| Subject: |
Re: Vetoes are Impotent? (was RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred) |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:27:27 -0200 |
|
Mike Macnair wrote:
>
> 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.
And Rome already had an efficient control on Vetos : Another tribunes
veto
which anulates the first.
i.e. instead of asking the 2 tribunes to issue their veto, the veto of
the first can be invalidaded by the second one if he discords.
It s very near to the mechanism we have but would avoid the sentiment
of manipulation we had with last veto. Whcih was "technically" invalid
because of a short delay.
M' Villius Limitanus
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri (was RE: Veto concurred) |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:51:23 -0200 |
|
Fortunatus wrote:
In answer to Vedius.
> > -----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.
The constitution is absolutely clear in giving the tribunes the pwer to
" a.To collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions
of any other magistrate "
It says "actions" not "edicts".
The fact no law regulates this means that for the moment
they can do it for an infinite time, NOT that they cannot do it.
A Constitution is above all other laws. The laws can complete it but the
absence of a
law regulamenting part of the constution can certainly not negate it.
Manius Villius Limitanus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Upcoming Comitia Populi vote |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:28:58 -0600 |
|
Salvete
> II. "Rescaling Century Points".
> This will be on the upcoming vote.
As this touches upon the internal workings of the Comitia Centuriata,
would it not be more proper to vote upon it in them, rather than the
Comitia Populi Tributa?
> III. "Adding New Century Point Awards".
Same suggestion, should it eventually come to a 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,
Having had little time to catch up on inbox overflow, I haven't thrown
my input in on this. I think this is an excellent idea; well worth
pursuing with input from the SodMil.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] RE: FW: Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary |
| From: |
"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:49:30 -0500 |
|
I, too, think this a wonderful idea and would like very much to help do
something like this. I have done this type of thing with Middle Eastern
Dance (with college classes as well as younger children) and found it very
rewarding. Teachers love to supplement their lessons with such 'on-hand'
type things :)
So count me in too!
Helena Galeria
Snip
> 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
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Length of Elections |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:05:19 -0800 |
|
Salvete M. Muci Scaevola et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:34 AM
To: INTERNET:novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Length of Elections
Salvete!
<snipped>
I thought I'd clarified this issue in a previous message. There were 6
tribes for which no votes were recorded. The most probable explanation is
simply that no-one in those tribes bothered to vote.
OFS: Actually, your clarification mail was quite detailed and
well thought out. It was not all of your conclusions I was questioning;
stabilizing the process for the future.
Invalid votes because the voter code was wrong did not disclose which tribe
they were in, because the ballot is secret: all we (the Rogatores) get is
voter codes cross-tabulated against tribes. So we can't say what the effect
of this sort of invalid votes was on tribe votes. (Limitanus' question).
OFS: A most fair and legitimate assessment. This is exactly one of the
issues that I would ideally like to see addressed in future versions
of our voting system.
However, many were obviously not typos but attempts by people who weren't
entitled to vote, by submitting a random code. Hence my conclusion that
in the 6 tribes without votes probably no-one bothered to vote.
OFS: I'm not a Rogator and with no first-hand experience in
NR vote tabulation, I can only observe from the events and the discussions
on the list. While your observation may indeed be very valid, it
seems a bit indefinite. No software in the world will make six whole
tribes vote if no one in them chooses to. This of course begs a much
more sweeping resolution than a few modifications to the voting system.
There were two odd cases where votes were invalid in spite of a correct
voter code: one patrician submitted a blank vote in C. Plebis which was
invalid both because he or she was patrician, and because blank; one
citizen tried to vote twice, once for each of the contending candidates,
and so cancelled their own vote out. The latter was in a Tribe in which
there were other votes. Since we can't know what this citizen intended to
do, we can't know what the effect on the election was; there was certainly
no unfairness involved in ignoring both votes!
OFS: I don't know about anyone else (am so woefully behind in mail ;-) but
I in no way would suggest any unfairness in *any* of the procedures! Am
only trying to address some methods of future improvements to the accuracy
of our electronic voting system. (Not that our current one isn't great
Marce Octavi; am more looking into the realm of 'enhancements.'
On the substantive point, I guess the disadvantage of a system which said
immediately that a vote was invalid might be that it might be hackable by
persons not entitled to vote. But Octavius will probably be able to tell
you I am wrong on this.
OFS: True that any system on the planet is hackable. That being said
though, there are ways that we can in fact come very close to eliminating
the threat, but of course never eliminating the threat entirely. One of
the many possibilities would be to use some type of token authorization
or PKI scheme to manage this process. Perhaps as an exercise of interest,
we could investigate what some of the states (and perhaps in other countries
where this might be done,) have done in their moves towards standardized
electronic voting. Just a thought.
Bene vale,
Oppius Flaccus Severus
Sacerdos Neptunus
<snipped>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Administrative Announcement |
| From: |
alexanderprobus@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:09:45 -0000 |
|
Salve Curatrix Sermonem,
Since there was not any responce from you on my two private emails
(but addressed to you as an NR official) according restoring of
Formosanus' status on this list, I will allow myself to ask you
publicly for that. Few days ago Formosanus informed the subscribers
on Vizantia list that his status was switched into moderated one.
Nevertheless I dissagree with the way Formosanus presented his
opinions on language issue and I have declared support on the regulas
you have adopted, but the way Formosanus was silenced is not
acceptable for me and I publicly ask for your explaination. In such a
way any subscriber could be turned down into moderated status and so
silenced.
I am not interested in the personal quarrel of anybody on the list,
but if a NR official use his/her office to manage opponents, so that
is my business as a citizen too and I am prepared to oppose such
actions nevertheless how many insults would be poured on my head.
Formosanus have assured me that he will tune down his personal
attacs, so now is on you to restore his status.
Bene vale
Alexander I.C. Probus
> 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] Fw: Candidate for Quaestor |
| From: |
"Robert W" <robert@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:36:13 -0500 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert W
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: February 14, 2001, 07:30 A.M.
Subject: Candidate for Rogatorus
Salvete, omnes; I, Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato hereby announce my decision to run for the office of Rogatorus. This decision has been made because of a desire on my part to contribute more to our beloved Nova Roma.I promise to the Gods and Goddesses of Nova Roma, and to my fellow citizens of Nova Roma, that if elected, I will fulfill the duties and responsibilities of Quaestor to the best of my ability. Ave Nova Roma! Valete, ... A.T.M.Cato
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Wrong Forward on Last Post |
| From: |
"Robert W" <robert@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:41:52 -0500 |
|
Salvete Omnes: It seems that on my last post announcing my decision to run for Rogatorus that I used the wrong subject heading. My apologies for any confusion. Valete, ... Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato, ... robert@--------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Administrative Announcement |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:57:46 -0500 |
|
Salve,
>> Since there was not any responce from you on my two private emails (but
addressed to you as an NR official) according restoring of Formosanus'
status on this list, I will allow myself to ask you
publicly for that.>>
I have, to date, received no e-mail from you at all. Had I received
anything, I would most certainly have replied to you.
>> Few days ago Formosanus informed the subscribers on Vizantia list that
his status was switched into moderated one.>>
Indeed he did. Unfortunately, he chose not to address the *real* reason why
he was moderated.
>> Nevertheless I dissagree with the way Formosanus presented his
opinions on language issue and I have declared support on the regulas you
have adopted,>>
His moderation has nothing to do with *what* he had to say. He was
moderated because he chose to continue a thread that was clearly closed. If
you support the rules of this list, surely you must support my upholding
them, no matter how loudly an individual cries when they are disciplined for
breaking those rules.
>> but the way Formosanus was silenced is not acceptable for me and I
publicly ask for your explaination.>>
He was not silenced. He was moderated. There is a distinct difference.
The explanation is quite simple. He chose to post to a thread that was
clearly closed, and he did so more than once.
>> In such a way any subscriber could be turned down into moderated status
and so silenced.>>
Formosanus has not been silenced. He is on moderated status, which means
that his posts must be approved before appearing. He has, to date, made no
attempt to post to the Main List. Therefore, any silence is his own choice.
>> I am not interested in the personal quarrel of anybody on the list, but
if a NR official use his/her office to manage opponents, so that is my
business as a citizen too and I am prepared to oppose such actions
nevertheless how many insults would be poured on my head.>>
This is not about any form of personal quarrel and the very fact that you
believe it is tells me that, with all due respect, your facts are not in
order. His attempts to convince you (and others)that this was an act of yet
another 'evil magistrate' abusing her power dismays, but sadly, does not
surprise me. The truth is that he was moderated due to his own actions. No
other reason. He was told to cease (along with everyone else) and he chose
not to.
Formosanus may desperately wish to turn this into a "cause", but I can
assure you his moderation was due to his refusal to abide by a list
directive. Period. If Germanicus or Cassius themselves did the same, they
too would receive two weeks of moderation per offending post. There, quite
simply, *is* no oppression here.
>> Formosanus have assured me that he will tune down his personal
attacs, so now is on you to restore his status.>>
He will remain moderated for the full period of time. He broke a rule and
will face the consequence thereof. He, delusions of persecution aside, is
just another list member, being disciplined like any other list member.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem
Bene vale
Alexander I.C. Probus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Upcoming Comitia Populi vote |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:41:49 -0000 |
|
Salvete;
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > II. "Rescaling Century Points".
> > This will be on the upcoming vote.
>
> As this touches upon the internal workings of the Comitia
Centuriata,
> would it not be more proper to vote upon it in them, rather than the
> Comitia Populi Tributa?
>
> > III. "Adding New Century Point Awards".
>
> Same suggestion, should it eventually come to a vote.
Quite right (actually it's explicitly mentioned in paragraph II.E.2.
of the Constitution). Thanks for catching that! It'll be on the
Comitia Centuriata call later this year.
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] Return of propraetor Argentinae |
| From: |
octavianuslucius@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:08:10 -0000 |
|
Salvi sitis
Now I am back since my trip ended, so now I shall log in as usual
Curate ut valeatis
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Propraetor provinciæ Argentinæ
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Nature of Constitutional Powers (was RE: Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:57:26 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
I've truncated this one down to just a single salient point. Hopefully my
loquaciousness will be constrained thereby! ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 16:01
>
> 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.
I don't believe this is an internally consistent position. Let me verbally
work through this, if I may.
You say any power assigned to a magistrate may be used by that magistrate
even if no legislative mechanism has been enacted for its use. In essence,
if the assemblies have not defined the limits of a power, it has no limits,
and the magistrate in question has complete discretion in applying that
power. (For example, as you attempted to to with the recent veto, claiming
that because no lex gave a time limit for that particular situation, no time
limit existed.)
Aside from the extraordinarily dangerous precident that would set, I don't
think it is consistent with the view that a lex could then be passed that
could limit the use of such powers. Indeed, your presumption that "no lex =
no limits" requires that the powers as they are initially assigned by the
Constitution are unlimited by nature. Merely by being mentioned within the
Constitution, they give whatever magistrate possesses them carte blanche to
employ them.
That being the case, how could a lex then be passed which defines their use?
Such definition is necessarily limiting. Surely, as you point out, a lex
cannot override the Constitution. By your reasoning, because each
Constitutional power originates as an unlimited power, any lex which tried
to limit that power would be removing part of a Constitutional power and
would thus be itself unconstitutional!
In short, your base assumption that Constitutional powers are unlimited (and
can thus be used by magistrates sans a defining lex) means that no lex which
limits or regulates their use could ever be Constitutional, because such
limits would necessarily take away Constitutional powers. All magistrates
are, in effect, granted completely unlimited and unregulated powers, which
because they are granted by the Constitution in that state, are unlimitable
and unregulatable as well.
And you call _my_ point of view dangerous...
This, then, defines our points of view, I think. You believe Constitutional
powers originate in an unlimited state, and I believe they originate in an
undefined state. You believe magistrates may act without regard to any lex
defining such powers, and I believe magistrates must wait for a lex defining
those powers before they can act. Your position incidentally renders
unconstitutional any lex which tries to define the use of Constitutional
powers, and mine requires such a lex to be passed to enable such powers to
be used. Your position leads to "über-magistrates" with unlimited powers
that cannot be checked by a lex, and my position leads to magistrates who
are beholden to the People to have their powers defined by the Assemblies.
I know which one _I_ prefer...
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] The Nature of Constitutional Powers (was RE: Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:39:59 -0600 |
|
Salvete
Well, Consul Vedi, you certainly are good at 'spin'.
> I've truncated this one down to just a single salient point. Hopefully
> my loquaciousness will be constrained thereby! ;-)
Perhaps my own vociferousness will likewise be constrained. Who's up
for a bet?
> You say any power assigned to a magistrate may be used by that
> magistrate even if no legislative mechanism has been enacted for
> its use. In essence, if the assemblies have not defined the limits
> of a power, it has no limits, and the magistrate in question has
> complete discretion in applying that power. (For example, as you
> attempted to to with the recent veto, claiming that because no lex
> gave a time limit for that particular situation, no time limit
> existed.)
Not exactly. It has those limits which the constitution sets, along
with whatever limits the society at large also imposes. Should my
colleague and I attempt to veto, say, the year-old action of some former
curator araneum, I doubt that many here would allow it to stick. A
consul or praetor could, and most likely would, easily call the comitia
together to specifically over-rule my colleague and I.
And, an argument could be made that the Senate could likewise invalidate
my veto, as it is not assigned a particular precedence by the
constitution. This would likely lead to a long argument, but it is a
possibility.
> Aside from the extraordinarily dangerous precident that would set, I
> don't think it is consistent with the view that a lex could then be
> passed that could limit the use of such powers. Indeed, your presumption
> that "no lex = no limits" requires that the powers as they are initially
> assigned by the Constitution are unlimited by nature. Merely by being
> mentioned within the Constitution, they give whatever magistrate
> possesses them carte blanche to employ them.
It is not my position that "no lex = no limits". No lex means no
legally mandated limits. Without laws, we must fall upon our best
judgement and common sense. It is preferable to have a law in place, as
the law prevents arguments over judgement calls. However, such
arguments are limiting. And, as I mentioned above, there is always
recourse to the comitia.
> That being the case, how could a lex then be passed which defines
> their use? Such definition is necessarily limiting. Surely, as you
> point out, a lex cannot override the Constitution. By your reasoning,
> because each Constitutional power originates as an unlimited power,
> any lex which tried to limit that power would be removing part of a
> Constitutional power and would thus be itself unconstitutional!
In the US, we have a constitution that is the highest law of the land
and that contains the Bill of Rights. This list contains rights which
are stated unequivocally. Yet, we allow those rights to be abridged in
various cases because we, the US people, agree that it is reasonable for
them to be so abridged.
In Nova Roma, we have a constitution that is the highest law of the land
and that grants certain powers to certain magistrates. It is consistent
and reasonable to allow those powers to be abridged in a manner that is
agreed upon by our society. This is a common legal principle that does
not require the sort of inflexible logic that you call for in this case.
> In short, your base assumption that Constitutional powers are
> unlimited (and can thus be used by magistrates sans a defining
> lex) means that no lex which limits or regulates their use could
> ever be Constitutional, because such limits would necessarily take
> away Constitutional powers.
My base assumption means nothing of the sort because I am a human who is
attempting to help (re)construct a functional, healthy, and flexible
government that serves a society of humans. The lack of a defining law
cannot be allowed to interfere with the functioning of government. This
does not, of necessity, negate the possibility of such definition
through laws. We, as a society, shall determine how best to limit and
define these broad powers.
> All magistrates are, in effect, granted completely unlimited and
> unregulated powers, which because they are granted by the Constitution
> in that state, are unlimitable and unregulatable as well.
No. First, the constitution limits those powers, though
unsatisfactorily. Second, reality limits those powers. Third, you
badly overstate my case.
> This, then, defines our points of view, I think.
No. It does not. Your message defines your point of view and
overstates mine with an eye to casting it in a bad light.
> You believe Constitutional powers originate in an unlimited state,
> and I believe they originate in an undefined state.
No. Both reality and the constitution itself place some limits upon
those powers.
> You believe magistrates may act without regard to any lex defining
> such powers, and I believe magistrates must wait for a lex defining
> those powers before they can act.
True, which opens the door for legislative bodies to remove the
magistrates' abilities to utilize powers given to them by the
constitution.
> Your position incidentally renders unconstitutional any lex which
> tries to define the use of Constitutional powers,
It does not. Only if we fail to use our common sense in our approach to
our government will this be so.
> Your position leads to "über-magistrates" with unlimited powers
> that cannot be checked by a lex,
It does not.
> and my position leads to magistrates who are beholden to the
> People to have their powers defined by the Assemblies.
As does mine.
> I know which one _I_ prefer...
So do I.
Valete
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Nature of Constitutional Powers (was RE: Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri) |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:56:06 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Consul,
> This, then, defines our points of view, I think. You believe Constitutional
> powers originate in an unlimited state, and I believe they originate in an
> undefined state.
I think both positions are equally dangerous. Consider a lex that
extablished a time limit of *one minute* for a tribune to exercise
his veto. Clearly, this would remove the effectiveness of the
veto power alltogether, which would be unconstitutional, but the
author of that hypothetical lex could claim that he is acting within
the constitution, as the veto power still does exist.
Vale, O.
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Nature of Constitutional Powers (was RE: Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri) |
| From: |
Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:36:21 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
Limiting the powers of the Tribunes renders the powers of the magistrates
(particularly the Consuls and Censors, who have no superiors) unlimited,
since there is no recourse to other magistrates, and non-magistrates cannot
call the Comitia to reverse decisions by magistrates.
The Constitution has to be construed as far as possible to render it AS A
WHOLE effective. That implies that the powers of the Tribunes that ARE
given by the Constitution (i.e. collegial intercession) should be construed
as plenary. It's exactly the same issue as Marbury v Madison on the powers
of the US Supreme Court. It is also, incidentally, consistent with the
practice of Roma Antiqua.
Germanicus' arguments on this issue seem to me to display a really profound
misunderstanding of the nature of republican government. When wide powers
are given to magistrates, it is necessary to have some balance in place in
other institutions. The Tribunes have the power of veto, but NOT imperium,
i.e. the jura edicendi and coercendi. So they can (outside proposing
legislation in the C. Plebis) act only negatively; and are not subject to
veto. In contrast, the magistrates have the right to issue regulations and
decisions affecting individuals, but are subject to Tribunician veto.
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Freedom of linguistic expression |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:30:20 -0200 |
|
Salve,
since this subject is again open for discussion, I will try to make a
sintheses of what was said up to now, and clearly state some
propositions to resolve thhis problem.
First, we seem all to agree that english is the de facto koine of today.
English is also one of the official languages of NovaRoma, this means
that all edicts/laws etc. shall be published in english.
English is the language of the majority of the citizens and subscribers
to the main list.
More controversial points:
I think all subscribers of this list understand english, I even think so
for the citizens since it would be quite difficult to apply for
citizrenship without understanding the web-site instructions.
Our Curatrix thinks that they are people on this list that don t
understand english (implicit in her statement that they won t understand
the english answers to their non-english posts).
And finally the problem:
Our constitution in its article II.B.4 gives us citizens the right to
participate in all public forums. And states "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."
Which is just the expression of the basic Human Right (which is superior
to all constitutions) of freedom of speach (art.19).
By the rule on non-english post the Curatrix transformed this right of
speach in duty to be understood.
She established a mechanism by wich this duty can be fullfilled by every
citizen, through the cadastration of official translaters.
Why do I still feel that this don t restablish the fundamental right ?
To answer this we need first to see the reasons why someone would like
to post in another language.
1) National Pride :
The curatrix addressed this, and I surely won t stand up to defend
national pride when we are trying to form a new, intermacronational
nation.
2) Provocation :
The mechanism in place is a perfect protection against this since it
offers the Curator Sermonem the possibility to read the post in a
language he, or she understands at the moment it is posted like I was
corrected, so effectively no previous censorship. (Which can still be
made if the translator first reports back to the curator, but we are not
_asked_ to do that). No problem here.
3) The poster is unable to write in english.
And here begin the problems.
I am convinced that everybody here is able to read english (if not why
would they subscribe an English primary list). But this does not mean
they are able to write english, as anybody who learned (or tried to
learn) a foreign language can testify.
Basic understanding and even advanced understanding come fast, writing
is a totally different story (reading the tentative papers written by my
students is scaring).
Why should somebody in this case refuse to use the Curatrix's mechanism
?
Because they know english, past some time studying it etc. recurring to
the Translation service for "those who _need_ it" is acepting that they
failed to learn english. This is a difficult psichological task, and it
is much easier to stay still
and not express themselves.
We need a solution which at the same time gives the citizens in case 3)
the possibility to speak, and offers a protection against case 2).
Part of the job is done: the cadastration of official translaters that
can rapidly translate the non-english posts in english in order for the
vast majority (and possibly the curator) to read the posts. Do we need
to make this translation before the post goes to the main list ?
Some english-only speaking people have problem 1) and are offended to
face non-english posts. I don t understand it but a solution to this was
proposed (forgot by whom) on a parrallel list (forgot which):
Prefixing non-english posts with a NE: in the subject line. This way all
citizens that don t want to read non-english posts can just delete them,
while the translators can rapidly see them in order to translate to
english for the profit of the majority.
What would we loose with such a mechanism ? Perhaps some extra posts for
a very rare occurence.
Vale,
Manius Villius Limitanus
|
