Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	"Gaio Quirino" <gaius_quirinus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:24:41 -0000

Salve Consul,

That's a great idea, I comlpetly agree it!
Good luck to pass it!

Vale,
C.Quirinus Italicu Caesar
--Nihil amorem Urbem superare potest: Roma nunc et semper!--

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus novaromanis S.P.D.
>
> Just for those who thought the list was getting a little too quiet
<grin> I
> present a draft of a Constitutional amendment to bring the way our
Tribunes
> operate more in line with Roma Antiqua. I should point out that
this has
> been done with much input and discussion with our good Tribune Titus
> Labienus Fortunatus.
>
> The Executive Summary of the proposed changes:
>
> * Increase the number of Tribunes from two to six.
> * Allow Tribunes to issue intercessio individually.
> * Intercessio may be issued when the spirit and/or letter of the
law is
> violated, not just the Constitution.
> * Intercessio may be nullified by another Tribune; such
nullification
> cannot itself be nullified.
> * The exact mechanisms for intercessio have to be enacted by law.
> * Add the power to administer the law (i.e., cases in the Comitia
Plebis).
> * Add the power to appoint scribes.
> * Remove the power to call the Senate to order.
>
> -----
>
> I. This lex is hereby enacted to bring the institution of the
Tribunate as
> it is realized in Nova Roma closer to that of Roma Antiqua, and to
alter the
> Constitution accordingly.
>
> II. Paragraph IV.A.7. of the Constitution is hereby altered to read
as
> follows:
>
> ] 7. Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Six tribunes of the
> ] plebs shall be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to
> ] serve a term lasting one year. They must all be of the
> ] plebeian order, and shall have the following honors,
> ] powers, and obligations:
> ] a. To pronounce intercessio against the actions of any other
> ] magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the
> ] interrex), Senatus consulta, and leges passed by the
> ] comitia when they feel that the spirit and/ or letter of
> ] this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta, Senatus
> ] Consulta, or leges are being violated thereby;
> ] 1. A pronouncement of intercessio may be nullified by
> ] another Tribune, leaving the original action (which
> ] had been subject to intercessio) unchanged.
> ] 2. Nullification of a tribunicial intercessio is not
> ] itself subject to intercessio or nullification.
> ] 3. Intercessio and its nullification shall be issued and
> ] function according to procedures described by law.
> ] b. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other
> ] magistrates (other than nullification as described in
> ] paragraph IV.A.7.a. above);
> ] c. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> ] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof;
> ] d. To call the comitia plebis tributa to order;
> ] e. To administer the law;
> ] f. To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative
> ] and other tasks, as he shall see fit.
>
> III. Any leges, magisterial edicta, or other official documents
which refer
> to there being only two Tribunes are hereby amended to include the
increased
> number.
>
> -----
>
> I envision this lex being voted on alongside an "enabling lex"
which would
> describe the exact procedures for issuing intercessio and
nullification
> (which would spell out details such as where such an intercessio
has to be
> posted, how long after its issued it can be nullified, etc.). Such
details
> are the stuff of leges, and we should try to keep such minutae out
of the
> Constitution itself.
>
> As always, comments are always welcome.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] De Italia Provinciae Praefecturae statu
From:	"Gaio Quirino" <gaius_quirinus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:36:27 -0000

Salvete omnes,
I must do note the situation of Italy: a Province wihtout a Govern!
That's inadmissible! I think that, if next year aren't Praetores or
ex-Consules, the Senate must nominate equally a Governor, because, in
the ancient Rome, dosen't exist Province that haven't a Governor!
(sorry for my english!)
Vale,
C. Quirinus Italicus Caesar
--Nihil amorem Urbem superare potest: Roma nunc et semper!--





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: CFP: Connections & Interconnections: The British Isles and theContinent 400-1000
From:	"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:33:54 -0400

Hi...this might be of interest to those of you who might either be interested in
submitting a (scholarly) journal article, or as a lead to getting your hands on
this journal. This was posted on another list.
jane


> The Heroic Age: A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe invites
> submissions for the Summer 2002 issue: Connections and Interconnections: The
> British Isles and the Continent 400-1000. The issue is centered around a
> session sponsored by The Heroic Age at the 2001 International Medieval
> Congress. The issue seeks to investigate the relationship of the British
> Isles and the Continent from the withdrawal of the Roman troops in Britannia
> in c. 410 to the beginning of the eleventh century. The goal is to explore
> the influence that Irish, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Manx, Scottish and other
> inhabitants exercised on the continent and how that influence may have
> affected the development of the islands. Invited are explorations of
> theology, history, literature, prosopography (biography), history of ideas,
> codicology, art history, and other related subjects.
>
> Submissions should follow the guidelines of the journal that may be found at
> members.aol.com/heroicage1/authors.html. There is no length limit, though we
> recommend approximately 7000 words. Deadline for submissions should be
> December 15, 2001.
>
> The Heroic Age is a free online journal dedicated to the study of
> Northwestern Europe from the Late Roman Empire to the advent of the Norman
> Empire. The Heroic Age is a peer reviewed, academic journal. Please direct
> questions, comments and submissions directly to the issue's editor L. J.
> Swain, theswain@-------- or the Editor-In-Chief, Michelle Ziegler,
> MichelleZi@--------
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Michelle Ziegler
>
> Editor-In-Chief
> The Heroic Age
> http://members.aol.com/heroicage1/homepage.html
>
> Current Issue: "Anglo-Celtic Relations in the Early Middle Ages"
> http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/4/toc.html
>
> Early Medieval Resources for Britain, Ireland, and Brittany
> http://members.aol.com/michellezi/resources-index.html




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:59:43 -0500

Salve Cn Salix omnesque

> An objective I fully support, even more considering the level of the
> apportations usually presented by T. Labienus Fortunatus.

Why thank you, sir.

> I see your point. In the late Republic, the number of tribuni was
> raised progressively, until it reached ten. However, I would like to
> stick to the ancient Republican number of two, because having six
> tribuni with equal vetoing power over the decisions of the other
> tribuni would reduce the actual possibilty of any tribunician action
> nearly to none.

The tribuni plebis actually numbered two, four, or five when they were
first created, depending on which source you choose to use as an
authority.

> Also more historically correct, and also more coherent. I really like
> these changes! ;-). I would like to see a reference to the rights and
> interests of the Plebians, however.

This is a tricky issue. On the one hand, it was the actions of the
plebs through their tribuni that led to great advances in liberty in the
ancient state. The tribuni plebis acted, when at their best, as a check
to the concentration of power in the Senate, thereby preventing a wholly
oligarchical government by serving as the representatives of the third
leg of Polybius' mixed system (democracy, aristocracy, monarchy).
Indeed, one can reasonably argue that the history of the Respublica was
one in which the plebs steadily gained more and more liberty through
their tribuni, with the patricians resorting to murder almost every time
things didn't go their way on a major issue (the ultimate expression of
unconstitutional patrician violence being Sulla's taking of the city and
subsequent dictatorship).

In short, it was the office of the plebeian tribunate that represented
dynamism and democratic principles in the Respublica, and we in Nova
Roma ignore that at our peril.

On the other hand, the dynamics of Nova Roma's orders don't work the way
the ancient Respublica's did. In Nova Roma, new patricians have a
distinct voting advantage in the Comitia Centuriata, but it's an
advantage that is far outweighed by activity in the Respublica's various
magistracies and religious activities. As well, Nova Roma's patricians
are drawn from the same socio-economic background as Her plebeians, and
the ability to serve the Respublica as a Senator or magistrate is not
dependant upon wealth or social station. Therefore, the plebeian
population is not particularly disadvantaged in Nova Roma, and therefore
does not necessarily need special protection.

Indeed, rather than as was the case in antiquity, most of our leges are
promulgated through the Comitia Populi Tributa. I know I'm not the only
tribunus who has wrestled with the idea that, while I am empowered to
put forth plebiscita, doing so excludes the patricians from the vote in
a state in which they are not so terribly advantaged.

Therefore, if we are to include a "rights and interests" clause, I would
prefer it to refer to the whole people, and not just plebeians.

> This would be fine with two tribuni, but I think it will be impractical
> with six tribuni. No tribunician veto will possibly be held.

It is interesting to note that the ancients thought it was advantageous
to have many tribuni, to the point that T Livius prefers to believe that
L Minucius did not serve as an eleventh tribunus in 314 AUC, despite
relatively substantive evidence that he had done so, on the grounds that
the plebs would have lobbied hard to turn the special case into
recurrent fact and that the patricians would have been horrified at the
thought of adding even one more tribunus (Ab Urbe Condita 4.16.2-4).

Also, it is inordinately difficult to impose a tribunician veto as it
is. To date, no tribunus plebis has successfully done so.

> > * Remove the power to call the Senate to order.
>
> What's the point of this one? Wasn't the other option more historically
> correct and proper?

This is a point that Fl Vedius and I didn't discuss. It is historically
incorrect. However, currently the Senate allows tribuni plebis to call
it to order, but disallows them from setting an agenda for it to follow;
effectively neutralizing their constitutionally mandated power. It's
the one point on which I disagree with an otherwise quite acceptable
amendment, and it's not so important as to outweigh the overall good
this lex will accomplish.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Rebublic of Rome
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:22:20 -0400

Bonam Fortvnam on ReligioRomana wrote:

>
>Also
> does any one know of any games they'd recommend regarding simmulations of
> Roman ways?

I know of a few games based on Rome that are excellent. The collecting of
Roman games is a little hobby I have.

Board Games:

TRAJAN:
This game simulates the Trajan campaigns. It is was made by S&T in 1991. You
may have too do some searching to find this game.

GERMANIA:
This game takes place during the Varus and Germanicus' campaigns. Also
published by S&T

ROMAN CIVIL WAR:
Very good game that starts as the republic is crumbling and ends after the
out come of the Octavian civil war. Again this game is designed by S&T.

Computer Games:

CAESAR I:
This is a game like simcity though you must build a small Roman city to a
large provincial capital. It can be downloaded for free at the impressions
games website: http://impressionsgames.com/caesar.html

CAESAR II:
This game is a second version of Caesar I. Here you not only build a city
but run a whole province. Much better then Caesar I.

CAESAR III:
This is the best Roman game ever made. Build and expand the republic and
empire until you eventualy are declared dictator of Rome herself.

Hope you may find these games interesting. Sorry about not being able to
help you with your other request, I have no idea where you can find a manual
for The Republic of Rome. I will keep my eyes open though for any info I may
come across.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"
-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution I (ver. 2): Age of Citizenship
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:15:57 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve

Salve,

> > -----Original Message-----
&g--------g--------rom: bca---------------- [mail--------ca----------------] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 12:27 AM
> >
> > There is no *compelling* reason to allow
> > minor children of non-citizens to join, however, and I cannot
>endorse this proposal as long as that is allowed.

> To turn it around, I see no *compelling* reason to shut the door
>forever to such persons. Who knows what sorts of verification
>technologies will be available even next year?

