were in 1999-2000, so this is not obsolete law.
> >
> > There is therefore nothing NR can do in its policy to protect
itself from
> > someone who was sufficiently determined to sue us for defamation
to use the
> > English courts.
> >
>
> Not using english :) Or is this true even in they can t read it ?

Salvete,
The Demon case involved a Thai language newsgroup in the U.S. that was
being mirrored by Demon.

Demon is a Internet service provider located in the U.K. so all thier
assets fall under the authority of the British Court system. Forbes
Magizine has assets in the U.K. as part of thier international
coverage, and these assets fall under the autority of the British
Courts. Nova Roma's U.K. Assets are those of the Britania Provincia,
so a law suit filed in the U.K. could wipe out that Provincia.
Obtaining a judgement against Nova Roma in the U.K. and enforcing it
against the U.S. Based treasury are two different things. U.S. courts
seldom enforce Civil Judgements gained outsde the U.S.A. For example
one of Mr. Godfrey's many lawsiuts was against an American Teenager,
and the U.S. courts refused to inforce his judgement. The only way
he'll be able to enforce it is if his victim aquires assets in the
U.K. or a nation that's courts are willing to the U.K.'s courts rulings.

For more information on the Demon Ruling see
http://www.btinternet.com/~ivor.adair/cybersmear.htm

Roman Law is mentioned in history of defamation section at
http://www.btinternet.com/~ivor.adair/cybersmear.htm#A brief history
of the law of defamation

Nova Roma may be able to gain some protection against a lawsuit by
passing a Lex Famosus Libellus so we can argue in court that this type
of behavior is against our policies.

The Death Penality from the Twelve Tables may be a little too harsh. ;o)

Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Vetoes are Impotent? (was RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred)
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:23:58 -0500

Salvete!

Germanicus wrote,

>In Roma Antiqua, recalcitrant Tribunes
>could simply be run through with a sword. We don't have that remedy here,
>and thus some gentler means of checking the power must be found. If you
have
>some ideas, by all means let's hear them!

It is also true that in Roma Antiqua recalcitrant Consuls and Censors could
be lynched; the resort to the sword, i.e. small scale civil war or "stasis"
on the Greek model was by no means unknown. One such incident of Senatorial
assassination of a Tribune precipitated the Social War.

IMO the short answer is that the Tribunes should be able to veto anything
short of a lex. I have posted on this before. It is consistent with the
political conventions of Roma Antiqua. In the modern practice of NR, it is
no hardship for the magistrates to be required to proceed by lex, rather
than introducing with immediate effect by Edict matters which are
controversial enough to attract the veto of one Tribune.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Virus Warning :o(
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:32:00 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@h...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> time to use Linux. No VBS problems with this OS.
>
> Thank you for the warning. I think it´s a good service for all citizens.
>
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus

LOL!

Salvete,
I do prefer Linux, however I have to test software on Windows, so I'm
stuck with it as part of my dual-boot computer. (Right now I testing
Basilica on Windows)

For those who can't (or won't) move away from Windows,
Open Windows Explorer or NT Explorer,
Click on View in the top Menu Bar,
Click on Options,
In the pop-up box click on "hide file extensions for known file types"
to remove the check mark.
Click on Apply

This will cause the extension to be displayed in any attachments that
you recive in your e-mail. If you see .vbs then the file is a Visual
Basic Script. (Or as some of us call it VIRUS Basic Script). VBS is a
very powerful scripting language that is a favorite tool of Virus
Writers. NEVER click on a VBS file unless you know what it is susposed
to do, and why someone sent it to you.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Re: Vetoes are Impotent? (was RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:38:02 -0600

Salvete

> In regards to your first point, I do think it would be possible to
> remove the requirement that the tribunicial veto be made collegially.
> Indeed, the Consuls and the Tribunes have already been communicating
> on this very topic privately. However, I do not believe it should be
> done until and unless its abuse can be reasonably prevented. In Roma
> Antiqua, recalcitrant Tribunes could simply be run through with a
> sword. We don't have that remedy here, and thus some gentler means of
> checking the power must be found. If you have some ideas, by all means
> let's hear them!

In Roma Antiqua, the tribuni could pronounce intercessio against
anything and everything, for any reason. That is not the case here.

I'd argue that we already have a reasonable prevention of such abuse
present in the constitution. Unlike other magistrates, the tribuni are
heavily restricted in when they can pronounce intercessio. A consul can
veto anything and everything any other consul or lesser magistrate does
(with the exception of the tribuni), without any constitutional
stricture. The tribuni, on the other hand, may only act when they feel
that the spirit and letter of the constitution has been violated.
Therefore, while a consul may veto a magistrate's action simply because
he feels like it, the tribuni must satisfy some fairly stringent
criteria.

I would therefore say that the consular intercessio is more prone to
abuse in Nova Roma than the tribunician version. I would further argue
that, therefore, no serious harm could come from removing the
requirement for collegiality--especially if tribuni are likewise given
the ability to pronounce intercessio against each other in order to
prevent the tribuni from performing unconstitutional actions.

In this way, the tribuni would have an ability that more closely
approximated antique practice, and which had more symmetry with the
other magistrates. Additionally, they would have the same sort of
check-and-balance that the other magistrates have with their colleagues.

Valete
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Common Carrier Status
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:35:53 -0500

Salvete!

L. Sicinius Drusus wrote, inter alia,

>Nova Roma may be able to gain some protection against a lawsuit by
>passing a Lex Famosus Libellus so we can argue in court that this type
>of behavior is against our policies.<

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea - or at least, to formally adopt
the roman delict (tort) of iniuria, which covered defamation. While it's
true that the US courts won't enforce English defamation judgments, it
could be inconvenient to several Senators to have a judgment outstanding
against them in the English courts.

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Re: Vetoes are Impotent? (was RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred)
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:57:00 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:
Snip
>
> In regards to your first point, I do think it would be possible to
remove
> the requirement that the tribunicial veto be made collegially.
Indeed, the
> Consuls and the Tribunes have already been communicating on this
very topic
> privately. However, I do not believe it should be done until and
unless its
> abuse can be reasonably prevented. In Roma Antiqua, recalcitrant
Tribunes
> could simply be run through with a sword. We don't have that remedy
here,
> and thus some gentler means of checking the power must be found. If
you have
> some ideas, by all means let's hear them!
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul

Salvete,

I would suggest that an intercessio by a single Tribune br valid for a
period of 72 hours. At the end of that time if the other Tribune
hadn't concured, the intercessio would expire.

This would allow one of the Tribunes to act on a matter that required
immediate attention when (s)he couldn't contact the other Tribune. If
the power was being abused the most the Tribune could do alone would
be to delay action for three days.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus