| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] What type of Roman are you? |
| From: |
Steven - Piparskeggr <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:00:33 -0500 |
|
Salus et Fortuna!
CW2ShaneEvans@-------- wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I have affection for the Eternal City and what she means to the world.
I'm not knowledgable and do not have the time to be studious.
I dress up only on ceremonial occassions and know who I am, and am that
day to day.
I have too much stuff happening IRL, and too much self discipline to
slip into escapism.
If I may offer a fourth choice?
Those of use who joined to help create a place for the Romans of the
world,
as those of my Heathen faith community have built for themselves.
--
=========================================
In Frith under Troth, may the Gods see you!
- Steven P. Robinson
alias
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias, Quæstor et Legate
AKA
- Piparskeggr skjaldberi Ullar
AFA - AA - ORV
Builder for the Future and Traveler along the Folkway
My homestead
http://www.river-wood-samfelag.org
File of my Poems and Songs
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/Pip_music/files/
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 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete omnes; et salve, Fortunate.
--- Fortunatus <labienus@--------> wrote:
> 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.
As it already seems obvious, I am not sure that it is.
> 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.
But under your proposal, a special interest group needs just one
tribunus to paralize the Tribunate and its vital functions. And it
would be much easier for them to get such a tribunus if their number
was raised.
> > 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.
I am happy to read that you also see this possibility. But then, don't
you think that six are "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.
I do see your point here. A slight distinction, but completely correct.
> > 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.
But maybe we WANT someday the veto to stand. Imagine that the Senate
proposed to nominate a dictator for not good reason, just to get rid of
a political opponent ;-).
=====
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] Re: Question on the Trib Plebs and recommendation |
| From: |
"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:15:22 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> 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.
OK, thank you for that.
> > 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.
Most of those laws were not reasonable IMHO. And the venue he was
promulgating them was not the correct venue. I really do not want to
rehash this. I am just using it as an example.
> > 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.
But he would have tried. Nevertheless, and will have tried to create
a Constitutional Crisis? Correct?
> > 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.
I am sure some of them had mandates from the People and some did
not. That isnt the point. Both sides, the Senate and the Tribunes
made mistakes. But, here in Nova Roma, we had our first demogague,
IMHO, you might have a different opinion..thats fine. However, in
your final statement, let me state to you please do not add words to
my posts. Let me repost to you exactly what I said, "That does not
mean I support such ends. I do not support that idea at all." Thank
you.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: What type of Roman are you? |
| From: |
"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:07:51 -0000 |
|
Salve,
While I'm glad you are enjoying your involvement in the Sodalitas
Militarium, it seems to me you may be judging the rest of Nova Roma a
bit too quickly.
It seems to me that the "petty politics" you mention are simply what
happens when several hundred people with differing ideas, views and
opinions get together in one place. The Sodalitas Militarium is a
smaller forum, with a more limited focus - it is only natural that
discussion there is easier. Nova Roma is no more politial or
argumentative than most groups with many people and a wide focus.
This is simply human nature and has little to do with individuals or
an organization itself.
To reply directly to the specifics of your post:
--- In novaroma@--------, CW2ShaneEvans@a... wrote:
> 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.
Cassius respondit:
There are alternatives to keeping silent for a long time, and then
finally "blowing up" in anger and frustration. The simplest and most
direct solution is to help change situations that you don't like
rather than to be angry with others. Don't like postings on the list?
Start new conversations and post positive topics. We're *all*
responsible for the quality and tone of discussion in the forums.
If "we" sit back, do nothing, and then judge "their" actions
harshly, are "they" really the entire problem?
CW2:
> 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.
Cassius:
My guess is that most everyone here will classify themselves in this
group, no matter their history, experience or involvement. It's only
human nature for each of us to think of ourselves as being sincere
and a benefit to our community.
>CW2
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.
Cassius:
Very few people think of themselves as being shallow pretenders. And,
I must say that I've personally met very few such people here in Nova
Roma. Yes, there are many Citizens that are just starting out and
feeling their way around, and others that could (and hopefully will)
become more involved. Yet such people are not to be scorned - they
are both *potential* and an *opportunity* for Nova Roma as a whole.
All of us were newbies just "testing the water" at some point. Most
of us here have been lucky enough to find satisfaction and benefit
from personal interest in Romanitas. Do we really want to withhold
encouragement, teaching and positive reinforcement to others who are
newer to the field than we are? Or do we want to help ALL of our
community to grow and become more Roman?
>CW2
>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?
Cassius:
LOL! There is no power in Nova Roma, and there is damned little
respect. Most especially for those that volunteer their time and
effort toward helping Nova Roma to grow. But that's not necessarily
Nova Roma's fault... it happens all too often in purely volunteer
organizations.
Nova Roma isn't a place where one can gain accolades without effort.
I can't imagine it would take anyone more than a couple of weeks of
participating on the main list to figure this out. This is the last
place anyone would seek as a refuge from the "real world". Nova Roma
is much more like the "real world" focused and in the spotlight it's
easier to fail and burn out here than it is in the outside world.
> CW2:
> 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.
>Cassius:
Just like with most volunteer groups, Nova Roma will survive and keep
growing. The more that is accomplished the more it's worth working to
build more! We've done amazingly well in our first four years. We've
built a Roman community that just wasn't there before NR. We've
gathered information that even universities are impressed with. We've
built a living sovereignity project from one of the most complex
cultural and political systems in history. I'm inclined to think that
collectively we deserve a hearty "AVE!" and a pat on the back more
than a stern wake up call.
But I do understand that it can be frustrating to see arguments,
disagreements and worse on the main list. I've posted about it
myself. It seems to me that the best way to approach making things
better is to attack the problems rather than our fellow Citizens...
it's easier on everyone including you. :)
Vale,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul
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 20:16:04 -0500 |
|
Salvete
> 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.
It appears that I came across as more stridently pedantic than I
intended. If I may ask without causing further offence, what are your
sources?
I get my numbers from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which states,
"The original number of the tribunes is variously given as two, four, or
five," (p. 1550) and T Livius, who says, "Two 'tribunes of the plebs'
were elected, C. Licinius and L. Albinus. These chose three colleagues.
It is generally agreed that Sicinius, the instigator of the secession
was amongst them, but who the other two were is not settled. Some say
that only two tribunes were created on the Sacred Hill and that it was
there that the lex sacrata was passed." (Ab Urbe Condita 2.33) Neither
of these authorities denies the possibility that there were originally
two, but both accept the ambivalence of the evidence.
> 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?
I would prefer four other colleagues that I might be able to convince
than one entrenched opponent in office.
> 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.
Again, I admit that it is possible that you are correct. I see the
danger of two tribuni who are adamantly opposed, and you see the danger
of a group failing to reach concensus. Both are valid concerns.
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 20:46:35 -0500 |
|
Salvete
> Most of those laws were not reasonable IMHO. And the venue he was
> promulgating them was not the correct venue. I really do not want to
> rehash this. I am just using it as an example.
Very well, I'll drop it if you will.
> > He would not have been able to effectively issue his veto in that
> > case, as I would not have supported it.
>
> But he would have tried. Nevertheless, and will have tried to create
> a Constitutional Crisis? Correct?
Not really. Without an effective veto, there would have been no
constitutional crisis. There really wouldn't have been one even if I
were to have lost my wits and supported such a veto. Instead, it would
have been the Internet equivalent of an open conflict in the streets,
which would have been worse.
> I am sure some of them had mandates from the People and some did
> not.
In every case that I can call to mind, the so-called demagogue had such
a mandate. How could he not, and still be called a leader of the
people, aka demagogue? I would lay money that most, if not all, of
those tribuni who made it into the history books for being murdered had
one. The implication made by Livius again and again is that the
patricians felt that the people couldn't be trusted to make correct
decisions when someone promised them something they wanted (and,
coincidentally, that the patricians didn't want). The accusation may
have some validity, but it does not change the fact that the murdered
tribuni enjoyed a mandate from the people.
> That isnt the point. Both sides, the Senate and the Tribunes
> made mistakes. But, here in Nova Roma, we had our first demogague,
> IMHO, you might have a different opinion..thats fine. However, in
> your final statement, let me state to you please do not add words to
> my posts. Let me repost to you exactly what I said, "That does not
> mean I support such ends. I do not support that idea at all." Thank
> you.
And I said, "By using the terms you do, you imply quite heavily..." I
did not add a single word to your posts. Your use of the language
implied that tribuni were likely to lose their heads and "run amok", and
that the ancient Senate had recourse to simply eliminate a tribunus who
was becoming too radical, but that we in Nova Roma only had recourse to
the Senatus Consultum Ultimum or a dictatorship. The implication I read
in that is that eliminating the tribunus is preferable to the legal and
constitutional recourses--recourses which our spiritual forebears also
had, but did not use in the cases in question. If the implication was
not intended, then I apologize, but surely you can see how I come to my
conclusion?
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: Virtual temple |
| From: |
"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:41:57 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
If you wish to build a personal "virtual temple" to a deity, you
certainly need no permission to do so!
If you would like your temple to be "officially" integrated into the
religious material of Nova Roma, then you might want to think about
taking up a Priesthood position, and work with your deity in all
aspects of NR involvement. There is more to the Religio Romana than
websites, even if they can be a useful resource! :)
If you would like to ask about Priesthood, please do contact me
offlist at: cassius@--------
As to Virtual Temples themselves, the most important thing to
remember is that they are a place to *begin* rather than an end in
and of themselves. Websites are great for getting people together and
getting them to focus on an idea and a set of material... but the
worship of the Gods is more involved than any homesite can encompass,
no matter how well designed.
That being said you can indeed make a "virtual temple" a useful
beginning resource. Here are few of the things I'd hope to see
included:
1. Basic information about the deity, including their areas of
power/influence, their myths, and images of ancient statues, etc.
2. Information on how the deity was worshipped in the ancient world.
3. Some information on how one might worship the deity today, while
drawing on ancient sources for guidance/inspiration.
4. Some sample prayers to the deity.
5. Some simple rites honoring the deity. (The Pontiffs can assist
with this and the prayers!)
6. Information on the ancient Temples and sacred places where the
deity was worshipped in the ancient world.
7. Reference information for further research. A bibliography, useful
URL links, etc.
8. A mailing list for people to share information and discuss their
spiritual interest of the deity.
9. A forum (a message board or "guest book") where people can leave
prayers, or votive messages about the deity.
As you can see, there is a lot that can be put up on a website. Yet
even so, it's not a substitute for a *physical* temple, where the
essence of the deity can be welcomed to the earth and honored in
person. As the Roman community grows there *will* be physical shrines
and temples... and hopefully votive websites will simply be a web of
additional information rather than the central focus for worship
itself.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus
--- In novaroma@--------, "Gaius Marcius Coriolanus" <coriolanus@c...>
wrote:
> Quirites
>
> What must citizen do if he wants to build a virtual temple to
chosen
> God? Is it necessary to get pontifex approvement ? Are there any
> rules or laws on this issue? Are there any necessary things that
> temple must contain?
>
>
> Ave et Vale
>
> Gaius Marcius Coriolanus
>
> " Censer Carthaginem esse delendam "
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: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:54:15 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > Most of those laws were not reasonable IMHO. And the venue he was
> > promulgating them was not the correct venue. I really do not
want to
> > rehash this. I am just using it as an example.
>
> Very well, I'll drop it if you will.
Cool.
> > > He would not have been able to effectively issue his veto in
that
> > > case, as I would not have supported it.
> >
> > But he would have tried. Nevertheless, and will have tried to
create
> > a Constitutional Crisis? Correct?
>
> Not really. Without an effective veto, there would have been no
> constitutional crisis. There really wouldn't have been one even if
I
> were to have lost my wits and supported such a veto. Instead, it
would
> have been the Internet equivalent of an open conflict in the
streets,
> which would have been worse.
With this I can see your point. And I agree.
> > I am sure some of them had mandates from the People and some did
> > not.
>
> In every case that I can call to mind, the so-called demagogue had
such
> a mandate. How could he not, and still be called a leader of the
> people, aka demagogue? I would lay money that most, if not all, of
> those tribuni who made it into the history books for being murdered
had
> one. The implication made by Livius again and again is that the
> patricians felt that the people couldn't be trusted to make correct
> decisions when someone promised them something they wanted (and,
> coincidentally, that the patricians didn't want). The accusation
may
> have some validity, but it does not change the fact that the
murdered
> tribuni enjoyed a mandate from the people.
Do we actually have the writings of Livius during the late Roman
Republic? If we do..could you give me the title so I can locate it.
The latest books of Livius end before the third punic war (in the
Penguin series).
> > That isnt the point. Both sides, the Senate and the Tribunes
> > made mistakes. But, here in Nova Roma, we had our first
demogague,
> > IMHO, you might have a different opinion..thats fine. However, in
> > your final statement, let me state to you please do not add words
to
> > my posts. Let me repost to you exactly what I said, "That does
not
> > mean I support such ends. I do not support that idea at all."
Thank
> > you.
>
> And I said, "By using the terms you do, you imply quite
heavily..." I
> did not add a single word to your posts. Your use of the language
> implied that tribuni were likely to lose their heads and "run
amok", and
> that the ancient Senate had recourse to simply eliminate a tribunus
who
> was becoming too radical, but that we in Nova Roma only had
recourse to
> the Senatus Consultum Ultimum or a dictatorship. The implication I
read
> in that is that eliminating the tribunus is preferable to the legal
and
> constitutional recourses--recourses which our spiritual forebears
also
> had, but did not use in the cases in question. If the implication
was
> not intended, then I apologize, but surely you can see how I come
to my
> conclusion?
Actually, I dont think I implied that. I specifically stated I did
not favor any such action. The implication you made, I see, but you
read more into it than I stated. I wanted to make sure that the
balance is still maintained. I did state in the past that was done.
I would favor a constitutional intervention, which is the very reason
you and I are having this discourse. Specifically involving the
ability of a Tribune to veto a SCU or a dictatorial appointment.
Just as Gn. Salix and you are debating other aspects of the same
legislation. There are many questions that this has raised and I am
trying to understand just how this balance will be maintained between
the Senate, the magistrates and the increased power Tribunes of the
Plebs.
I hope this clears that up.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
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 21:31:16 -0500 |
|
Salvete
> Do we actually have the writings of Livius during the late Roman
> Republic? If we do..could you give me the title so I can locate it.
> The latest books of Livius end before the third punic war (in the
> Penguin series).
Unfortunately not. Only ten books of Ab Urbe Condita managed to survive
the ages. There are, fortunately, quite a few other sources for the
history of the late Republic. I mentioned Livius mainly because I've
been re-reading him recently, and he is therefore on my mind.
> Actually, I dont think I implied that. I specifically stated I did
> not favor any such action. The implication you made, I see, but you
> read more into it than I stated.
A common Internet error, and an easy one to commit. I do try to avoid
doing so, but it seems inevitable in this medium.
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 - Livy |
| From: |
"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:47:55 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > Do we actually have the writings of Livius during the late Roman
> > Republic? If we do..could you give me the title so I can locate
it.
> > The latest books of Livius end before the third punic war (in the
> > Penguin series).
>
> Unfortunately not. Only ten books of Ab Urbe Condita managed to
survive
> the ages. There are, fortunately, quite a few other sources for the
> history of the late Republic. I mentioned Livius mainly because
I've
> been re-reading him recently, and he is therefore on my mind.
Maybe in the recent discovery of Calpurinus Piso's library we might
have more volumes. One can hope.
> > Actually, I dont think I implied that. I specifically stated I
did
> > not favor any such action. The implication you made, I see, but
you
> > read more into it than I stated.
>
> A common Internet error, and an easy one to commit. I do try to
avoid
> doing so, but it seems inevitable in this medium.
Yep..its definately a common internet error. At least we can try to
correct it when it does pop up from time to time. Thanks for the
debate, it definately gives me something to think about. I
appreciate your time.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:47:43 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
I would like to make a few points regarding the Tribunes of the Plebs
& the Comitia they operate in, because we not only have some
historical inaccuracies regarding the way our Tribunes operate, but
also the Comitia.
Starting with the Comitia Plebis Tributia.
We had a major controversy earlier this year over some plebecitae
introduced in the Comitia. I Don't intend to get into the measures
themselves, but the venue. Many Patricians were upset that they
couldn't vote on these pleblecitiae. This is a major problem. In
Antiquita MOST of the Leges were in fact Pleblecitiae that the
Patricians were NOT allowed to vote on. The ill will has caused the
Tribunes to shy away from using the Comitia to pass pleblecitae. Part
of the problem is Patricians are a FAR larger percentage of our
population than they ever were in Antiquita where they were only a few
families in a large city. All I can say to the Patricians is you chose
the order you belong to. You wanted those 5 Century points, and the
cost of those points is NOT being able to vote in one of the Comitiae.
This problem was made worse by the Modern Patrician Gens being far
more open than the ancient Patricians were in allowing people into
thier order. The result is a Plebian assembly that is more
undemocratic than the ancient assembly, at least as far as the 31
Rural tribes are concerned. In Antiquita the small number of
Patricians wouldn't have made a differance in most votes. In Nova Roma
thier votes would make a differance. I don't think it would be wise to
limit membership in the Patrician Gens to try to restore the ancient
ratio of Patricians to Plebians, so I think we should try an inovation.
Limit the Plebian assembly to being an elective body only, and make up
for this by giving the Tribunes the power to enact leges through the
Comitia Populi Tributa. This would give the Tribunes the legslative
powers they had in Antiquita without leaving a very large percentage
of our population without a voice in these leges. The Patricians would
retain thier 5 points to make up for not being able to vote for, or
serve as Tribunes.
I am somewhat perplexed by the number 6 for the number of Tribunes.
There is NO record of this number ever being used in Antiquita. I
quote the following from Smiths dictonary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
"As regards the number of the tribunes of the people, all the ancient
writers agree (see the passages in Niebuhr, i. n1356), that at first
they we only two, though the accounts differ as to the names of the
first tribunes. Soon afterwards, however, the number of tribunes was
increased to five, one being taken from each of the five classes
(Ascon. in Cic. Corn. p56, ed. Orelli; Zonar. vii.15). When this
increase took place is quite uncertain. According to Dionysius (vi.89)
three new tribunes were added immediately after the appointment of the
first two. Cicero (Fragm. Cornel. p451, Orelli) states, that the year
after the institution of the tribunes their number was increased to
ten; according to Livy (ii.33) the first two tribunes immediately
after their appointment elected themselves three new colleagues;
according to Piso (ap. Liv. ii.58) there were only two tribunes down
to the time of the Publilian laws. It would be hopeless to attempt to
ascertain what was really the case; thus much only is certain, that
the number was not increased to ten till the year 457 B.C., and that
then two were taken from each of the five classes. (Liv. iii.30;
Dionys. x.30). This number appears to have remained unaltered down to
the end of the empire."
My feeling is that shortly after L. Sicinius led the secession to the
Mons Sacra in 494 BCE the number was set at 5, and this remained true
until 457 BCE or the first 37 years. That Five was chosen so there
would be One Tribune from each of the five classes, and that this
number was later doubled to Ten or Two per class. Since our Five
classes are based on experance rather than wealth, I don't think it
would be a good idea to insist that one of the tribunes be selected
from the each class, as that would make inexperance a qualification
for some of the Tribune's offices. Other than ignoring class I think
we should use the old number of Five Tribunes untill Nova Roma has had
time to grow, and switch to Ten at a future date when we are larger.
Next the procedures for an intercessio. The right of a single tribune
to call an intercessio did not come until 394 BCE. Prior to this date
it was decided by a majority of the Tribunes! From Smith's
"While the college thus gained outwardly new strength every day, a
change took place in its internal organisation, which to some extent
paralyzed its powers. Before the year 394 B.C. every thing had been
decided in the college by a majority (Liv. ii.43, 44; Dionys. ix.1, 2,
41, x.31); but about this time, we do not know how, a change was
introduced, which made the opposition (intercessio ) of one tribune
sufficient to render a resolution of his colleagues void (Zonar.
vii.15). This new regulation does not appear in operation till 394 and
393 B.C. (Liv. v.25, 29); the old one was still applied in B.C. 421
and 415 (Liv. iv.42, 48; cf. Niebuhr, ii. p438)."
I Would suggest that we return to this older model, as it fits our
needs better. I suggest that a Tribune's Veto halt an action for a
period of time, say three days. If two of the remaing four Tribunes
Concur during that three day period then an intercessio will be in
place. This could also be reversed for a slightlty stronger indiviual
intercessio, that three of the remaining four would have to state that
they do NOT concur.
Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:54:44 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> I would like to make a few points regarding the Tribunes of the
Plebs
> & the Comitia they operate in, because we not only have some
> historical inaccuracies regarding the way our Tribunes operate, but
> also the Comitia.
>
> Starting with the Comitia Plebis Tributia.
> We had a major controversy earlier this year over some plebecitae
> introduced in the Comitia. I Don't intend to get into the measures
> themselves, but the venue. Many Patricians were upset that they
> couldn't vote on these pleblecitiae. This is a major problem. In
> Antiquita MOST of the Leges were in fact Pleblecitiae that the
> Patricians were NOT allowed to vote on. The ill will has caused the
> Tribunes to shy away from using the Comitia to pass pleblecitae.
Part
> of the problem is Patricians are a FAR larger percentage of our
> population than they ever were in Antiquita where they were only a
few
> families in a large city. All I can say to the Patricians is you
chose
> the order you belong to. You wanted those 5 Century points, and the
> cost of those points is NOT being able to vote in one of the
Comitiae.
Ave,
Just a minor correction. I dont think most Patricians were against
the fact that legislation was brought before the Comitia Plebis. I
can only speak to myself..but I was against it because the
legislation brought by John Reali, was unconstitutional. According
to the Constitution of Nova Roma, changes to the Constitution (which
most of John Reali's legislation consisted of) needed to go to the
Senate (2/3 Majority) AND the Comitia Centuriata, according to I.A.2
of the Constitution of Nova Roma. By passing the Constitution of
Nova Roma, and going straight to the Comitia Plebis, which according
to the Constitution was/is illegal.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:11:55 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Robert Woolwine" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites,
> >
> > I would like to make a few points regarding the Tribunes of the
> Plebs
> > & the Comitia they operate in, because we not only have some
> > historical inaccuracies regarding the way our Tribunes operate, but
> > also the Comitia.
> >
> > Starting with the Comitia Plebis Tributia.
> > We had a major controversy earlier this year over some plebecitae
> > introduced in the Comitia. I Don't intend to get into the measures
> > themselves, but the venue. Many Patricians were upset that they
> > couldn't vote on these pleblecitiae. This is a major problem. In
> > Antiquita MOST of the Leges were in fact Pleblecitiae that the
> > Patricians were NOT allowed to vote on. The ill will has caused the
> > Tribunes to shy away from using the Comitia to pass pleblecitae.
> Part
> > of the problem is Patricians are a FAR larger percentage of our
> > population than they ever were in Antiquita where they were only a
> few
> > families in a large city. All I can say to the Patricians is you
> chose
> > the order you belong to. You wanted those 5 Century points, and the
> > cost of those points is NOT being able to vote in one of the
> Comitiae.
>
> Ave,
>
> Just a minor correction. I dont think most Patricians were against
> the fact that legislation was brought before the Comitia Plebis. I
> can only speak to myself..but I was against it because the
> legislation brought by John Reali, was unconstitutional. According
> to the Constitution of Nova Roma, changes to the Constitution (which
> most of John Reali's legislation consisted of) needed to go to the
> Senate (2/3 Majority) AND the Comitia Centuriata, according to I.A.2
> of the Constitution of Nova Roma. By passing the Constitution of
> Nova Roma, and going straight to the Comitia Plebis, which according
> to the Constitution was/is illegal.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Ave,
I Didn't say "most" but rather "many", and I do recall more than a few
posts from Patricians who were upset at not only the content of the
Pleblecitae, but also at the fact that they couldn't vote on them.
I Would go so far as to hazzard a guess that if a Plelecita were
introduced that established a 10 Sesterce fine for spitting on the
sidewalk in the Nova Roman Forum, whenever we build it, we would see
some posts from SOME Patricians who were unhappy that they couldn't
vote on the plebecita.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Coins and Flags |
| From: |
Kristoffer From <from@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:32:15 +0200 |
|
This is a private message to Marcus Cassius Julianus, all others please
disregard this.
---------
Salve, Marce Cassi Juliane.
I'm posting on the main list, since it would appear you haven't received
the private e-mails I've sent you.
On behalf of provincia Thule, I am trying to get my hands on some Nova
Roman flags and coins. Since I'm from Sweden, I'm not covered by the web
form available on the main Nova Roma website. I'd like to know how much
postage would amount to for a parcel to Sweden, although any urgency
previously mentioned is now no longer an issue.
If there is any possibility of you posting overseas, please contact me,
so we can discuss the details.
Vale,
Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum
AKA Kristoffer From
---
Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.
- Not-so-famous quotation
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Coins and Flags |
| From: |
"yquere@--------"<yquere@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:02:51 +0200 |
|
Salvete Marcus Cassius Julianus et Titus Octavius Pius
First of all, excuse me not to have disregarded your
message but I also send a private mail to Marcus Cassius
in order to know what would be the postage amount for
Gallia (France, Belgium or Netherlands).
I didn't received any reply and I was also wondering if
there hadn't been some mail distribution problems. The
post of Titus Octavius seams to confirm my doubts.
Is there another email adress where you can be contacted ?
I also would like to know if there is any possibility of
posting overseas ?
Feel free to reply privately to me, so that we don't
bother the Main List participants with these practical
details.
Thanks in advance.
Valete bene
Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Provinciae Galliae
> ---------- Initial message -----------
>
> From : from
> To : novaroma@--------
> Cc :
> Date : Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:32:15 +0200
> Subject : [novaroma] Coins and Flags
>
> This is a private message to Marcus Cassius Julianus,
all others please
> disregard this.
>
> ---------
>
> Salve, Marce Cassi Juliane.
>
> I'm posting on the main list, since it would appear you
haven't received
> the private e-mails I've sent you.
>
> On behalf of provincia Thule, I am trying to get my
hands on some Nova
> Roman flags and coins. Since I'm from Sweden, I'm not
covered by the web
> form available on the main Nova Roma website. I'd like
to know how much
> postage would amount to for a parcel to Sweden,
although any urgency
> previously mentioned is now no longer an issue.
>
> If there is any possibility of you posting overseas,
please contact me,
> so we can discuss the details.
>
> Vale,
>
> Titus Octavius Pius,
> Consiliarius Thules,
> Praeco Anarei Thules,
> Scriba to the Curator Araneum
>
> AKA Kristoffer From
>
> ---
>
> Si hoc signum legere potes,
> operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
> et fructuosis potiri potes.