The compelling reason has nothing to do with any kind of verification
system, no matter how foolproof. The reason is because Nova Roma is a
community, a nation if you will, and as such is to be based on
families. Having children here "sine parentis" is not the way to go.
If they are to be a part of our community they should be here as part
of their family group. Otherwise we will be acting in loco parentis,
not a position we want to be in, nor should be in, nor have a right
to be in. I am all for citizenship of the children of citizens, who
together can build Nova Roman families and society. But children
citizens here independent of their parents? No, no and no. They will
be in effect orphans in our society. They should be here as part of
their family or not at all.

>The new draft of the amendment allows for the
>possibility of such in the future, but specifically does not allow
>it unless a lex is passed spelling out the conditions. It doesn't
>open the door, but it doesn't brick it up, either.

>Personally, I think this is the most sensible solution.

It is a practical solution, consul, and has the merit of putting off
any further controvery until a later date. I am sorely tempted to
support it for that reason since in all other respects it is an
excellently crafted proposal. However, if the idea is wrong on
principle now, it will be wrong on principle then and therefore I
must still continue to stand in opposition to it.

Vale,

Respectfully,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
Senator Consularis




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution I (ver. 2): Age of Citizenship
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:52:56 -0400

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus wrote:

>
> The compelling reason has nothing to do with any kind of verification
> system, no matter how foolproof. The reason is because Nova Roma is a
> community, a nation if you will, and as such is to be based on
> families. Having children here "sine parentis" is not the way to go.
> If they are to be a part of our community they should be here as part
> of their family group. Otherwise we will be acting in loco parentis,
> not a position we want to be in, nor should be in, nor have a right
> to be in. I am all for citizenship of the children of citizens, who
> together can build Nova Roman families and society. But children
> citizens here independent of their parents? No, no and no. They will
> be in effect orphans in our society. They should be here as part of
> their family or not at all.

If this is the path we choose in the end so be it, it is safer I give you
that. Though it's really too bad that Nova Roma has nothing to offer for
youth whose parents do not wish to be citizens. Nova Roma can offer a lot to
these individuals and they can offer us a lot in return if we give them a
chance.

Do you really think that this nation will grow on the few families here? If
youth with non-citizen parents wishes to join, then you could always tell
them to join when they are older. A down side to this is that it may put a
bad taste in there mouth of this individual and they might lose the
potential to become Roman. Again another great opportunity lost for us and
them.

It is a risk. Is it worth it though? Depends on the value one puts on others
sharing what we so much enjoy, being a Nova Roma citizen and respecting all
it stands for. If this means putting restrictions on age then it is a shame.

I may be putting kindness and love for all this nation stands for above its
safety. I don't necessarily think you are wrong I just hope we could make a
compromise in both ideas. Safety and a willing to share what we enjoy with
the younger population.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"
-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution I (ver. 3): Age of Citizenship
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:56:44 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:
SNIP

>
> This version differs from version 2 in allowing for the _possibility_ of
> children of non-Citizens to be allowed to apply for Citizenship, but
only
> after a lex is passed defining what sort of restrictions,
safeguards, etc.
> must be in place to allow it. (It specifically states "a lex passed
by one
> of the Comitia", so that an enterprising magistrate couldn't just
issue an
> edict.) Citizens could apply for citizenship for their kids without such
> restrictions.
>
> Thus, it doesn't open the door to children of non-Cives, but it doesn't
> brick it up, either.

Salvete,

This is outstanding.
This will bring us very close to the ancient leges regarding
citizenship for the children of citizens, for in Antiquita you became
a citizen when your Pater raised you from the ground showing that he
had accepted you as a member of his family, and we will have a modern
version of "being picked up" when the Pater/Mater applies for
citizenship for the minor.

It gives natural families a new legal status in Nova Roma, thus
bringing us closer to our goal of being a true Roman nation.

It will allow us to see if any problems arise from having our children
as citizens before we enact a Lex that allows the children of non
citizens to join us.

>
> Hopefully this will be enough for those sayers of doom who seem to think
> hordes of fundamentalists are out there waiting to infiltrate their
children
> into our ranks so they can lay lawsuits against us. :-)


It is enough for this sayer of doom, who has spent most of his life
living among hordes of Pagan hating fundamentalists. ;o)

Quirites,
When the Centuries are called to vote, I urge you to pass this admendment.

Senatores,
I fully endorse this admendment, and ask that you consider it
favorably should the Centuries enact it.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Minors without Nova Roman Parents
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 04:47:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, bcatfd@t... wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
> wrote:
> > Salve
>
> Salve,
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
&g--------g--------g--------rom: bca---------------- [mail--------ca----------------] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 12:27 AM
> > >
> > > There is no *compelling* reason to allow
> > > minor children of non-citizens to join, however, and I cannot
> >endorse this proposal as long as that is allowed.
>
> > To turn it around, I see no *compelling* reason to shut the door
> >forever to such persons. Who knows what sorts of verification
> >technologies will be available even next year?
>
> The compelling reason has nothing to do with any kind of verification
> system, no matter how foolproof. The reason is because Nova Roma is a
> community, a nation if you will, and as such is to be based on
> families. Having children here "sine parentis" is not the way to go.
> If they are to be a part of our community they should be here as part
> of their family group. Otherwise we will be acting in loco parentis,
> not a position we want to be in, nor should be in, nor have a right
> to be in. I am all for citizenship of the children of citizens, who
> together can build Nova Roman families and society. But children
> citizens here independent of their parents? No, no and no. They will
> be in effect orphans in our society. They should be here as part of
> their family or not at all.
>
> >The new draft of the amendment allows for the
> >possibility of such in the future, but specifically does not allow
> >it unless a lex is passed spelling out the conditions. It doesn't
> >open the door, but it doesn't brick it up, either.
>
> >Personally, I think this is the most sensible solution.
>
> It is a practical solution, consul, and has the merit of putting off
> any further controvery until a later date. I am sorely tempted to
> support it for that reason since in all other respects it is an
> excellently crafted proposal. However, if the idea is wrong on
> principle now, it will be wrong on principle then and therefore I
> must still continue to stand in opposition to it.
>
> Vale,
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
> Senator Consularis

Salvete,

As far as any future posibility of admiting Minors who's parents are
not citizens I think we should look at this diferently depending on
the age of the Minor in question.

For any child under the age of 13, I would oppose any law that
attempted to bring these children into Nova Roma in any manner without
thier parents. It would be a very rare child in this age group who
would even be capable of making this choice.

For young teens, aged 13 to 15, the choice is harder, I would need
some very convincing argument before I would vote for a Lex letting
these young people become citizens without Roman Parents, and at the
very least would have to insist that we not only have the permission
of thier Macro National Parents to join us, but also would have to
have a close relative such as an older brother or sister who is an
adult citizen and prepared to act in loco parentis.

I would like to see the option of citizenship remain open for those
aged 16 to 17 (With verifiable Parental consent). There are many young
people in this age group who are capable of making contributions to
Nova Roma. In Antiquita in this age group were considered capable of
becoming full citizens, while in modern times the laws of my state
allow parents to emanicipate young people of this age making them
legal adults in all respects excepting the right to vote or purchase
alcoholic beverages.

I also would like to point out that since the Paters/Maters will
retain the right to approve or disapprove any citizen who wishes to
join thier Gens, Any Lex to allow Minors without Roman parents to
enter Nova Roma will only affect those Gens who choose to allow these
minors to join them.

I will also state that we need to be prepared to handle the cases of
minor citizens who's parents resign thier citizenship, but not that of
thier children. Until we do pass some leges regulating Minors without
parents we should consider a resignation by a parent an automatic
resignation of citizenship on behalf of all minor children. This is
something I think we could handle by an Edictia from the Censores so
it isn't a great problem.

Valete
Respectfully,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Paterfamilis Gens Sicinia




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Minors
From:	CmndrZil@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:31:59 EDT

In a message dated 6/20/01 8:26:19 AM, jmath669642reng@-------- writes:

> I add my voice to that growing number who have raised two
>chldren to adulthood, and who well understands the cunning, ability and
>determiation of young people, and the necessity of guidance in areas
>that they simply do not understand, just as I do not understand the
>anger and frustration of my Christain neighbors and friends on many
>occasions.

You know, we really need to stop talking about Nova Roma as if its some sort
of porn site or something we'd wish to keep out of the hands of young people.
I hate to say it this harshly, but guess what. Ancient Rome isn't that cool
or popular. It just isn't. Normal people want to be engineers, dot com
investors, stock brokers, and more or less rich. Very few people ever bother
to learn Latin, excavate ancient sites (hey, give money to that place on the
main page if you have any, they seem to need some!) , or understand the
ideals of the republic.

You don't have to make minors citizens. A lawsuit would be bad, I agree.
But when you say that young people, like 16 or 17 year olds, wouldn't
understand what a risk Nova Roma was taking for them, you discredit a lot of
good people. I'm not sui juris yet, I've admitted that before (as foolish
of an action as that is around this place), but I'm not here because my
parents made me come here and I'm not here because I want to "sacrifice my
dog." I'm here because I want to be. The mission of Nova Roma is not to
convert everyone, it is to return to a better time.

I can still access the web site. I can get on any mailing lists I choose to
be on. I don't think you can claim that citizenship would corrupt minors.
(Now, if citizenship entitled me to a hot guy with nothing but a pair of
boxers and a six pack, maybe, but I think it means voting, and perhaps a
nifty citizenship kit.)

This isn't a subversive group. I mean, we aren't even communist. Junior
high school kids don't sneak onto the computer at three am to type "Ancient
Rome" into the google.com find box.

Tarquinia Euphemia



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Minors without Nova Roman Parents
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 05:56:27 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, bcatfd@t... wrote:
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@-------->

> >
> > >Personally, I think this is the most sensible solution.
> >
> > It is a practical solution, consul, and has the merit of putting
off
> > any further controvery until a later date. I am sorely tempted to
> > support it for that reason since in all other respects it is an
> > excellently crafted proposal. However, if the idea is wrong on
> > principle now, it will be wrong on principle then and therefore I
> > must still continue to stand in opposition to it.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
> > Senator Consularis
>
> Salvete,
>
> As far as any future posibility of admiting Minors who's parents are
> not citizens I think we should look at this diferently depending on
> the age of the Minor in question.
>
> For any child under the age of 13, I would oppose any law that
> attempted to bring these children into Nova Roma in any manner
>without thier parents. It would be a very rare child in this age
>group who would even be capable of making this choice.

> For young teens, aged 13 to 15, the choice is harder, I would need
> some very convincing argument before I would vote for a Lex letting
> these young people become citizens without Roman Parents, and at the
> very least would have to insist that we not only have the permission
> of thier Macro National Parents to join us, but also would have to
> have a close relative such as an older brother or sister who is an
> adult citizen and prepared to act in loco parentis.
>
> I would like to see the option of citizenship remain open for those
> aged 16 to 17 (With verifiable Parental consent). There are many
>young people in this age group who are capable of making
>contributions to Nova Roma. In Antiquita in this age group were
>considered capable of becoming full citizens, while in modern times
the laws of my state allow parents to emanicipate young people of
>this age making them legal adults in all respects excepting the
>right to vote or purchase alcoholic beverages.


Salvete,

You point out both the flaws and the potential in the idea as it is
currently proposed. Some arguments can be made about the future
possibility and benefits of allowing 16 and 17 year olds limited
citizenship. Allowing anyone under that age to be citizens without
the parents being citizens themselves is putting Nova Roma in the
role of parents and into a position where it has no business.

But of course, I am probably beating a dead horse because I doubt
even the most earnest proponents of this bill are talking about the
possibility of allow minor children under the age of 16 to become
citizens without their parents being citizens also. So, it would be
reasonable to change the wording of the proposed amendment to
declare:


2. Anyone ages 16 or 17 may apply for Citizenship under
] those procedures and restrictions that may be described by a
] lex passed by one of the Comitia. Unless and until such a lex
] is passed, no person of this age group may apply for
] Citizenship, excepting as allowed in paragraph II.A.3. below.


This clearly closes the door on younger children becoming citizens,
whose involvement without their parents is not likely to benefit us
or their families at any point in the future, and allows at a later
date the possibility of older teens becoming citizens without their
parents being directly involved in Nova Roma as citizens. The details
of how or if 16 or 17 year olds could become citizens could be left
to a future lex.

Vale,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
Senator Consularis




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution I (ver. 2): Age of Citizenship
From:	bcatfd@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 06:19:54 -0000

Salvete,

--- In novaroma@--------, Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@b...> wrote:
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus wrote:
>
> > to be in. I am all for citizenship of the children of citizens,
>>who together can build Nova Roman families and society. But children
> > citizens here independent of their parents? No, no and no. They
>>will be in effect orphans in our society. They should be here as
>>part of their family or not at all.
>
> If this is the path we choose in the end so be it, it is safer I
>give you that. Though it's really too bad that Nova Roma has nothing
>to offer for youth whose parents do not wish to be citizens. Nova
>Roma can offer a lot to these individuals and they can offer us a
>lot in return if we give them a chance.

It is safer but that is not the main reason for my position, let's
not look at it from that perspective. It is a respect for what is
right and just. Yes, Prudentia is one reason for my position but
mainly it is Pietas (a respect for the natural order of things being
one aspect of that virtue) and Honestas. Nova Roma does have a lot to
offer but most of all it offers a sense of community. The key
ingredient of community is family. Younger teens should be involved
as part of their families because families are the bedrock of our
society. Perhaps it sounds foolish in this day and age to speak of
right and principle but that is what I believe.


> Do you really think that this nation will grow on the few families
>here?

I have seen Nova Roma grow from 4 people to 900+ in just a little
over 3 years, and that was admitting no minors at all. Growth has
never really been one of our problems. Now we are taking the most
important step and allowing the children of citizens to become
citizens themselves as part of their families.

Valete,

D. Iunius Palladius Invict.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Minors without Nova Roman Parents
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:56:44 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, bcatfd@t... wrote:

SNIP
>
> Salvete,
>
> You point out both the flaws and the potential in the idea as it is
> currently proposed. Some arguments can be made about the future
> possibility and benefits of allowing 16 and 17 year olds limited
> citizenship. Allowing anyone under that age to be citizens without
> the parents being citizens themselves is putting Nova Roma in the
> role of parents and into a position where it has no business.
>
> But of course, I am probably beating a dead horse because I doubt
> even the most earnest proponents of this bill are talking about the
> possibility of allow minor children under the age of 16 to become
> citizens without their parents being citizens also. So, it would be
> reasonable to change the wording of the proposed amendment to
> declare:
>
>
> 2. Anyone ages 16 or 17 may apply for Citizenship under
> ] those procedures and restrictions that may be described by a
> ] lex passed by one of the Comitia. Unless and until such a lex
> ] is passed, no person of this age group may apply for
> ] Citizenship, excepting as allowed in paragraph II.A.3. below.
>
>
> This clearly closes the door on younger children becoming citizens,
> whose involvement without their parents is not likely to benefit us
> or their families at any point in the future, and allows at a later
> date the possibility of older teens becoming citizens without their
> parents being directly involved in Nova Roma as citizens. The details
> of how or if 16 or 17 year olds could become citizens could be left
> to a future lex.
>
> Vale,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
> Senator Consularis

Salvete Deci Iuni et Omnes,

I would have no problem with the change that you suggest, because 16
and 17 year olds are the young people most likely to want to join Nova
Roma independant of thier parents, and also be mature enough to make
this choice.

For those who are 15 or younger, they can show thier maturity by
waiting for thier 16th Birthday, or if that's too hard, they have the
option of asking thier parents to become citizens. This idea may not
be in keeping with modern ideas of indiviuality, but I'm a Roman, and
Roma Antiquita was more a Nation of families than a Nation of indiviuals.

My only concern with 16 and 17 year old citizens was insuring that
Nova Roma was protected from any legal action thier parents may take
if we were careless about allowing them to join without verified
parental permission, not that they were too young to become citizens.
With the proposal as it stands or with your suggested change we have
the opertunity to protect ourselves before allowing these minors to
become citizens.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Rebublic of Rome
From:	"Gaius Marcius Coriolanus" <coriolanus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:07:08 -0000

Salve

I know another game. It is called Caesars Legion, and it is PC
strategy. But I don't like it.

Try to get Age of Empires I. Rise of Rome. This is lovely strategic
game. But it is very easy to win. Make so much units as you can and
run to kill them all.

The best I know is Caesar III. I've played several times, and I have
never been bored. And there is also map editor available so you can
make your own map and build own city.

And somwhere on web is role playing game but I can not remember where
and what is the name of it. But if you'll search you'll sure find it.


Ave et Vale

Gaius Marcius Coriolanus
"Censer Carthagine esse delendam "



--- In novaroma@--------, Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@b...> wrote:
> Bonam Fortvnam on ReligioRomana wrote:
>
> >
> >Also
> > does any one know of any games they'd recommend regarding
simmulations of
> > Roman ways?
>
> I know of a few games based on Rome that are excellent. The
collecting of
> Roman games is a little hobby I have.
>
> Board Games:
>
> TRAJAN:
> This game simulates the Trajan campaigns. It is was made by S&T in
1991. You
> may have too do some searching to find this game.
>
> GERMANIA:
> This game takes place during the Varus and Germanicus' campaigns.
Also
> published by S&T
>
> ROMAN CIVIL WAR:
> Very good game that starts as the republic is crumbling and ends
after the
> out come of the Octavian civil war. Again this game is designed by
S&T.
>
> Computer Games:
>
> CAESAR I:
> This is a game like simcity though you must build a small Roman
city to a
> large provincial capital. It can be downloaded for free at the
impressions
> games website: http://impressionsgames.com/caesar.html
>
> CAESAR II:
> This game is a second version of Caesar I. Here you not only build
a city
> but run a whole province. Much better then Caesar I.
>
> CAESAR III:
> This is the best Roman game ever made. Build and expand the
republic and
> empire until you eventualy are declared dictator of Rome herself.
>
> Hope you may find these games interesting. Sorry about not being
able to
> help you with your other request, I have no idea where you can find
a manual
> for The Republic of Rome. I will keep my eyes open though for any
info I may
> come across.
>
> "Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
> "Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of
virtues"
> -Marcus Fabius Quintilianus
>
> --
> Amulius Claudius Petrus
> Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
> Canada Orientalis Provincia
> www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
> --
>
> Gens Claudia Website:
> www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Statues of Mars Ultor and I.O.M.
From:	"DECIVS CORNELIVS SEPVLCHATIVS" <sstorm1@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:53:32 -0500

Greetings, all,

I am looking for some good statues of Mars Ultor and Iuppiter Optimus Maximus for sale, does anyone know of any online or mail order companies that carry nice statues (private worship sized) of these two of my patron dieties?

thanks,

DECIVS CORNELIVS SEPULCHATIVS
=========^=====================
LEGATVS
LEGIO XXXI - AQVILAE

http://legionxxxi.homestead.com/index.html


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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Minors
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:36:21 +0200

Ave Tarquinia,

(snipped)

> You don't have to make minors citizens. A lawsuit would be bad, I agree.
> But when you say that young people, like 16 or 17 year olds, wouldn't
> understand what a risk Nova Roma was taking for them, you discredit a lot
of
> good people. I'm not sui juris yet, I've admitted that before (as
foolish
> of an action as that is around this place), but I'm not here because my
> parents made me come here and I'm not here because I want to "sacrifice
my
> dog." I'm here because I want to be. The mission of Nova Roma is not to
> convert everyone, it is to return to a better time.
>

I think this is largely true. Being a member of NR is nothing the average
high schooler is going to get a date with. Quite the contrary, I daresay.
However, there are those who feel attracted to paganism merely for the sake
of upsetting their parents. Such groups, usually referred to as moonies or
would-be (fill in your favourite subculture) can cause a lot of harm and do
away with the credibility of an organization.

> I can still access the web site. I can get on any mailing lists I choose
to
> be on. I don't think you can claim that citizenship would corrupt minors.

Well, actually citizenship corrupts °everyone° here (grin). However, I agree
with what you say.

> (Now, if citizenship entitled me to a hot guy with nothing but a pair of
> boxers and a six pack, maybe, but I think it means voting, and perhaps a
> nifty citizenship kit.)
>
> This isn't a subversive group. I mean, we aren't even communist. Junior
> high school kids don't sneak onto the computer at three am to type
"Ancient
> Rome" into the google.com find box.
>

Communism isn't really that subversive. And communism, as in marxism, isn't
dangerous. The danger of politically extreme people joining NR is more
situated in the older age group than it is in the younger. The "Roman dream"
is a form of Utopia, open to various interpretations because it lies so far
past us, yet attracts people today. But this "Roman dream" may also attract
frustrated people, both leftist and rightist. Since none of us are naturally
born Romans, we will always carry along our own cultural and ideological
heritage, and unconsciously superimpose it on Rome.

Vale bene!
Draco




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution I (ver. 2): Age of Citizenship
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:08:57 -0400

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus wrote:

>
> It is safer but that is not the main reason for my position, let's
> not look at it from that perspective. It is a respect for what is
> right and just. Yes, Prudentia is one reason for my position but
> mainly it is Pietas (a respect for the natural order of things being
> one aspect of that virtue) and Honestas. Nova Roma does have a lot to
> offer but most of all it offers a sense of community. The key
> ingredient of community is family. Younger teens should be involved
> as part of their families because families are the bedrock of our
> society. Perhaps it sounds foolish in this day and age to speak of
> right and principle but that is what I believe.

Yes I agree strongly with the statement in the constitution stating family
is the backbone of Roman society. I see it unfortunate that we must close
our doors to youth who may be interested in us. I believe it is rare to find
a child who would be interested in us. If one comes across us we should
nourish his/her interest because this interest its's self is a gift.

> I have seen Nova Roma grow from 4 people to 900+ in just a little
> over 3 years, and that was admitting no minors at all. Growth has
> never really been one of our problems. Now we are taking the most
> important step and allowing the children of citizens to become
> citizens themselves as part of their families.

I was never trying to say that Nova Roma will just come to a dead stop in
growth. Youth are the future of this nation. If you want a true nation that
will last through the generations you must educate the younger of what we
stand for. This includes youth, both with parents holding citizenship and
without.


"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"
-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <lespeterson@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:54:50 -0700

Salve,

I've snipped some comments regarding Pleb Trib changes, sorry about the lack of author credit:

> * Intercessio may be nullified by another
Tribune; such
> nullification
> cannot itself be nullified.

This would be fine with two tribuni, but I think
it will be impractical
with six tribuni. No tribunician veto will
possibly be held.

end snippage:

What if it took two Tribs intercessios to undo anothers?
As the lex is written now, how many Tribunes may issue an intercessio against the same action? Could three Tribs issue intercessio against an edict and the other three Tribunes nullify them?

Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious

"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]


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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Citizenship Diploma Idea
From:	Susan Quan <myownq@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:59:37 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

I apologize for butting in, however, there is a way you can deflect the cost the diplomas by putting the onus on the citizen.

Create a website, there are still lots of free ones, where the citizen can print out their own. If they don't have a printer, one can be printed at the library or loaded on a floppy and printed from the floppy.

Once the citizen enrolls, you could send them the password for the site that has the diploma. The citizen would print out the diploma and have it validated by sending it to Nova Roma to have the seal placed onto the diploma. There are plenty of diploma papers for folks to use on their printers. Have the citizen include a stamped return envelope as well. This may also assist in establishing the whereabouts of the citizen for future census taking.

This would save Nova Roma a lot of money. However, uniformity and quality suffer when it is done this way. Probably the only ones who will see the diploma are friends and family anyway. Those are the folks most of us want to impress.

Sorry for the intrusion, I am new, but here is my two-cents anyway. I am sure I know very little about how these things are done, but I am frugal and this is how I would do it.

Vale, Maximina Octavia




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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Minor Citizens
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:36:52 -0000

Salvete,

Just rising to the rostra to state that I support passage of the
revised amendment regarding minor citizens.

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:30 US/Central

Salvete L Maurici Quiritesque

> As the lex is written now, how many Tribunes may issue an
> intercessio against the same action? Could three Tribs
> issue intercessio against an edict and the other three
> Tribunes nullify them?

The short answers are 'as many as six', and 'yes'.

The amendment would allow procedures for the use of intercessio to be set by
law, so it would theoretically be possible to enact a law that forbade a
tribunus plebis from pronouncing intercessio against something that had already
been vetoed. Personally, I would veto any such law on constitutional grounds,
but there's enough grey area that arguments both for and against such a law
would be valid.

A thought occurs to me. The amendment does not define what is meant by a law.
Therefore, it could be interpreted that, should the amendment be enacted, the
procedures for the tribunician intercessio may be set by the edicta of other
magistrates. Perhaps it would be best to reword the passage to
read, "Intercessio and its nullification shall be issued and function according
to procedures described by plebiscites enacted by the Comitia Plebis Tributa,"
thereby ensuring that the ability to define the specifics of the power remains
in the hands of those who may bestow the power.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:04:47 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 8:38 AM
>
> The amendment would allow procedures for the use of intercessio to be set
by
> law, so it would theoretically be possible to enact a law that forbade a
> tribunus plebis from pronouncing intercessio against something that had
already
> been vetoed.

I don't quite follow. Why would you want to veto something that had already
been vetoed?

> Perhaps it would be best to reword the passage to
> read, "Intercessio and its nullification shall be issued and function
according
> to procedures described by plebiscites enacted by the Comitia Plebis
Tributa,"
> thereby ensuring that the ability to define the specifics of the power
remains
> in the hands of those who may bestow the power.

Yes; a good idea. Although I would probably extend the power to any of the
three Comitia. I think it's a bad idea that the only people who'd be able to
regulate how the Tribunes exercise their power are the Tribunes themselves.
On the other hand, if, say, the Consuls got an overly-restrictive law
passed, the Tribunes could turn around and get a looser measure passed in
the CPlT. The dynamic tension of forces...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:20:27 US/Central

Salvete Fl Vedi Omnesque

> I don't quite follow. Why would you want to veto something that had already
> been vetoed?

consul: "By this edictum, I command..."
trib1: "Veto! I pronounce intercessio against that edictum."
trib2: "I nullify that veto."
trib3: "Veto! I, too, pronounce intercessio against that edictum."
and so on...

> Yes; a good idea. Although I would probably extend the power to any of the
> three Comitia. I think it's a bad idea that the only people who'd be able to
> regulate how the Tribunes exercise their power are the Tribunes themselves.

A good point. I agree entirely.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:08:58 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:20 AM
>
> > I don't quite follow. Why would you want to veto something that
> had already
> > been vetoed?
>
> consul: "By this edictum, I command..."
> trib1: "Veto! I pronounce intercessio against that edictum."
> trib2: "I nullify that veto."
> trib3: "Veto! I, too, pronounce intercessio against that edictum."
> and so on...

But in that scenario, wouldn't trib2 simply keep nullifying the vetoes of
his colleagues? I don't see any reason why he couldn't (or why trib3
wouldn't think trib2 would do it to him).

I would point out to those who think that there would be a ton of
nullifications of intercessio, that to pronounce intercessio in the first
place requires the action being vetoed to be illegal or unconstitutional.
Unlike Roma Antiqua, our Tribunes wouldn't be able to simply veto actions
they don't like. I would think that such cases would be relatively
clear-cut, once the legal rationale was put forth (which I would imagine any
good Tribune would _want_ to do, if only to convince his fellows that his
intercessio was warranted).

Of course, there could always be differences of opinion, but such is the
nature of the checks and balances; I suspect that the Tribunes would be
inclined to give each other the benefit of the doubt unless the intercessio
was completely without legal merit.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:10:45 -0700

Ave,

I really do not see the need for having 6 Tribunes. We had two this
year and one of them resigned. If we are going to increase this why
dont we do it incrementally and have 3.

Also, does anyone know roughly the population in ancient Rome at the
time the numbers of the Tribunes were increased?

Also, If we are going to add increased powers, and given the situation
we were almost in with Gn. Moravius Piscinus when he was Tribune, I
would like to add something to this legislation. And that
recommendation would be that if the Senate must promulgate a Senatus
Consultum Ultimum, or even having to consider a dictator, then either
the Tribunes cannot veto it. OR (even better IMHO) All of the Tribunes
must veto it. I request this because in ancient Rome, if a Tribune was
getting too radical He would just be eliminated (T. Gracchus, G.
Gracchus, L. Saturnius, M. Livius Drusus, and Sulpicius.) We do not
have that ability here. If a Tribune starts running amuck, our only
recourse is the Ultimate Decree or the Dictatorship.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:13:05 US/Central

Salvete

> But in that scenario, wouldn't trib2 simply keep nullifying the vetoes of
> his colleagues?

Yes. And, I agree with the rest of your reasoning. I was simply responding to
L Mauricius' initial question and thinking 'out loud' about its ramifications.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:37:39 US/Central

Salvete Luci Corneli Quiritesque

> I really do not see the need for having 6 Tribunes. We had two this
> year and one of them resigned. If we are going to increase this why
> dont we do it incrementally and have 3.

If we were to wait until we had a population commensurate with Roma's before
proceeding with each stage of our development, we would not yet have been
founded. In any case, if we wish to incrementally increase the number of
tribuni plebis periodically, then the amendment should allow their number to be
set by law, with a minimum of no fewer than the largest number of tribuni to
date (each increase setting a new floor) and no more than 10 allowed at any
time. That way, we won't have to resort to a constitutional amendment each
time.

> Also, does anyone know roughly the population in ancient Rome
> at the time the numbers of the Tribunes were increased?

The population of the Eternal City far exceeded our current numbers when the
tribunate was created, let alone when the number of the tribuni was increased.
Also note that, depending on which source one uses, the original number of
tribuni was as high as five.

> Also, If we are going to add increased powers, and given the situation
> we were almost in with Gn. Moravius Piscinus when he was Tribune, I
> would like to add something to this legislation.

I believe that you're referring to the possibility of tribuni promulgating
unconstitutional plebiscita. This is addressed by this amendment as is.
Currently, tribuni plebis cannot issue intercessio against each other. With
this amendment, they can do so. (The lex regarding the use of intercessio
shall need to prohibit one from nullifying intercessio used against one's own
actions.)

> And that recommendation would be that if the Senate must
> promulgate a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, or even having to
> consider a dictator, then either the Tribunes cannot veto
> it. OR (even better IMHO) All of the Tribunes must veto it.

The amendment already requires this. If any one tribunus disagrees with the
use of intercessio, he can nullify its use on the part of any or all of his
colleagues. Thus, in effect, the amendment requires all tribuni to agree (or
at least not disagree strongly enough to take action) to any use of intercessio.

That is all beside the point, however, as tribuni plebis *can not* intercede
against either the declaration of a Senatus Consultum Ultimum or the creation
of a dictator. Both of those actions are entirely legal and constitutional,
and the tribuni can only declare intercessio against unconstitutional and (if
the amendment passes) illegal acts.

> I request this because in ancient Rome, if a Tribune was
> getting too radical He would just be eliminated (T. Gracchus,
> G. Gracchus, L. Saturnius, M. Livius Drusus, and Sulpicius.)

Ah, yes, the usual laudatory statement in support of unconstitutional violence
and murder in response to the tribunate. Could we please agree to avoid
holding this up as correct action in the future?

> We do not have that ability here. If a Tribune starts
> running amuck, our only recourse is the Ultimate Decree
> or the Dictatorship.

With this amendment, you will have the added recourse of the other tribuni,
which will make your suggestions superfluous. For the most part, they already
are.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	JSmithCSA@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:37:57 -0000

Salvete:

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I really do not see the need for having 6 Tribunes. We had two this
> year and one of them resigned. If we are going to increase this why
> dont we do it incrementally and have 3.

I agree. Six presents a real opportunity for mass confusion. If
there is a need, then increase slowly. However, I differ from my
Pater in that I would recommend keeping the numbers even (from to 4,
then to 6 later). However, I reiterate that I am against the
proposal.

L Cornelius Dalmaticus




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:47:40 US/Central

Salvete

A correction to my response to L Cornelius

> (The lex regarding the use of intercessio shall need to prohibit one from
> nullifying intercessio used against one's own actions.)

The amendment already addresses this issue by making nullification immune to
intercessio.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:24:56 -0000

Salvete omnesque Tito Labiene!

--- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:
> Salvete Luci Corneli Quiritesque
>
> > I really do not see the need for having 6 Tribunes. We had two
this
> > year and one of them resigned. If we are going to increase this
why
> > dont we do it incrementally and have 3.
>
> If we were to wait until we had a population commensurate with
Roma's before
> proceeding with each stage of our development, we would not yet have
been
> founded. In any case, if we wish to incrementally increase the
number of
> tribuni plebis periodically, then the amendment should allow their
number to be
> set by law, with a minimum of no fewer than the largest number of
tribuni to
> date (each increase setting a new floor) and no more than 10 allowed
at any
> time. That way, we won't have to resort to a constitutional
amendment each
> time.
>
<Snip!>

I would like to say that I agree with our esteemed tribune in that we
should not wait for population growth in order to establish the
institutions to deal with it. When people merely react to a situation
rather than plan for it, oftentimes the solution is far worse than the
problem it was intended to correct.

I would however suggest the following - increase the number of
tribunes to 4 next year, then subsequently add 2 more tribunes every
two years until we reach ten tribuni in office. That adds personnel to
the staff in an easily tracked manner, i.e. we know how many come in
this year, and we have enough time to evaluate their impact on the
structure of government during the time lapse between increments.

I also would look at the fact that although we emulate some of the
institutions of Republican Roma, our present culture and structure are
not identical. Making or attempting to make one-to-one mappings
between what we have and what Antiqvita was is a difficult task at
best. The tribunate was a response to the concentration of power in
the hands of the property-owning class (a compromise that had been
reached originally because they had agreed to foot the bills for
defense and construction of the city), with the subsequent abuse that
was one of the consequences of that situation. We don't have a similar
situation here, since last I checked I didn't have an income of half a
million sestercii, nor a gaggle of clients to do my bidding - and I
don't think a single Patrician here has that either. Other than
Century points, we really don't have much difference between us.

I view our tribuni as guardians of the Constitution, acting as a sort
of ombudsman to protect our rights vis-a-vis our magistrates. I think
we need to refine their role a bit more into advocacy for our citizens
before our laws also. The real difference between a Patrician and a
Pleb in our Urbis is the fact that you chose your Gens when you
joined; the voting advantages are negligible, and in some ways I find
that us Patricians are probably at some disadvantage in legal matters
(since I can't appeal to Fortunatus on some matters :-)).

This is why I would prefer a graduated and easily evaluated process in
increasing our tribunate, and some refinement in their role.

Ita est.

Optime Vale, et Iuppiter nos protegas
Marius Cornelius Scipio
Aedilis Curulis





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] What type of Roman are you?
From:	CW2ShaneEvans@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:44:19 EDT

I thank the gods daily that I serve the Militarium and do not have to deal
with all of the petty politics found within certain factions of this
organization. I've kept my mouth shut for a long time now, but I think it is
time that I say something.

There are three types of people who join an organization like this. a. The
person who strives to learn all they can about Rome, and in their hearts are
Romans. b. Those who think it's "cool", like to dress up and pretend to be
something they arent, and if they manage to learn something, then that's cool
too. and c. Those who have no real life of importance, and join something
like Nova Roma to escape that life and become the powerful, highly respected
person they wish they could be in the real world. Which one are you?

Rome wasnt built in a day, but it lasted a millenium. Nova Roma wasnt built
overnight either, but how long will it last? The answer? Until you can no
longer get along.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What type of Roman are you?
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:51:58 -0000

Salve Latito,

It would be nice if one is to make such posts for that one to
identify themselves.

Not intending to be sarcastic.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A correction (was Question on the Trib...)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:57:36 US/Central

Salvete Quirites

A portion of my response to L Cornelius was based on an erroneous understanding
of the language of the proposed amendment. I suppose that's what I get for not
looking at the source while talking about it.

I mentioned that the amendment prevents tribuni from promulgating
unconstitutional plebiscita by allowing tribuni to pronounce intercessio
against each other, and that it prevents tribuni from nullifying intercessio
pronounced against their own actions by other tribuni. Unfortunately, I was
mistaken on both counts.

] b. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other
] magistrates (other than nullification as described in
] paragraph IV.A.7.a. above);

By specifically exempting a power of the tribuni, this paragraph obviously
includes other tribuni in the phrase "other magistrates". Since they can't
pronounce intercessio against each other, the amendment does not address their
ability to nullify a veto interposed against their own actions.

I feel that the tribuni must be able to veto each other, and that they must be
unable to overturn such a veto applied to their actions. Otherwise, L
Cornelius' fears over tribuni promulgating unconstitutional plebiscita under
this amendment are well-founded after all.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What type of Roman are you?
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:04:10 -0000

Salvete omnes!

I hope I am the type of Roman who knows that he is but an apprentice
of life, who realizes how little he really knows, and therefore how
unqualified he really is to judge others.

I too know the life of a Miles; but I also know that it is but one
aspect of what makes me Roman. As for petty politics - relax, it is
the Roman equivalent of the soap opera - watch the fireworks and enjoy
the show.

My Romanitas is not defined by what others think - it is defined by my
own actions and convictions sub divo, in the full view of the Gods of
my ancestors. I am far from perfect - that is why although I may argue
with others, I will also recognize that their imperfections are no
worse than mine, and that they deserve equal opprtunities to express
themselves.

Even when the result is pure drivel.

I have come to love this grand and oftentimes foolish dream called
Nova Roma, because not only have I found kindred spirits, but because
I find people from all walks of life here. Some I agree with, some I
disagree; some I admire, while others and not in my good graces. Vita
est - "Life is" - and we should learn to live and enjoy it, rather
than spend our time pontificating to the masses. Leave that to the
Pontifices :-)

Dii deaque te bene ament
Marius Cornelius Scipio





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:04:08 -0700

labienus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete Luci Corneli Quiritesque
>
> > I really do not see the need for having 6 Tribunes. We had two this
> > year and one of them resigned. If we are going to increase this why
> > dont we do it incrementally and have 3.
>
> If we were to wait until we had a population commensurate with Roma's
> before
> proceeding with each stage of our development, we would not yet have
> been
> founded. In any case, if we wish to incrementally increase the number
> of
> tribuni plebis periodically, then the amendment should allow their
> number to be
> set by law, with a minimum of no fewer than the largest number of
> tribuni to
> date (each increase setting a new floor) and no more than 10 allowed
> at any
> time. That way, we won't have to resort to a constitutional amendment
> each
> time.

I understand your reasoning here. But, there is also something that
should be said about magistrates completing their terms in office before
we start adding more offices. I know I am guilty of this fact, BUT, I
think diluting the office by going from 2 to 6 is a bit excessive,
IMHO. I actually prefer the idea of Marius Cornelius, adding two new
offices every other year.

> > Also, does anyone know roughly the population in ancient Rome
> > at the time the numbers of the Tribunes were increased?
>
> The population of the Eternal City far exceeded our current numbers
> when the
> tribunate was created, let alone when the number of the tribuni was
> increased.
> Also note that, depending on which source one uses, the original
> number of
> tribuni was as high as five.
>
> > Also, If we are going to add increased powers, and given the
> situation
> > we were almost in with Gn. Moravius Piscinus when he was Tribune, I
> > would like to add something to this legislation.
>
> I believe that you're referring to the possibility of tribuni
> promulgating
> unconstitutional plebiscita. This is addressed by this amendment as
> is.
> Currently, tribuni plebis cannot issue intercessio against each
> other. With
> this amendment, they can do so. (The lex regarding the use of
> intercessio
> shall need to prohibit one from nullifying intercessio used against
> one's own
> actions.)

Right, I understand that. My concern as I commented privately to Consul
Vedius, was if we have 6 Tribuni. One tries to promulgate the law...one
veto's the promulgation...what if the other 4 disagree or are neutral?
This is what I am trying to understand. Does the intercessio stand?
And does this also go with a tribuni trying to veto the actions of a
magistrate as well?

> > And that recommendation would be that if the Senate must
> > promulgate a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, or even having to
> > consider a dictator, then either the Tribunes cannot veto
> > it. OR (even better IMHO) All of the Tribunes must veto it.
>
> The amendment already requires this. If any one tribunus disagrees
> with the
> use of intercessio, he can nullify its use on the part of any or all
> of his
> colleagues. Thus, in effect, the amendment requires all tribuni to
> agree (or
> at least not disagree strongly enough to take action) to any use of
> intercessio.
>
> That is all beside the point, however, as tribuni plebis *can not*
> intercede
> against either the declaration of a Senatus Consultum Ultimum or the
> creation
> of a dictator. Both of those actions are entirely legal and
> constitutional,
> and the tribuni can only declare intercessio against unconstitutional
> and (if
> the amendment passes) illegal acts.

You are extremely legal, Senator, I have checked the Constitution, in no
place, does it say on the Seantus Consultum that the Tribs of the Plebs
cannot veto. All it states is what it would mean if one was passed...it
would be subject to the collegial veto. As for the Dictator, all it
states is that a dictator is appointed by the Senate. However,
according to the powers of the Tribune of the Plebs, it states, "To
collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any other
magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex),
Senatus consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel that the
spirit and letter of this Constitution are being violated thereby."

> > I request this because in ancient Rome, if a Tribune was
> > getting too radical He would just be eliminated (T. Gracchus,
> > G. Gracchus, L. Saturnius, M. Livius Drusus, and Sulpicius.)
>
> Ah, yes, the usual laudatory statement in support of unconstitutional
> violence
> and murder in response to the tribunate. Could we please agree to
> avoid
> holding this up as correct action in the future?

I am sorry, if you view my statement as overly harsh. Let me state to
you, that I find you to be a very noble Tribune of the Plebs. I do not
fear for the least that you will use your powers as Tribune against the
State. However, we cannot overlook the fact that your first colleague
tried to do exactly that. I do not fear for future Tribunes who emulate
your virtue and character. I fear about those tribunes who emulate Gn.
Moravius Piscinus. I do hope you understand exactly where I am coming
from now.

> > We do not have that ability here. If a Tribune starts
> > running amuck, our only recourse is the Ultimate Decree
> > or the Dictatorship.
>
> With this amendment, you will have the added recourse of the other
> tribuni,
> which will make your suggestions superfluous. For the most part, they
> already
> are.

Well, I dont know if they are superfluous. This is why I am discussing
this on the NR main list. I am not against strengthing the Tribune of
the Plebs and making it more balanced. However, I am concerned with
what if's.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [www.newaydirect.com]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A correction (was Question on the Trib...)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:08:31 -0700

Thank you very much for this, I thought that was how I was reading it
after all.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

labienus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites
>
> A portion of my response to L Cornelius was based on an erroneous
> understanding
> of the language of the proposed amendment. I suppose that's what I
> get for not
> looking at the source while talking about it.
>
> I mentioned that the amendment prevents tribuni from promulgating
> unconstitutional plebiscita by allowing tribuni to pronounce
> intercessio
> against each other, and that it prevents tribuni from nullifying
> intercessio
> pronounced against their own actions by other tribuni. Unfortunately,
> I was
> mistaken on both counts.
>
> ] b. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other
> ] magistrates (other than nullification as described in
> ] paragraph IV.A.7.a. above);
>
> By specifically exempting a power of the tribuni, this paragraph
> obviously
> includes other tribuni in the phrase "other magistrates". Since they
> can't
> pronounce intercessio against each other, the amendment does not
> address their
> ability to nullify a veto interposed against their own actions.
>
> I feel that the tribuni must be able to veto each other, and that they
> must be
> unable to overturn such a veto applied to their actions. Otherwise, L
>
> Cornelius' fears over tribuni promulgating unconstitutional plebiscita
> under
> this amendment are well-founded after all.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [www.newaydirect.com]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:10:05 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, T. Labiene Fortunate.

--- Fortunatus <labienus@--------> wrote:
> Salve Cn Salix omnesque
>
> > An objective I fully support, even more considering the level of
> the
> > apportations usually presented by T. Labienus Fortunatus.
>
> Why thank you, sir.

You are welcome.

> > I see your point. In the late Republic, the number of tribuni was
> > raised progressively, until it reached ten. However, I would like
> to
> > stick to the ancient Republican number of two, because having six
> > tribuni with equal vetoing power over the decisions of the other
> > tribuni would reduce the actual possibilty of any tribunician
> action
> > nearly to none.
>
> The tribuni plebis actually numbered two, four, or five when they
> were
> first created, depending on which source you choose to use as an
> authority.

If you please reread my statement above slightly more carefully, you
will see that my objection was not about the historical correctness of
this proposal, but more of a practical matter. It is already quite
difficult to have two individuals to agree on an issue; to make six of
them agree in something would be nearly impossible.

> > Also more historically correct, and also more coherent. I really
> like
> > these changes! ;-). I would like to see a reference to the rights
> and
> > interests of the Plebians, however.
>
> This is a tricky issue. On the one hand, it was the actions of the
> plebs through their tribuni that led to great advances in liberty in
> the
> ancient state. The tribuni plebis acted, when at their best, as a
> check
> to the concentration of power in the Senate, thereby preventing a
> wholly
> oligarchical government by serving as the representatives of the
> third
> leg of Polybius' mixed system (democracy, aristocracy, monarchy).
> Indeed, one can reasonably argue that the history of the Respublica
> was
> one in which the plebs steadily gained more and more liberty through
> their tribuni, with the patricians resorting to murder almost every
> time
> things didn't go their way on a major issue (the ultimate expression
> of
> unconstitutional patrician violence being Sulla's taking of the city
> and
> subsequent dictatorship).
>
> In short, it was the office of the plebeian tribunate that
> represented
> dynamism and democratic principles in the Respublica, and we in Nova
> Roma ignore that at our peril.

I agree with your statement above.

> On the other hand, the dynamics of Nova Roma's orders don't work the
> way
> the ancient Respublica's did. In Nova Roma, new patricians have a
> distinct voting advantage in the Comitia Centuriata, but it's an
> advantage that is far outweighed by activity in the Respublica's
> various
> magistracies and religious activities. As well, Nova Roma's
> patricians
> are drawn from the same socio-economic background as Her plebeians,
> and
> the ability to serve the Respublica as a Senator or magistrate is not
> dependant upon wealth or social station. Therefore, the plebeian
> population is not particularly disadvantaged in Nova Roma, and
> therefore
> does not necessarily need special protection.

You are right. There is not much difference between patricians and
plebeians in Nova Roma. In fact, I could be a patrician instead of a
plebeian, if I had chosen a different gens to join.

But the same thing happened more or less in the original Res Publica.
By the second century B.C.E., the Tribuni Plebis had evolved to become
a system of protection for the common people against the excesses of
the ruling class, were they patrician or plebeian. And this division
DOES exist in Nova Roma; not because our current magistrates are
willing to attack the rights of common citizens, but simply because we
HAVE magistrates.

> Indeed, rather than as was the case in antiquity, most of our leges
> are
> promulgated through the Comitia Populi Tributa. I know I'm not the
> only
> tribunus who has wrestled with the idea that, while I am empowered to
> put forth plebiscita, doing so excludes the patricians from the vote
> in
> a state in which they are not so terribly advantaged.
>
> Therefore, if we are to include a "rights and interests" clause, I
> would
> prefer it to refer to the whole people, and not just plebeians.

I think you are right. I know this is not historically pertinent; but
sometimes we have to advance with the times. I really think that the
Tribuni should protect everyone, and not just plebeians. However, this
arouses a different issue, because it would seem logical to allow,
under these circumstances, patricians in the election of the Tribuni
Plebis. However, this would mean the beginning of the end of the whole
Patrician order, and we don't want this to happen, do we? ;-).

> > This would be fine with two tribuni, but I think it will be
> impractical
> > with six tribuni. No tribunician veto will possibly be held.
>
> It is interesting to note that the ancients thought it was
> advantageous
> to have many tribuni, to the point that T Livius prefers to believe
> that
> L Minucius did not serve as an eleventh tribunus in 314 AUC, despite
> relatively substantive evidence that he had done so, on the grounds
> that
> the plebs would have lobbied hard to turn the special case into
> recurrent fact and that the patricians would have been horrified at
> the
> thought of adding even one more tribunus (Ab Urbe Condita 4.16.2-4).

At that time, all the Tribuni had probably more unanimity, all being
part of the same social class. To have more would have meant that they
would have been more difficult to control for the Senate, as they
rarely would intercede in each other's veto. As you affirm in the next
sentence, this is not actually the case in Nova Roma.

> Also, it is inordinately difficult to impose a tribunician veto as it
> is. To date, no tribunus plebis has successfully done so.

I guess that this is not a good reason to raise this difficulty. In my
humble opinion, it would indicate a different diagnosis: that the
Tribuni need more power, not less.

> > > * Remove the power to call the Senate to order.
> >
> > What's the point of this one? Wasn't the other option more
> historically
> > correct and proper?
>
> This is a point that Fl Vedius and I didn't discuss. It is
> historically
> incorrect. However, currently the Senate allows tribuni plebis to
> call
> it to order, but disallows them from setting an agenda for it to
> follow;
> effectively neutralizing their constitutionally mandated power. It's
> the one point on which I disagree with an otherwise quite acceptable
> amendment, and it's not so important as to outweigh the overall good
> this lex will accomplish.

Importance, like time, is relative. I also like some points of this
proposal, but I would prefer to see some changes on it. Why should we
conform with anything below what Roma Antiqua had?

And for those who might see just criticism in this post, I will state
my personal suggestions on this issue.

1.- To keep the actual number of Tribuni Plebis (two).

2.- To allow them to issue their veto separately, under the possibility
to receive intercessio from his colleague.

3.- To allow them to issue their veto whenever the letter or the spirit
of the Constitutio or the Leges passed by the Comitia are, in their
opinion, violated; and when the rights of the cives of Nova Roma are,
in their opinion, threatened (note that this would fall under the
protection of the Constitutio).

4.- To allow the Comitia Plebis Tributa to create Plebiscita, which
would become laws, according to the Constitutio. These Plebiscita
should be accepted by the Senatus, and the Tribunus calling the Comitia
should be able to call the Senatus to order to accept or dismiss that
proposals. When the Comitia are called, no intercessio should be
possible.



=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Summer Solstice
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:14:51 -0000

Salve Quirites!

Today is the Summer Solstice.
We have a new Moon, and Mars is in opposition, at it's brightest in
the southern skies, closest to Earth. There was also a full solar
eclipse (the first of this century) in Madagascar.

Are these great omens, or what? :-)

What says our Pontifex Maximus?

M. Cornelius Scipio
(Who is feeling quite mischievous today)




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Consul Germanice.

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 8:38 AM

<<snipped>>

> > Perhaps it would be best to reword the passage to
> > read, "Intercessio and its nullification shall be issued and
> function
> according
> > to procedures described by plebiscites enacted by the Comitia
> Plebis
> Tributa,"
> > thereby ensuring that the ability to define the specifics of the
> power
> remains
> > in the hands of those who may bestow the power.
>
> Yes; a good idea. Although I would probably extend the power to any
> of the
> three Comitia. I think it's a bad idea that the only people who'd be
> able to
> regulate how the Tribunes exercise their power are the Tribunes
> themselves.

They wouldn't. The ones able to regulate it would be the Plebeians, to
whom the Tribuni represent. They would do it through the Comitia Plebis
Tributa.

> On the other hand, if, say, the Consuls got an overly-restrictive law
> passed, the Tribunes could turn around and get a looser measure
> passed in
> the CPlT. The dynamic tension of forces...

I would prefer that the Tribuni could simply veto the law of the
Consules until they reached an agreement, although I can see that yours
is a good possibility. However, in order to do that, the Plebiscita
enacted by the Comitia Plebis should have the power of law.




=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Consul Germanice.

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:20 AM
> >
> > > I don't quite follow. Why would you want to veto something that
> > had already
> > > been vetoed?
> >
> > consul: "By this edictum, I command..."
> > trib1: "Veto! I pronounce intercessio against that edictum."
> > trib2: "I nullify that veto."
> > trib3: "Veto! I, too, pronounce intercessio against that edictum."
> > and so on...
>
> But in that scenario, wouldn't trib2 simply keep nullifying the
> vetoes of
> his colleagues? I don't see any reason why he couldn't (or why trib3
> wouldn't think trib2 would do it to him).

Exactly. It would nearly impossible to issue a veto. You just need ONE
out of six Tribuni to overcome the will of the other five.

> I would point out to those who think that there would be a ton of
> nullifications of intercessio, that to pronounce intercessio in the
> first
> place requires the action being vetoed to be illegal or
> unconstitutional.
> Unlike Roma Antiqua, our Tribunes wouldn't be able to simply veto
> actions
> they don't like.
> I would think that such cases would be relatively
> clear-cut, once the legal rationale was put forth (which I would
> imagine any
> good Tribune would _want_ to do, if only to convince his fellows that
> his
> intercessio was warranted).
>
> Of course, there could always be differences of opinion, but such is
> the
> nature of the checks and balances; I suspect that the Tribunes would
> be
> inclined to give each other the benefit of the doubt unless the
> intercessio
> was completely without legal merit.

But maybe they wouldn't. Your idea would work out perfectly with two
Tribuni; but I think that having SIX of them is tempting Fortuna too
much. This "benefit of doubt" would be just possible the other way
round; if an intercessio had to be banned by all Tribuni, instead of by
just one. It would be like deciding if someone is guilty because ONE
member of the jury thinks he is, instead of the other way round.

I guess the simplest way to handle it would be to keep the actual
number of Tribuni (two), and to allow each other intercessio against
the other's actions.



=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:01:06 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Censor Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I really do not see the need for having 6 Tribunes. We had two this
> year and one of them resigned. If we are going to increase this why
> dont we do it incrementally and have 3.

I think you have made a good point. It is already difficult to have two
Tribuni, so imagine the trouble of filling six of them. I would rather
keep the number at two, which shows coherence with the other
magistratures.

> Also, does anyone know roughly the population in ancient Rome at the
> time the numbers of the Tribunes were increased?

The number of Tribuni had nothing to do with the number of inhabitants.
It was not a formula like "every Tribunus stands for 1,000,000
plebeians."

Sorry to disappoint you ;-).