>
> - Not-so-famous quotation
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
> o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
> R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
--------------
Profitez de l'offre spéciale Liberty Surf !
50 h / 95 F TTC par mois tout compris pendant 3 mois
http://register.libertysurf.fr/subscribe_fr/signup.php3
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Something Interesting |
| From: |
Patrick Ferguson <pvitruviusiulianus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Avete omnes cives Novae Romae!
I just found something that is within our realm of
interests:
http://www.imperiumnovum.org/
This url is a link to the site of another micronation
similar in goals to ours, but different in structure.
I have not given it a very close look yet (and I
stress this point), but I would bet that it is
definately worth a look.
Valete optime! :->!
Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus,
Civis Novae Romae.
__________________________________________________
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] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:34:10 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> Part of the problem is Patricians are a FAR larger percentage of our
> population than they ever were in Antiquita where they were only a few
> families in a large city.
Yes. Roughly a third of our population is patrician.
> The result is a Plebian assembly that is more undemocratic than the
> ancient assembly, at least as far as the 31 Rural tribes are
> concerned. In Antiquita the small number of Patricians wouldn't have
> made a differance in most votes. In Nova Roma thier votes would make
> a differance.
It is for exactly that reason that I haven't used the CPlT to promulgate
plebiscita (one plebiscitum, many plebiscita), rather than any ill will on the
part of the ordo patricius. The ancient tribuni were the representatives of
the democratic portion of the ancient Republic, and it seems contrary to that
role to enact leges through a venue which excludes a full third of the
population.
> Limit the Plebian assembly to being an elective body only, and make up
> for this by giving the Tribunes the power to enact leges through the
> Comitia Populi Tributa.
I like this suggestion a lot, though I expect that some here will consider it
too much of a departure from historical practice.
> Next the procedures for an intercessio. The right of a single tribune
> to call an intercessio did not come until 394 BCE. Prior to this date
> it was decided by a majority of the Tribunes! From Smith's
This is interesting. I'll have to pay close attention to those passages from
Livius while I'm re-reading him.
> I Would suggest that we return to this older model, as it fits our
> needs better. I suggest that a Tribune's Veto halt an action for a
> period of time, say three days. If two of the remaing four Tribunes
> Concur during that three day period then an intercessio will be in
> place. This could also be reversed for a slightlty stronger indiviual
> intercessio, that three of the remaining four would have to state that
> they do NOT concur.
I would much prefer either of these two options to the current situation. I
also very much like having a veto halt an action for a period to allow other
tribuni a chance to agree or disagree with a given veto. As it stands, both
tribuni must issue intercessio within 72 hours of the issuance of an edictum.
If the tribuni do not check their mail every day, it is quite possible for them
to agree but fail to veto an action on technical grounds. And, the entire
office is paralyzed if one tribunus is dealing with family problems or is
otherwise preoccupied. For this last reason, I suggest that we adopt the
second of your options, requiring tribuni to actively disagree with a veto if
they want to interfere with it.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Something Interesting |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:57:49 +1000 (EST) |
|
Salvete omnes,
I was not aware of the existence of this copycat
micronation, and I have just a few words to say. I
shall not sport with my fellow civies intelligence on
this, so I'll just come out and say it.:-)
Isn't it so very sad that someone who is dissatisfied
with Nova Roma not only leaves, but establishes a
Roman micronation of his own. And then, as if that
wasn't humorous enough, he makes himself the
"Princeps" of this micronation, thereby removing what
is a vital element of the popularity of Nova Roma: the
competition for political office. For, as the
magistrates page declares, the offices shall be
appointed at the whim of the "Princeps". Now, this is
not an attack on our esteemable consul Flavius Vedius,
but rather a humorous comparison. The creator of this
new "micronation" (and I empahasize the "micro", as I
am sure it shall stay that way:-)) ), Quintus Poppaeus
Sabinus, must have lived in Nova Roma through the
NEEDED dictatorship of Flavius Vedius, and seen the
people's thoughts on dictatorship, and yet the first
thing he creates is an autocratic state of which I
very much doubt he ever plans to relinquish control
of. Which gives those of talent and ambition how much
chance of success....well, it depends on how much
podex those hopefuls (if there are ever any) are
willing to kiss (pardon the crass statement).
I beleive that this "micronation" is merely nothing
more than a bad joke, created by a man who obviously
had no concept of dignitas and who could not handle
the "heat" in Nova Roma. This copycat Roman
micronation is like a dust ball that will in all
probability be swept under the proverbial rug. For
what it is worth, I wish him well in his "one man
enterprise". I guess I'm just a sucker for the
underdog!;-))
Sorry to have carried on like this.
Valete bene,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
Legatus Australia Medius
Sacerdos Mars Invictus
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:20:57 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 4:34 AM
>
> > Limit the Plebian assembly to being an elective body only, and make up
> > for this by giving the Tribunes the power to enact leges through the
> > Comitia Populi Tributa.
>
> I like this suggestion a lot, though I expect that some here will consider
it
> too much of a departure from historical practice.
Actually, I might have another idea along these lines. If I am remembering
correctly, wasn't there a period when the plebiscitum applied only to the
members of the Plebeian Order? Such a change to our system would enhance the
legislative role of the Tribunes, but at the same time not steamroller over
the Patricians (who, it has been mentioned, make up a much larger percentage
of our population than they did in Roma Antiqua). In fact, plebiscitum could
be passed in the CPlT as a sort of "test", prior to being acted by the
Comitia Populi...
> > Next the procedures for an intercessio. The right of a single tribune
> > to call an intercessio did not come until 394 BCE. Prior to this date
> > it was decided by a majority of the Tribunes! From Smith's
>
> This is interesting. I'll have to pay close attention to those passages
from
> Livius while I'm re-reading him.
I'm at work and unable to check any sources. If someone can do so during the
day, I would appreciate seeing them posted here. Announcing intercessio by a
majority of the Tribunes would be an acceptable solution to me.
> > I Would suggest that we return to this older model, as it fits our
> > needs better. I suggest that a Tribune's Veto halt an action for a
> > period of time, say three days. If two of the remaing four Tribunes
> > Concur during that three day period then an intercessio will be in
> > place. This could also be reversed for a slightlty stronger indiviual
> > intercessio, that three of the remaining four would have to state that
> > they do NOT concur.
>
> I would much prefer either of these two options to the current situation.
I
> also very much like having a veto halt an action for a period to allow
other
> tribuni a chance to agree or disagree with a given veto. As it stands,
both
> tribuni must issue intercessio within 72 hours of the issuance of an
edictum.
> If the tribuni do not check their mail every day, it is quite possible for
them
> to agree but fail to veto an action on technical grounds. And, the entire
> office is paralyzed if one tribunus is dealing with family problems or is
> otherwise preoccupied. For this last reason, I suggest that we adopt the
> second of your options, requiring tribuni to actively disagree with a veto
if
> they want to interfere with it.
If I may, that is really a matter for the accompanying lex which would
describe the mechanism by which intercessio is issued (as opposed to the
Constitutional amendment itself). Perhaps a separate thread for that subject
would be appropriate?
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] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:45:47 -0400 |
|
Flavius Vedius Germanicus novaromanis S.P.D.
Here is a second draft of the proposed Constitutional Amendment. I've
changed the number of tribunes from 6 to 5 (which is apparently a more
historical number according to the OCD) and allowed for the Tribunes to veto
each others' actions (which was an oversight in the current Constitution
which does need to be corrected in any case).
-----
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). Five 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 (intercession; a veto) 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 lex
] passed by Comitia.
] b. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against
] another Tribune;
] c. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other
] magistrates, except as described in paragraphs IV.A.7.a.
] and IV.A.7.b. above;
] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof;
] e. To call the comitia plebis tributa to order;
] f. To administer the law;
] g. 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.
-----
As always, comments are always welcome.
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] Re: Virtual temple |
| From: |
"Sokarus Apollonius Callias" <hadescallias@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:48:18 +0200 |
|
hi, i worship a group of Gods called the Titans. on my site i'm putting all available information about them online but i can't find all the info required. prayers i can find but help will be grateful. Are there priesthood for these deities? because you can sign me up for it.i'm an artist in training and i want to use it for my religion.
[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] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:12:11 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve Consul,
> ] a. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against
> ] the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception
> ] of the dictator and the interrex),
I think it should also be explicitly stated that the calling of the
Senate to vote on the appointment of a dictator or interrex or to pass
the Senatus Consultum Ultimum also cannot be vetoed. It must be made
clear that no part of that emergency procedure can be interfered with.
> ] Senatus consulta, and
> ] leges passed by the comitia when they feel that the
> ] spirit and/or letter of this Constitution or ...
"feel" is vague and can lead to abuse; anyone can claim to "feel" something
without justification. I suggest that this word be changed to
"can logically demonstrate", "can justify by legal argument" or
some similar words.
> ] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> ] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof;
This is a good opportunity to settle a debate from a few months ago,
if you add "except where a topic or proposal has been designated
secret or confidential by the Consuls".
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:36:09 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:12 AM
>
> > ] a. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against
> > ] the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception
> > ] of the dictator and the interrex),
>
> I think it should also be explicitly stated that the calling of the
> Senate to vote on the appointment of a dictator or interrex or to pass
> the Senatus Consultum Ultimum also cannot be vetoed. It must be made
> clear that no part of that emergency procedure can be interfered with.
I disagree. If someone were to (for example) break the rules regarding a
Senate vote in order to force through a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, I would
think that would be exactly the sort of thing we'd _want_ the Tribunes to
act against. If such a thing were done within the boundaries of the law and
Constitution, the Tribunes would be unable to legally act in any event.
> > ] Senatus consulta, and
> > ] leges passed by the comitia when they feel that the
> > ] spirit and/or letter of this Constitution or ...
>
> "feel" is vague and can lead to abuse; anyone can claim to "feel"
> something
> without justification. I suggest that this word be changed to
> "can logically demonstrate", "can justify by legal argument" or
> some similar words.
Ah, but to whom would they have to "logically demonstrate" or "justify by
legal argument" their actions? The People? The Senate? The magistrate
they're vetoing? Their fellow Tribunes? The current proposal says the
latter, by default. A break is already built into the system as presented;
if, as you suggest, a Tribune were to veto something based on an unjustified
feeling, one of their fellow Tribunes would simply nullify the veto. That
would be the subject of an interal discussion amongst the Tribunes, as the
one justified his actions to the questions of the others. I don't see any
reason to formalize that sort of process, at least not until some abuses are
demonstrated.
> > ] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> > ] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof;
>
> This is a good opportunity to settle a debate from a few months ago,
> if you add "except where a topic or proposal has been designated
> secret or confidential by the Consuls".
Personally, speaking as Consul myself, I don't want to see the Consuls given
this power. It is simply too open to abuse. I can just see some future
Consul saying "Everything is confidential" and thus stripping the Tribunes
of an important responsibility (and the People of an important resource). I
would be open to something like:
] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof,
] subject to rules of confidentiality as enacted by Senatus
] Consultum.
Thus explicitly allowing the Senate to set its own rules to determine what
is, or can be declared, confidential.
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: |
Re: [novaroma] Staff Openings |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:06:21 -0700 (PDT) |
|
I would like to work on this project.
Gauis Geminius Germanus
--- jmath669642reng@-------- wrote:
> 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
>
>
__________________________________________________
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] Re: Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:07:51 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------[mailto:hu----------------]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:12 AM
> >
SNIP
> > > ] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> > > ] citizens informed as to the content and progress
thereof;
> >
> > This is a good opportunity to settle a debate from a few months
ago,
> > if you add "except where a topic or proposal has been designated
> > secret or confidential by the Consuls".
>
> Personally, speaking as Consul myself, I don't want to see the
Consuls given
> this power. It is simply too open to abuse. I can just see some
future
> Consul saying "Everything is confidential" and thus stripping the
Tribunes
> of an important responsibility (and the People of an important
resource). I
> would be open to something like:
>
> ] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> ] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof,
> ] subject to rules of confidentiality as enacted by Senatus
> ] Consultum.
>
> Thus explicitly allowing the Senate to set its own rules to
determine what
> is, or can be declared, confidential.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
Salve,
In Antiquita when the Senatus met in a confidential secession any
citizen walking by the Curia could see the closed doors, and know the
Senate was debating a confidential matter. I think it would be a good
idea to insure that the Tribunes allways have the right to report
that the Senatus is holding a confidential secession. That way the
Senatus will bring attention to itself if it attempts to hold too
many closed door meetings.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:19:48 +0200 |
|
Salve Illustrus Senator and Consul Flavius Vedius Germanicus et Salvete Omnes!
I support these opinions (below) by both the Senior Consul and the
Illustrus Senator and Tribunus Plebis Titus Labienus Fortunatus and
Honorable Lucius Sicinius Drusus. But I fail to see this change in the new
version of the Lex poroposal by the Senior Consul.
I feel that we solve some probems, simplifie the the process and guarentee
the effectiveness of the office of tribunes by the rule of announcing
intercessio by a majority of the Tribunes.
I also would like to know if it is the meaning of all that the Comitia
Plebis Tributa shall have unrestricted legislation rights? Honorable Gnaeus
Salix Astur made the suggestion:
>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.
I think that this is a good suggestion and it also is a historically
correct solution during a period of the Res Publica.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 4:34 AM
>
>> > Next the procedures for an intercessio. The right of a single tribune
>> > to call an intercessio did not come until 394 BCE. Prior to this date
>> > it was decided by a majority of the Tribunes! From Smith's
>>
>> This is interesting. I'll have to pay close attention to those passages
>from
>> Livius while I'm re-reading him.
>
>I'm at work and unable to check any sources. If someone can do so during the
>day, I would appreciate seeing them posted here. Announcing intercessio by a
>majority of the Tribunes would be an acceptable solution to me.
>
>Vale,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Consul
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://www.acc.umu.se/~kerish/novaroma/main.html
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:31:28 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > Part of the problem is Patricians are a FAR larger percentage of
our
> > population than they ever were in Antiquita where they were only
a few
> > families in a large city.
>
> Yes. Roughly a third of our population is patrician.
>
> > The result is a Plebian assembly that is more undemocratic than
the
> > ancient assembly, at least as far as the 31 Rural tribes are
> > concerned. In Antiquita the small number of Patricians wouldn't
have
> > made a differance in most votes. In Nova Roma thier votes would
make
> > a differance.
>
> It is for exactly that reason that I haven't used the CPlT to
promulgate
> plebiscita (one plebiscitum, many plebiscita), rather than any ill
will on the
> part of the ordo patricius. The ancient tribuni were the
representatives of
> the democratic portion of the ancient Republic, and it seems
contrary to that
> role to enact leges through a venue which excludes a full third of
the
> population.
>
> > Limit the Plebian assembly to being an elective body only, and
make up
> > for this by giving the Tribunes the power to enact leges through
the
> > Comitia Populi Tributa.
>
> I like this suggestion a lot, though I expect that some here will
consider it
> too much of a departure from historical practice.
>
Salve,
I purpose it as a remidy for another departure from historical
practice, a Patrician order that is way too large a percentage of our
population to allow a historical CPlT to function without being
undemocratic.
I have seen some sugestions that Patricians be allowed to vote in the
CPlT, but that would in effect create two CPTs. At least this idea
preserves a more historic if weaker version of the CPlT, and gives
the Tribunes the same legslative powers they had in Antiquita.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:49:49 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve
SNIP
>
> I'm at work and unable to check any sources. If someone can do so
during the
> day, I would appreciate seeing them posted here. Announcing
intercessio by a
> majority of the Tribunes would be an acceptable solution to me.
>
I'm also at work, and away from my Bookmarks.
I did find the Article that I cited however.
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/s
econdary/SMIGRA*/Tribunus.html
It contains links to many of the ancient doccuments, however they are
in the original Latin.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Intercessio Lex |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:08:11 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve
>
SNIP
>
> > > I Would suggest that we return to this older model, as it fits
our
> > > needs better. I suggest that a Tribune's Veto halt an action
for a
> > > period of time, say three days. If two of the remaing four
Tribunes
> > > Concur during that three day period then an intercessio will be
in
> > > place. This could also be reversed for a slightlty stronger
indiviual
> > > intercessio, that three of the remaining four would have to
state that
> > > they do NOT concur.
> >
> > I would much prefer either of these two options to the current
situation.
> I
> > also very much like having a veto halt an action for a period to
allow
> other
> > tribuni a chance to agree or disagree with a given veto. As it
stands,
> both
> > tribuni must issue intercessio within 72 hours of the issuance of
an
> edictum.
> > If the tribuni do not check their mail every day, it is quite
possible for
> them
> > to agree but fail to veto an action on technical grounds. And,
the entire
> > office is paralyzed if one tribunus is dealing with family
problems or is
> > otherwise preoccupied. For this last reason, I suggest that we
adopt the
> > second of your options, requiring tribuni to actively disagree
with a veto
> if
> > they want to interfere with it.
>
> If I may, that is really a matter for the accompanying lex which
would
> describe the mechanism by which intercessio is issued (as opposed
to the
> Constitutional amendment itself). Perhaps a separate thread for
that subject
> would be appropriate?
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
Salvete,
An excellent idea Flavius Vedius, here is the new thread.
Another idea we may wish to look at for an intercessio is that it
require a majority of the tribunes posting within a 72 hour peroid
agree. For example a single Tribune's Veto would stand if no other
Tribune opposed it within 72 hours. If one Tribune opposed it, then
it would be split 1 to 1, and the Veto would fail. If three Tribunes
spoke out two in favor and one opposed then the intercessio would be
in effect. The same could hold for any given number, with a tie
allways being decided as a failed intercessio.
I do think that it's important that an intercessio by a single
Tribune halt the action for 72 hours to give the other Tribunes a
chance to concur or defeat the intercessio.
Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:34:13 -0700 |
|
Ave,
I completely agree with the recommendations that Senator M. Octavius
would like changed.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve Consul,
>
> > ] a. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against
> > ] the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception
> > ] of the dictator and the interrex),
>
> I think it should also be explicitly stated that the calling of the
> Senate to vote on the appointment of a dictator or interrex or to pass
> the Senatus Consultum Ultimum also cannot be vetoed. It must be made
> clear that no part of that emergency procedure can be interfered with.
>
> > ] Senatus consulta, and
> > ] leges passed by the comitia when they feel that the
> > ] spirit and/or letter of this Constitution or ...
>
> "feel" is vague and can lead to abuse; anyone can claim to "feel"
> something
> without justification. I suggest that this word be changed to
> "can logically demonstrate", "can justify by legal argument" or
> some similar words.
>
> > ] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> > ] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof;
>
> This is a good opportunity to settle a debate from a few months ago,
> if you add "except where a topic or proposal has been designated
> secret or confidential by the Consuls".
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Check out great fares at Orbitz!]
>
>
> 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: |
[novaroma] Reenacting Book |
| From: |
CW2ShaneEvans@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:46:58 EDT |
|
Salve Romans!
I am presently writing a book on reenacting from ancient times to Vietnam.
I would like to ask for donations of good and bad experiences you have had
doing Roman and other ancient eras, as well as pics of collections wether it
be uniforms and equipment of legionaires, robes and gowns of civilians, or
tents and other odds and ends. I am also looking for pics of legionary
reenactors on the field, soldiers and civilians in camp, and collections on
display. Please send everything to me directly, so we do not clog up the
information highway anymore than it already is.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:25:03 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> I'm at work and unable to check any sources. If someone can do so during the
> day, I would appreciate seeing them posted here. Announcing intercessio by a
> majority of the Tribunes would be an acceptable solution to me.
I can provide the appropriate passage in Livius. These are excerpts, as much
of the text did not seem germane. I suggest looking at the full text when you
have the opportunity, in case I missed something.
__________
Liv. ii.43, 44:
This was not spontaneous on their part; Sp. Licinius, one of their tribunes,
thinking that it was a good time for forcing the Agrarian Law upon the senate
through sheer necessity, had taken upon him the obstruction of the levy. All
the odium, however, aroused by this misuse of the tribunitian power recoiled
upon the author, his own colleagues were as much opposed to him as the consuls;
through their assistance the consuls completed the enrolment.
Liv. ii.44:
This year also found a tribune advocating the Agrarian Law. It was Tiberius
Pontificius. He adopted the same course as Sp. Licinius and for a short time
stopped the enrolment. The senate were again perturbed, but Appius Claudius
told them that the power of the tribunes had been overcome in the previous
year, it was actually so at the present moment, and the precedent thus set
would govern the future, since it had been discovered that its very strength
was breaking it down. For there would never be wanting a tribune who would be
glad to triumph over his colleague and secure the favour of the better party
for the good of the State. If more were needed, more were ready to come to the
assistance of the consuls, even one was sufficient, against the rest. The
consuls and leaders of the senate had only to take the trouble to secure, if
not all, at least some of the tribunes on the side of the commonwealth and the
senate.
Liv. iv.42:
At the very beginning of the year, L. Hortensius, a tribune of the plebs,
appointed a day for the trial of C. Sempronius, the consul of the previous
year. His four colleagues begged him, publicly, in full view of the Roman
people, not to prosecute their unoffending commander, against whom nothing but
ill-luck could be alleged. Hortensius was angry, for he looked upon this as an
attempt to test his resolution, he regarded the entreaties of the tribunes as
meant simply to save appearances, and he was convinced that it was not to these
the consul was trusting, but to their interposing their veto. Turning to
Sempronius he asked: 'Where is your patrician spirit, and the courage which is
supported by the consciousness of innocence? An ex-consul actually sheltering
under the wing of the tribunes!' Then he addressed his colleagues: 'You, what
will you do, if I carry the prosecution through? Are you going to deprive the
people of their jurisdiction and subvert the power of the tribunes?' They
replied that the authority of the people was supreme over Sempronius and over
everybody else; they had neither the will nor the power to do away with the
people's right to judge, but if their entreaties on behalf of their commander,
who was a second father to them, proved unavailing, they would appear by his
side in suppliant garb. Then Hortensius replied: 'The Roman plebs shall not see
its tribunes in mourning; I drop all proceedings against C. Sempronius, since
he has succeeded, during his command, in becoming so dear to his soldiers.'
Both plebeians and patricians were pleased with the loyal affection of the four
tribunes, and quite as much so with the way in which Hortensius had yielded to
their just remonstrances.
Liv iv.48:
The fomenters of the disturbance were Sp. Maecilius, who was tribune of the
plebs for the fourth time, and M. Metilius, tribune for the third time; both
had been elected in their absence. They brought forward a measure providing
that the territory taken from an enemy should be assigned to individual owners.
If this were passed the fortunes of a large number of the nobility would be
confiscated. For as the City itself was founded upon foreign soil, it possessed
hardly any territory which had not been won by arms, or which had become
private property by sale or assignment beyond what the plebeians possessed.
There seemed every prospect of a bitter conflict between the plebs and the
patricians. The consular tribunes, after discussing the matter in the senate
and in private gatherings of patricians, were at a loss what to do, when Appius
Claudius, the grandson of the old decemvir and the youngest senator present,
rose to speak. He is represented as saying that he was bringing from home an
old device well known to his house. His grandfather, Appius Claudius, had
pointed out to the senate the only way of breaking down the power of the
tribunes, namely, through the interposition of their colleagues' veto. Men who
had risen from the masses were easily induced to change their opinions by the
personal authority of the leaders of the State if only they were addressed in
language suitable to the occasion rather than to the rank of the speaker. Their
feelings changed with their fortunes. When they saw that those of their
colleagues who were the first to propose any measure took the whole credit of
it with the plebs and left no place for them, they would feel no hesitation in
coming over to the cause of the senate, and so win the favour not only of the
leaders but of the whole order.
His views met with universal approval; Q. Servilius Priscus was the first to
congratulate the youth on his not having degenerated from the old Claudian
stock. The leaders of the senate were charged to persuade as many tribunes as
they could to interpose their veto. After the close of the sitting they
canvassed the tribunes. By the use of persuasion, warning, and promises, they
showed how acceptable that action would be to them individually and to the
whole senate. They succeeded in bringing over six.
The next day, in accordance with a previous understanding, the attention of the
senate was drawn to the agitation which Maecilius and Metilius were causing by
proposing a bribe of the worst possible type. Speeches were delivered by the
leaders of the senate, each in turn declaring that he was unable to suggest any
course of action, and saw no other resource but the assistance of the tribunes.
To the protection of that power the State in its embarrassment, like a private
citizen in his helplessness, fled for succour. It was the glory of the tribunes
and of the authority they wielded that they possessed as much strength to
withstand evil-minded colleagues as to harass the senate and create dissension
between the two orders. Cheers arose from the whole senate and the tribunes
were appealed to from every quarter of the House. When silence was restored,
those tribunes who had been won over made it clear that since the senate was of
opinion that the proposed measure tended to the break-up of the republic, they
should interpose their veto on it. They were formally thanked by the senate.
Liv. v.25:
This discussion was attended by disgraceful quarrels, for the senate had drawn
over a section of the tribunes of the plebs to their view, and the only thing
that restrained the plebeians from offering personal violence was the use which
the patricians made of their personal influence.
Liv. v.29:
At the beginning of the year, as none of their college was disposed to
interpose his veto, the tribunes were combined in a determined effort to carry
their measure [a land reform bill, with nothing to do with the tribunician
veto], while the consuls, for the same reason, offered a no less strenuous
resistance.
__________
While I am certainly no special authority on Roman history, it seems to me that
none of the above necessarily points to the tribuni having to collegially agree
upon a veto, though there is ample implication to make an argument for it. If
we choose to go this route, it does appear that the tribuni did not have to
specifically agree on a veto, but rather simply had not to disagree explicitly.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:30:44 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 1:34 PM
>
> I completely agree with the recommendations that Senator M. Octavius
> would like changed.
So, just to clarify, you want:
1) To forbid the Tribunes from pronouncing Intercessio on a Senatus
Consultum Ultimum or vote on appointing a Dictator, even if the procedures
being followed are legally or Constitutionally flawed;
2) To require some sort of formal presentation of legal argument before an
unnamed body, complete with the opportunity for refutation and
counter-argument, with no process of appeal, all to take place within the 72
hour time period currently allowed for tribunicial intercessio;
3) To allow the Consuls to have the power to arbitarily and utterly
eliminate the power of the Tribunes to exercise their Constitutional duty to
report the business of the Senate, whenever it suits them, with no
justification required whatsoever.
Just checking.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul (but feeling more and more like a Tribunis Plebis myself, lately!)
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] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:34:46 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus [mailto:tjalens.h@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:20 PM
>
> I support these opinions (below) by both the Senior Consul and the
> Illustrus Senator and Tribunus Plebis Titus Labienus Fortunatus and
> Honorable Lucius Sicinius Drusus. But I fail to see this change in the new
> version of the Lex poroposal by the Senior Consul.
>
> I feel that we solve some probems, simplifie the the process and guarentee
> the effectiveness of the office of tribunes by the rule of announcing
> intercessio by a majority of the Tribunes.
Until and unless I see some sources on the subject, I'm not going to include
it in the proposal. Personally, I don't see the need for a majority such as
has been described (I feel individual intercessio will work just fine), but
I'm open to hearing more about it.
> I also would like to know if it is the meaning of all that the Comitia
> Plebis Tributa shall have unrestricted legislation rights?
Ummm... it already does.
> Honorable Gnaeus
> Salix Astur made the suggestion:
>
> >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.
>
> I think that this is a good suggestion and it also is a historically
> correct solution during a period of the Res Publica.
Requiring the Senate to ratify every law passed by the Comitia (which is
what's being discussed, unless I'm mistaken) would be a HUGE change to the
way laws are passed, and very far beyond the question of the role of the
Tribunes, which is currently being discussed.
I also disagree that no intercessio should be able to be called while the
Comitia is in session. What if the original call to order was itself
illegally executed? The Tribunes must be allowed to act...
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: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:37:12 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus [mailto:lsicinius@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:08 PM
>
> I think it would be a good
> idea to insure that the Tribunes allways have the right to report
> that the Senatus is holding a confidential secession. That way the
> Senatus will bring attention to itself if it attempts to hold too
> many closed door meetings.
I'd shy away from the tendency to see sinister conspiracies whenever the
Senate has to discuss a confidential matter, but this does seem a reasonable
thing, and something to be remembered when the subject of Senate
confidentiality comes up again.
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: |
Re: [novaroma] Reporting on the Senate (was Re: Changing...) |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:44:51 US/Central |
|
Salvete L Sicini Quiritesque
> In Antiquita when the Senatus met in a confidential secession any
> citizen walking by the Curia could see the closed doors, and know the
> Senate was debating a confidential matter. I think it would be a good
> idea to insure that the Tribunes allways have the right to report
> that the Senatus is holding a confidential secession. That way the
> Senatus will bring attention to itself if it attempts to hold too
> many closed door meetings.
In antiquity, the Senate had to assemble physically in order to meet. In Nova
Roma, the Senate is, essentially, in a perpetually ongoing (though sporadically
inactive), closed door meeting due to the nature of e-mail. Currently, the
understanding is that only those formal discussions which are officially called
according to the Senate's rules of procedure shall be reported to the people by
the tribuni. All other, informal, discussions are assumed to be private.
To date, I have seen only one issue that has arisen in unofficial discussions
about which I felt that the people probably had a right to know. Perhaps
fortunately, Q Sertorius announced the subject of that discussion (the state of
Britannia provincia) before he was aware of the Senate's preferred policy,
thereby relieving me of a difficult choice.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:49:05 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 9:25 AM
>
> While I am certainly no special authority on Roman history, it seems to me
that
> none of the above necessarily points to the tribuni having to collegially
agree
> upon a veto, though there is ample implication to make an argument for it.
If
> we choose to go this route, it does appear that the tribuni did not have
to
> specifically agree on a veto, but rather simply had not to disagree
explicitly.
I agree. Indeed, one of the passages you quoted seems to specifically
support the view that a single Tribune could "bollux the works" by
nullifying a tribunicial intercessio:
> For there would never be wanting a tribune who would be
> glad to triumph over his colleague and secure the favour of the better
party
> for the good of the State. If more were needed, more were ready to come to
the
> assistance of the consuls, even one was sufficient, against the rest.
The "If more were needed" seems simply to represent the desire to look good,
with a number of tribunes supporting the nullification, as opposed to simply
having a single obstinant tribune blocking the will of the others; this
could also have something to do with the previously-discussed method of
getting rid of a recalcitrant tribune; the Patricians weren't the only
people who could lop off a head, you know... I think we should start looking
away from the majority-of-Tribunes idea, and back to the original proposal
(or rather, the new draft). That is:
* Any tribune can pronounce intercessio
* Any other tribune, even one, can deny it
* Lack of nullification represents tacit approval of the intercessio
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: |
RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:51:00 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> The "If more were needed" seems simply to represent the desire to look good,
> with a number of tribunes supporting the nullification, as opposed to simply
> having a single obstinant tribune blocking the will of the others; this
> could also have something to do with the previously-discussed method of
> getting rid of a recalcitrant tribune; the Patricians weren't the only
> people who could lop off a head, you know...
Yes. It is also possible that the lone tribunus in the pocket of the Senate
might lose heart, be prevented from reaching the rostra by the crowd, not be at
the forum at the time, &c.
> I think we should start looking
> away from the majority-of-Tribunes idea, and back to the original proposal
> (or rather, the new draft). That is:
>
> * Any tribune can pronounce intercessio
> * Any other tribune, even one, can deny it
> * Lack of nullification represents tacit approval of the intercessio
I tend to agree.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:55:12 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve Consul,
> 1) To forbid the Tribunes from pronouncing Intercessio on a Senatus
> Consultum Ultimum or vote on appointing a Dictator, even if the procedures
> being followed are legally or Constitutionally flawed;
Yes. Let the Senators who vote on whether to enact the SCU or appoint
a dictator be the ones to decide, with their votes, whether the proposal
to do such is legitimate.
These measures are both a last resort, to be used in the event of a grave
emergency that threatens the state. In my opinion, this "ultimate" act
should be in the hands of the Senate.
The tribune Saturninus was not able to perform a veto when Gaius Marius
was given power under the Senatus Consultum Ultimum, was he?
> 2) To require some sort of formal presentation of legal argument before an
> unnamed body, complete with the opportunity for refutation and
> counter-argument, with no process of appeal, all to take place within the 72
> hour time period currently allowed for tribunicial intercessio;
What you describe above was nowhere to be found in my suggestion. Absoultely
no mention was made of any "unnamed body", or refutation, or counter-argument.
Rather, I am merely asking that the Tribune's veto be accompanied by some
sort of logical statement as to why he is exercising that veto, rather than
just the vague and meaningless "I feel". It is up to his fellow Tribunes
to decide whether the initial Tribune's reason for issuing the veto was
legally sound. They would be expected to nullify the veto if the
original Tribune's reasoning was flawed.
Changing "feel" to "can logically demonstrate that" does nothing like
what you have been describing. It is still the fellow Tribunes who will
make the final decision; but with my change in effect they are obligated
to judge their colleague by a more objective standard.
> 3) To allow the Consuls to have the power to arbitarily and utterly
> eliminate the power of the Tribunes to exercise their Constitutional duty to
> report the business of the Senate, whenever it suits them, with no
> justification required whatsoever.
No. But having no restrictions whatsoever on the Tribune's right to report
on Senate business is guaranteed to lead to disaster. It already has; in
March of this year, Tribune Piscinus (allegedly) told Propraetrix
Livia Marcia that questions had been raised in the Senate about her loyalty.
When the other friends of Livia defended this action in the Senate,
it eventually led to a mass resignation.
If the entire Senate has to vote to make something confidential, then
that power is as good as useless - since it takes several days for the
Senate to vote on anything, the Tribunes might simply report on it
before that vote is concluded. I suggested the Consuls be the ones
to have this power because they can act quickly and decisively without
waiting for a vote. I can see that you think this is too much power
for the Consuls to have; I welcome any alternative solution that would
prevent further crises like the one we had recently.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:03:32 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Once again, I stand by the recommendations of Senator M. Octavius. I
agree with his responses 100%.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve Consul,
>
> > 1) To forbid the Tribunes from pronouncing Intercessio on a Senatus
> > Consultum Ultimum or vote on appointing a Dictator, even if the
> procedures
> > being followed are legally or Constitutionally flawed;
>
> Yes. Let the Senators who vote on whether to enact the SCU or appoint
>
> a dictator be the ones to decide, with their votes, whether the
> proposal
> to do such is legitimate.
>
> These measures are both a last resort, to be used in the event of a
> grave
> emergency that threatens the state. In my opinion, this "ultimate"
> act
> should be in the hands of the Senate.
>
> The tribune Saturninus was not able to perform a veto when Gaius
> Marius
> was given power under the Senatus Consultum Ultimum, was he?
>
> > 2) To require some sort of formal presentation of legal argument
> before an
> > unnamed body, complete with the opportunity for refutation and
> > counter-argument, with no process of appeal, all to take place
> within the 72
> > hour time period currently allowed for tribunicial intercessio;
>
> What you describe above was nowhere to be found in my suggestion.
> Absoultely
> no mention was made of any "unnamed body", or refutation, or
> counter-argument.
>
> Rather, I am merely asking that the Tribune's veto be accompanied by
> some
> sort of logical statement as to why he is exercising that veto,
> rather than
> just the vague and meaningless "I feel". It is up to his fellow
> Tribunes
> to decide whether the initial Tribune's reason for issuing the veto
> was
> legally sound. They would be expected to nullify the veto if the
> original Tribune's reasoning was flawed.