> Also, If we are going to add increased powers, and given the
> situation
> we were almost in with Gn. Moravius Piscinus when he was Tribune, I
> would like to add something to this legislation. And that
> recommendation would be that if the Senate must promulgate a Senatus
> Consultum Ultimum, or even having to consider a dictator, then either
> the Tribunes cannot veto it. OR (even better IMHO) All of the
> Tribunes
> must veto it. I request this because in ancient Rome, if a Tribune
> was
> getting too radical He would just be eliminated (T. Gracchus, G.
> Gracchus, L. Saturnius, M. Livius Drusus, and Sulpicius.) We do not
> have that ability here. If a Tribune starts running amuck, our only
> recourse is the Ultimate Decree or the Dictatorship.

Although I am in favour of stronger Tribuni, I agree with you on this
point. I think that, historically, this was the case (I am not
completely sure, though).

However, I must remind you that Senatoconsultam Ultima were extremely
exceptional measures, just used in times of great and clear danger.
Just the same happened with Dictatores. I think this should be the way
in Nova Roma as well.



=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Tribune Fortunate.

--- labienus@-------- wrote:

<<snipped>>

> If we were to wait until we had a population commensurate with Roma's
> before
> proceeding with each stage of our development, we would not yet have
> been
> founded. In any case, if we wish to incrementally increase the
> number of
> tribuni plebis periodically, then the amendment should allow their
> number to be
> set by law, with a minimum of no fewer than the largest number of
> tribuni to
> date (each increase setting a new floor) and no more than 10 allowed
> at any
> time. That way, we won't have to resort to a constitutional
> amendment each
> time.

I beg your pardon if I seem ignorant, but, could you please explain to
me what are the benefits of raising the number of tribuni?

I really can't see anything but reasons AGAINST it.

<<snipped>>

> The amendment already requires this. If any one tribunus disagrees
> with the
> use of intercessio, he can nullify its use on the part of any or all
> of his
> colleagues. Thus, in effect, the amendment requires all tribuni to
> agree (or
> at least not disagree strongly enough to take action) to any use of
> intercessio.

Just another innocent question. What is the point of allowing tribuni
to issue individual vetoes if they all have to agree on it?

> That is all beside the point, however, as tribuni plebis *can not*
> intercede
> against either the declaration of a Senatus Consultum Ultimum or the
> creation
> of a dictator. Both of those actions are entirely legal and
> constitutional,
> and the tribuni can only declare intercessio against unconstitutional
> and (if
> the amendment passes) illegal acts.

And who decides what is an illegal act? Who interpretes the Lex or the
Constitutio? If the Tribuni are not for this, what are they for?




=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:48:00 -0500

Salve Cn Salix

> > three Comitia. I think it's a bad idea that the only people who'd be
> > able to
> > regulate how the Tribunes exercise their power are the Tribunes
> > themselves.
>
> They wouldn't. The ones able to regulate it would be the Plebeians, to
> whom the Tribuni represent. They would do it through the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa.

The tribuni decide what legislation is presented before the people, and
when. Therefore, they essentially control the choices the people have
about how they exercise their powers.

> is a good possibility. However, in order to do that, the Plebiscita
> enacted by the Comitia Plebis should have the power of law.

They do.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Minors
From:	Iasonvs Serenvs Carolvs <iasonvs_serenvs@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:57:05 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Draco er quiritibus,

Well stated friend, well said indeed. As one of the
few (past) legal minors in Nova Roma, and despite your
past critics, you are an exemplar of the participatory
Nova Roman youth. The question which still comes to
mind, for myself at least, is what to do with the one
case that sends the res publica sprialing down the
sides fo the abyss. Can we afford to open ourselves
*at this juncture* to potentially destructive
litigation? Once we are a little stronger, and
especially if we have fora, temples and legally held
land, we might be in a better position to reconsider
this issue, and to some profit.

Serenvs
--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:
> Ave Tarquinia,
>
> (snipped)
>
> > You don't have to make minors citizens. A lawsuit
> would be bad, I agree.
> > But when you say that young people, like 16 or 17
> year olds, wouldn't
> > understand what a risk Nova Roma was taking for
> them, you discredit a lot
> of
> > good people. I'm not sui juris yet, I've
> admitted that before (as
> foolish
> > of an action as that is around this place), but
> I'm not here because my
> > parents made me come here and I'm not here because
> I want to "sacrifice
> my
> > dog." I'm here because I want to be. The
> mission of Nova Roma is not to
> > convert everyone, it is to return to a better
> time.
> >
>
> I think this is largely true. Being a member of NR
> is nothing the average
> high schooler is going to get a date with. Quite the
> contrary, I daresay.
> However, there are those who feel attracted to
> paganism merely for the sake
> of upsetting their parents. Such groups, usually
> referred to as moonies or
> would-be (fill in your favourite subculture) can
> cause a lot of harm and do
> away with the credibility of an organization.
>
> > I can still access the web site. I can get on any
> mailing lists I choose
> to
> > be on. I don't think you can claim that
> citizenship would corrupt minors.
>
> Well, actually citizenship corrupts °everyone° here
> (grin). However, I agree
> with what you say.
>
> > (Now, if citizenship entitled me to a hot guy with
> nothing but a pair of
> > boxers and a six pack, maybe, but I think it means
> voting, and perhaps a
> > nifty citizenship kit.)
> >
> > This isn't a subversive group. I mean, we aren't
> even communist. Junior
> > high school kids don't sneak onto the computer at
> three am to type
> "Ancient
> > Rome" into the google.com find box.
> >
>
> Communism isn't really that subversive. And
> communism, as in marxism, isn't
> dangerous. The danger of politically extreme people
> joining NR is more
> situated in the older age group than it is in the
> younger. The "Roman dream"
> is a form of Utopia, open to various interpretations
> because it lies so far
> past us, yet attracts people today. But this "Roman
> dream" may also attract
> frustrated people, both leftist and rightist. Since
> none of us are naturally
> born Romans, we will always carry along our own
> cultural and ideological
> heritage, and unconsciously superimpose it on Rome.
>
> Vale bene!
> Draco
>
>


=====
Iasonvs Serenvs Carolvs Peregrinvs
(this is a post for which I accept all responsibility)
"The cosmos works by harmony of tensions, like the lyre and the bow."
"Time is a game played beautifully by children."
Heraclitus of Ephesus
HeraclitusFreehold@--------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:06:03 -0500

> Right, I understand that. My concern as I commented privately to Consul
> Vedius, was if we have 6 Tribuni. One tries to promulgate the law...one
> veto's the promulgation...what if the other 4 disagree or are neutral?
> This is what I am trying to understand. Does the intercessio stand?
> And does this also go with a tribuni trying to veto the actions of a
> magistrate as well?

If any one of the tribuni vetoes an action, the veto stands, so long as
none of the others nullify it.

> You are extremely legal, Senator, I have checked the Constitution, in no
> place, does it say on the Seantus Consultum that the Tribs of the Plebs
> cannot veto. All it states is what it would mean if one was passed...it
> would be subject to the collegial veto. As for the Dictator, all it
> states is that a dictator is appointed by the Senate. However,
> according to the powers of the Tribune of the Plebs, it states, "To
> collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any other
> magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex),
> Senatus consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel that the
> spirit and letter of this Constitution are being violated thereby."

Yes. "...when they feel that the spirit and letter of this
Constitutions are being violated..." Neither the enactment of the
Senatus Consultum Ultimum nor the appointment of a dictator violate the
spirit or letter of the constitution. Indeed, it is exactly that
document which allows such actions.

> > Ah, yes, the usual laudatory statement in support of unconstitutional
> > violence and murder in response to the tribunate. Could we please agree
> > to avoid holding this up as correct action in the future?
>
> I am sorry, if you view my statement as overly harsh. Let me state to
> you, that I find you to be a very noble Tribune of the Plebs. I do not
> fear for the least that you will use your powers as Tribune against the
> State. However, we cannot overlook the fact that your first colleague
> tried to do exactly that. I do not fear for future Tribunes who emulate
> your virtue and character. I fear about those tribunes who emulate Gn.
> Moravius Piscinus. I do hope you understand exactly where I am coming
> from now.

I did not find your statment particularly harsh. However, I disagree
with the sentiment that the ancients were acting wisely or well when
they resorted to such means. I also deplore the use of gladiators to
bully people into voting or not voting in a certain way and other
underhanded tactics used by our forebears. You and others have
repeatedly brought up the violence wrought against the tribuni of old in
a manner that implies that you approve of those actions.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:15:30 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> > Right, I understand that. My concern as I commented privately to
Consul
> > Vedius, was if we have 6 Tribuni. One tries to promulgate the
law...one
> > veto's the promulgation...what if the other 4 disagree or are
neutral?
> > This is what I am trying to understand. Does the intercessio
stand?
> > And does this also go with a tribuni trying to veto the actions
of a
> > magistrate as well?
>
> If any one of the tribuni vetoes an action, the veto stands, so
long as
> none of the others nullify it.

Sulla: I understand that. I guess I am not explaining myself
thoroughly. Probably because I am slightly under the weather. Let
me restate. In a situation, we have 6 Tribunes. One of the
six...tries to promulgate a law. A second Tribune uses his
intercessio. Leaving 4 Tribunes remaining. Can any of the 4 nullify
the intercessio? If so, how many would it take to do that?

> > You are extremely legal, Senator, I have checked the
Constitution, in no
> > place, does it say on the Seantus Consultum that the Tribs of the
Plebs
> > cannot veto. All it states is what it would mean if one was
passed...it
> > would be subject to the collegial veto. As for the Dictator, all
it
> > states is that a dictator is appointed by the Senate. However,
> > according to the powers of the Tribune of the Plebs, it
states, "To
> > collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any other
> > magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex),
> > Senatus consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel
that the
> > spirit and letter of this Constitution are being violated
thereby."
>
> Yes. "...when they feel that the spirit and letter of this
> Constitutions are being violated..." Neither the enactment of the
> Senatus Consultum Ultimum nor the appointment of a dictator violate
the
> spirit or letter of the constitution. Indeed, it is exactly that
> document which allows such actions.

Yes, I understand your reasoning. However, I am trying to use the
worst case scenario here. I know you would not have vetoed such an
act. But, you do know the situation that went on with Gn. Moravius
when he tired to promulgate those laws. There was a likely chance
that the Senate might have needed to resort to enacting the SCU. Do
you think he would have sat idly by while that was done? This is my
concern and reasoning.

> > > Ah, yes, the usual laudatory statement in support of
unconstitutional
> > > violence and murder in response to the tribunate. Could we
please agree
> > > to avoid holding this up as correct action in the future?
> >
> > I am sorry, if you view my statement as overly harsh. Let me
state to
> > you, that I find you to be a very noble Tribune of the Plebs. I
do not
> > fear for the least that you will use your powers as Tribune
against the
> > State. However, we cannot overlook the fact that your first
colleague
> > tried to do exactly that. I do not fear for future Tribunes who
emulate
> > your virtue and character. I fear about those tribunes who
emulate Gn.
> > Moravius Piscinus. I do hope you understand exactly where I am
coming
> > from now.
>
> I did not find your statment particularly harsh. However, I
disagree
> with the sentiment that the ancients were acting wisely or well when
> they resorted to such means. I also deplore the use of gladiators
to
> bully people into voting or not voting in a certain way and other
> underhanded tactics used by our forebears. You and others have
> repeatedly brought up the violence wrought against the tribuni of
old in
> a manner that implies that you approve of those actions.

I agree that they were probably not acting wisely or well when they
resorted to such means. There are probably many acts the ancients
did that both of us equally deplore. My purpose of bringing it up
was that there were ways to bring rogue Tribunes to check. The
ulitmate check being political murder. That does not mean I support
such ends. I do not support that idea at all. The issue I have is
not for any Tribune who acts legally like yourself. But for Rogue
Tribunes like Gn. Moravius Piscinus, I hope you truly understand.
The last thing I would ever want, or promote is violence.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:23:46 -0500

Salvete

> If you please reread my statement above slightly more carefully, you
> will see that my objection was not about the historical correctness of
> this proposal, but more of a practical matter. It is already quite
> difficult to have two individuals to agree on an issue; to make six of
> them agree in something would be nearly impossible.

I realize that. I was simply correcting your unqualified statement that
the ancient Republic employed two tribuni.

> But the same thing happened more or less in the original Res Publica.
> By the second century B.C.E., the Tribuni Plebis had evolved to become
> a system of protection for the common people against the excesses of
> the ruling class, were they patrician or plebeian. And this division
> DOES exist in Nova Roma; not because our current magistrates are
> willing to attack the rights of common citizens, but simply because we
> HAVE magistrates.

Yes. Exactly. However, in Nova Roma, we don't even have the
distinction of wealth that the ancients had toward the end of the
Republic, when one's birth became slightly less important than the size
of one's estate. Still, it is certainly one of the current tribuni's
duties to protect the populace from the arbitrary acts of our
magistrates, though they are currently limited to interfering with
unconstitutional acts.

> I think you are right. I know this is not historically pertinent; but
> sometimes we have to advance with the times. I really think that the
> Tribuni should protect everyone, and not just plebeians. However, this
> arouses a different issue, because it would seem logical to allow,
> under these circumstances, patricians in the election of the Tribuni
> Plebis. However, this would mean the beginning of the end of the whole
> Patrician order, and we don't want this to happen, do we? ;-).

LOL It might be preferable to have tribuni call the Comitia Populi
Tributa, and do away with the Comitia Plebis Tributa altogether, as
well. However, this is more than a little unhistorical. We're still
trying to work out how to handle a political system built around the
conflict of the orders without actually recreating that conflict.

> I guess that this is not a good reason to raise this difficulty. In my
> humble opinion, it would indicate a different diagnosis: that the
> Tribuni need more power, not less.

I agree. This amendment is a step in the right direction.

> 1.- To keep the actual number of Tribuni Plebis (two).

This is, IMO, a small point.

> 2.- To allow them to issue their veto separately, under the possibility
> to receive intercessio from his colleague.

The current amendment is, in part, a step closer to this than is
currently the case. Now, tribuni must actively issue their intercessio
in concert. With this amendment, they must still agree, but can act
alone.

> 3.- To allow them to issue their veto whenever the letter or the spirit
> of the Constitutio or the Leges passed by the Comitia are, in their
> opinion, violated; and when the rights of the cives of Nova Roma are,
> in their opinion, threatened (note that this would fall under the
> protection of the Constitutio).

I agree completely.

> 4.- To allow the Comitia Plebis Tributa to create Plebiscita, which
> would become laws, according to the Constitutio. These Plebiscita
> should be accepted by the Senatus, and the Tribunus calling the Comitia
> should be able to call the Senatus to order to accept or dismiss that
> proposals. When the Comitia are called, no intercessio should be
> possible.

With this change, you would actually place more limits on the tribuni
than currently exist. The tribuni can already enact plebiscita through
the Comitia Plebis Tributa, and do not have to have the Senate's
approval to do so. Currently, no one (other than an augur) can stop a
tribunus from assembling the CPlT and promulgating plebiscita which are
binding on the whole populace.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:32:41 -0500

Salvete iterum

> I beg your pardon if I seem ignorant, but, could you please explain to
> me what are the benefits of raising the number of tribuni?

It is more historical. If it were not the case that one tribunus could
nullify the intercessio of the whole college, then more would definitely
be advantageous, as it would be more likely that the aggregate will of
the people would be expressed by the tribuni. As it is, a special
interest group need only have one tribunus to paralyze the magistracy.
With more tribuni, this becomes more difficult.

> I really can't see anything but reasons AGAINST it.

It is quite possible that the problems you foresee will occur if we have
many tribuni.

> Just another innocent question. What is the point of allowing tribuni
> to issue individual vetoes if they all have to agree on it?

It is a slight strengthening of the current power, which requires the
tribuni to actively agree, often within a time limit, rather than simply
not disagree enough to interfere with each other.

> And who decides what is an illegal act? Who interpretes the Lex or the
> Constitutio? If the Tribuni are not for this, what are they for?

The tribuni do, indeed, do this. However, it is unequivocally
constitutional for the Senate to do these things. With more than one
tribunus in the mix, it is unlikely that all will agree upon such an
obtuse understanding of the constitution to allow the veto to stand.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:42:17 -0500

Salvete

> Sulla: I understand that. I guess I am not explaining myself
> thoroughly. Probably because I am slightly under the weather. Let
> me restate. In a situation, we have 6 Tribunes. One of the
> six...tries to promulgate a law. A second Tribune uses his
> intercessio. Leaving 4 Tribunes remaining. Can any of the 4 nullify
> the intercessio? If so, how many would it take to do that?

Only one tribunus would need to nullify the veto.

> Yes, I understand your reasoning. However, I am trying to use the
> worst case scenario here. I know you would not have vetoed such an
> act. But, you do know the situation that went on with Gn. Moravius
> when he tired to promulgate those laws.

Quite a few of those laws, BTW, were reasonable and worthwhile, at least
IMO.

> There was a likely chance that the Senate might have needed to resort
> to enacting the SCU. Do you think he would have sat idly by while that
> was done? This is my concern and reasoning.

He would not have been able to effectively issue his veto in that case,
as I would not have supported it.

> I agree that they were probably not acting wisely or well when they
> resorted to such means. There are probably many acts the ancients
> did that both of us equally deplore. My purpose of bringing it up
> was that there were ways to bring rogue Tribunes to check. The
> ulitmate check being political murder. That does not mean I support
> such ends. I do not support that idea at all. The issue I have is
> not for any Tribune who acts legally like yourself. But for Rogue
> Tribunes like Gn. Moravius Piscinus, I hope you truly understand.
> The last thing I would ever want, or promote is violence.

In almost every case, the so-called "rogue tribunes" you refer to were
killed because they had an overwhelming mandate from the people to carry
out reforms that the ruling class did not approve of. It is quite
possible to argue that the real rogues in each instance were the
Senatores who decided to impiously violate the body of a man who was
sacrosanct, and who was doing the will of the people. By using the
terms you do, you imply quite heavily that you feel that, while the act
itself was not a pleasant or a worthy one, it was necessary for the
health of the state, and therefore correct.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pleb Trib
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:40:04 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, Tribune Fortunate.

--- Fortunatus <labienus@--------> wrote:
> Salve Cn Salix
>
> > > three Comitia. I think it's a bad idea that the only people who'd
> be
> > > able to
> > > regulate how the Tribunes exercise their power are the Tribunes
> > > themselves.
> >
> > They wouldn't. The ones able to regulate it would be the Plebeians,
> to
> > whom the Tribuni represent. They would do it through the Comitia
> Plebis
> > Tributa.
>
> The tribuni decide what legislation is presented before the people,
> and
> when. Therefore, they essentially control the choices the people
> have
> about how they exercise their powers.
>

Just in the same way that the Consules present the choices to be made
to the other Comitia.

If a Tribunus kept offering proposals against the voters wishes for
some time, he might find himself out of any office after the next
election. Just like a Consul.



=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Staff Openings
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:41:18 -0400 (EDT)

Militarium Sodales and Nova Roma Citizens;

I bring to you an opportunity for those who may be interested in
furthering Nova Roma while being associated with the Sodalitas
Militarium.

Recently, within the Miitarium, Tribunus Militarium Angusticlave
Africanus was thanked officially for his successful naming and issueing
of the Miitarium Newsletter "Pilum" to the original date of publication
ageed to before the preceeding Editor had resigned. Tribunus Africanus
had also agreed to recruit for his Militarium Staff 8 Milles Immunes to
take up four lengthy tasks which I have assigned him in addition to the
"Pilum."

He notifies me on the eve of his "official congratulation" that he has
successfully recuited six of the required eight men, that he has pledged
to recruit into the Miitarium to undertake these additional tasks, and
has further asked me to announce openings for the remaining two. This, I
am more tha glad to do!!

Here then, Sodales and Citizens is an opportunity to work closely with a
proven military man who has shown his ability in organization and task
completion. He has demonstrated the ability to complete a difficult
task, on time, and well within agreed upon parameters. I am extremely
proud to have this gentleman working within the Militarium, and I now
have the additional pleasure to extend to you, who are willing to do
something for Nova Roma in a military venue, an opportunity to work with
someone who is a proven go-getter, and hard worker.

If you are interested please contact either of the following:

>>jmath669642reng@--------<<

or

>>CW2ShaneEvans@--------<<

I thank you most sincerely for your kind attention to this message and I
am looking forward to working with you and Tribunus Africanus in the
future. Be well and be prosperus in the sight of Rome!!!

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens;
Praefectus Castorum -- Sodalitas Militarum -- Nova Roma

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:55:17 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Fortunate.

--- Fortunatus <labienus@--------> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> I realize that. I was simply correcting your unqualified statement
> that
> the ancient Republic employed two tribuni.

As you said that you were not certain of the original number of
tribuni, I would please ask you to abstain to make comments on the
validity of my historical statements. According to the documents that I
have read, the original number of tribuni was two, and that was
increased later.

<<snipped>> [We both agree on these points]

> > 1.- To keep the actual number of Tribuni Plebis (two).
>
> This is, IMO, a small point.

Not so small. If you had to convince your fellow tribuni to agree with
you, what would you prefer? To convince 5 individuals, or to convince
just one?

This is, for me, the main point of conflict in the Consul's proposal.
Six tribuni would be too many. They would be undeciding as a whole. And
that means less protection for us common citizens.

<<snipped>> [We also agree on these points]

> > 4.- To allow the Comitia Plebis Tributa to create Plebiscita, which
> > would become laws, according to the Constitutio. These Plebiscita
> > should be accepted by the Senatus, and the Tribunus calling the
> Comitia
> > should be able to call the Senatus to order to accept or dismiss
> that
> > proposals. When the Comitia are called, no intercessio should be
> > possible.
>
> With this change, you would actually place more limits on the tribuni
> than currently exist. The tribuni can already enact plebiscita
> through
> the Comitia Plebis Tributa, and do not have to have the Senate's
> approval to do so. Currently, no one (other than an augur) can stop
> a
> tribunus from assembling the CPlT and promulgating plebiscita which
> are
> binding on the whole populace.

Here you are right. Take out the senatorial consent ;-).


=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/