>
> Changing "feel" to "can logically demonstrate that" does nothing like
> what you have been describing. It is still the fellow Tribunes who
> will
> make the final decision; but with my change in effect they are
> obligated
> to judge their colleague by a more objective standard.
>
> > 3) To allow the Consuls to have the power to arbitarily and utterly
> > eliminate the power of the Tribunes to exercise their Constitutional
> duty to
> > report the business of the Senate, whenever it suits them, with no
> > justification required whatsoever.
>
> No. But having no restrictions whatsoever on the Tribune's right to
> report
> on Senate business is guaranteed to lead to disaster. It already has;
> in
> March of this year, Tribune Piscinus (allegedly) told Propraetrix
> Livia Marcia that questions had been raised in the Senate about her
> loyalty.
> When the other friends of Livia defended this action in the Senate,
> it eventually led to a mass resignation.
>
> If the entire Senate has to vote to make something confidential, then
> that power is as good as useless - since it takes several days for the
> Senate to vote on anything, the Tribunes might simply report on it
> before that vote is concluded. I suggested the Consuls be the ones
> to have this power because they can act quickly and decisively without
> waiting for a vote. I can see that you think this is too much power
> for the Consuls to have; I welcome any alternative solution that would
> prevent further crises like the one we had recently.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Check out great fares at Orbitz!]
>
>
> 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 (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:39:48 US/Central |
|
Salvete M Octavi omnesque
> No. But having no restrictions whatsoever on the Tribune's right to report
> on Senate business is guaranteed to lead to disaster. It already has; in
> March of this year, Tribune Piscinus (allegedly) told Propraetrix
> Livia Marcia that questions had been raised in the Senate about her loyalty.
> When the other friends of Livia defended this action in the Senate,
> it eventually led to a mass resignation.
The only thing which would have prevented that, and which would prevent it in
the future, would be to exclude the tribuni from the Senate list, which is
clearly unacceptable. And, the action you mention above could easily have been
made by any one of a number of Senatores. The change you request would not
make any difference to them, even if it made a difference to the tribuni.
> If the entire Senate has to vote to make something confidential, then
> that power is as good as useless - since it takes several days for the
> Senate to vote on anything, the Tribunes might simply report on it
> before that vote is concluded.
The consul was suggesting having the Senate vote on specific rules which would
apply to all cases in a single senatusconsultum, as opposed to having the
Senate vote on each individual issue. Personally, I still don't like this, as
it leaves the job of policing the Senate to the Senate. The tribuni of old
reported on the Senate's deliberations precisely so the people could know what
the Senate was up to. Considering the tone of the debate the last time this
came up in the Senate, I can easily foresee a senatusconsultum forbidding
tribuni from informing the populace about any matter that the Senate did not
specifically ask them to announce.
> I suggested the Consuls be the ones
> to have this power because they can act quickly and decisively without
> waiting for a vote. I can see that you think this is too much power
> for the Consuls to have; I welcome any alternative solution that would
> prevent further crises like the one we had recently.
Currently the constitution gives tribuni the power "To be privy to the debates
of the Senate, and keep the citizens informed as to the content and progress
thereof." Perhaps 'citizens' could be changed to 'populace' to represent the
fact that the tribuni are responsible for informing *the people*, as opposed to
informing *some people*. I will give it some thought, but I remain convinced
that the tribuni must be allowed to use their conscience and the public
interest as a guide when reporting on the Senate's affairs.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:56:08 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve Tite Labiene,
> And, the action you mention above could easily have been
> made by any one of a number of Senatores. The change you request would not
> make any difference to them, even if it made a difference to the tribuni.
Yes, but we already have methods for dealing with a naughty Senator; the
Censores can use a nota to remove him from the Senate, or other Senators
can vote on some sort of reprimand. The Tribunes much better protected
from punishment than Senators are right now.
> Considering the tone of the debate the last time this
> came up in the Senate, I can easily foresee a senatusconsultum forbidding
> tribuni from informing the populace about any matter that the Senate did not
> specifically ask them to announce.
I was one of the harshest critics of the Senate informer in that case -
I used the word "traitor" several times - but wouldn't vote for the SC you
describe above.
> I will give it some thought, but I remain convinced
> that the tribuni must be allowed to use their conscience and the public
> interest as a guide when reporting on the Senate's affairs.
One tribune might decide that his path to popularity would be to report
on everything the Senate discusses, no matter how sensitive, immediately.
By doing so he'd be removing this power from his fellow Tribunes - they
wouldn't have the ability to make an intelligent decision about whether
to report on a given matter, because it would have already been done by
their mischevious colleague.
If we establish some sort of criteria now for what the Tribunes can
report, and make it a part of this lex, then the decision would be a
decision of the people as a whole. If this doesn't happen -- if the
power is given to either the Tribunes or the Senate -- then we could
be faced with either of the situations described here: a Senate voting
to muzzle a tribune, or a tribune who regularly and with impunity
defies Senatorial requests for privacy. Neither of these are desirable.
Let us not give the power to decide what is private entirely to either
of the two parties involved; let the people decide by voting on a Lex.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:45:31 -0500 |
|
Salve Marce Octavi
> Yes, but we already have methods for dealing with a naughty Senator;
> the Censores can use a nota to remove him from the Senate, or other
> Senators can vote on some sort of reprimand. The Tribunes much
> better protected from punishment than Senators are right now.
Yes, though the use of such punishments relies upon knowing who leaked
the information. It is an incredibly simple matter to lie in e-mail,
and it is quite unlikely that the guilty party would confess unless he
or she were attempting to make a point. Both tribuni and Senatores are
fairly effectively protected by this. And, the censores are quite
capable of issuing notae against tribuni. While such an action would
not bar them from the Senate, and while I hope that it would be used
judiciously and rarely, it would certainly be an effective punishment.
> I was one of the harshest critics of the Senate informer in that
> case - I used the word "traitor" several times - but wouldn't vote
> for the SC you describe above.
By "tone of the debate the last time..." I was actually referring to the
last official debate on the subject, and not to the round of accusations
and rhetoric that followed the case you mentioned.
> Let us not give the power to decide what is private entirely to either
> of the two parties involved; let the people decide by voting on a Lex.
I agree with this, actually. However, I would prefer not to enshrine
such a code in the constitution. I agree with Consul Vedius when he
says that the constitution should remain fairly succinct, and that
specific definition should be attained through leges, both to keep the
constitution accessible and to allow our government to be flexible. It
is primarily for this reason that I am arguing against adding such
guidelines to the amendment.
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] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:54:13 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 2:55 PM
>
> > 1) To forbid the Tribunes from pronouncing Intercessio on a Senatus
> > Consultum Ultimum or vote on appointing a Dictator, even if the
procedures
> > being followed are legally or Constitutionally flawed;
>
> Yes. Let the Senators who vote on whether to enact the SCU or appoint
> a dictator be the ones to decide, with their votes, whether the proposal
> to do such is legitimate.
>
> These measures are both a last resort, to be used in the event of a grave
> emergency that threatens the state. In my opinion, this "ultimate" act
> should be in the hands of the Senate.
>
> The tribune Saturninus was not able to perform a veto when Gaius Marius
> was given power under the Senatus Consultum Ultimum, was he?
You seem to mistake the vote to impose the Senatus Consultum Ultimum with
the actions undertaken once it is in effect. Your original suggestion would
prevent the Tribunes from acting if the vote itself was flawed. For example:
Consul X gets three croneys in the Senate together and conducts a secret
private vote declaring the Senatus Consultum Ultimum. Once it is announced,
a tribune pronounces intercessio, on the grounds that the vote itself
violated the rules of the Senate. Under your suggestion, the tribune
couldn't do that, because he is banned from touching anything to do with the
SCU. I think he should be able to; indeed, that would seem to me to be the
primary reason for having them in the first place; to act against gross
abuses of power. Your suggestion that the Senate itself would be able to
police itself breaks down in the above scenario as well; in order to act the
Senate must be called to order by... the Consul! (And Consul X could always
veto any attempt of Consul Y to do so.)
It is necessary to have some relatively independent agency watching such
things. In our case, that is the function of the Tribunes.
> Rather, I am merely asking that the Tribune's veto be accompanied by some
> sort of logical statement as to why he is exercising that veto, rather
than
> just the vague and meaningless "I feel". It is up to his fellow Tribunes
> to decide whether the initial Tribune's reason for issuing the veto was
> legally sound. They would be expected to nullify the veto if the
> original Tribune's reasoning was flawed.
Ahhhh... now you answer my question. It is to the tribunes that a
justification must be made (that wasn't clear before). I would think that
such a justification would have to be made anyway, if even informally, to
prevent one of his fellow tribunes from nullifying it.
Nonetheless, this is something, I think, that is better covered in the lex
that would have to describe the procedure for issuing the intercessio
itself. Let a rationalle be required if you like, but I deliberately want to
keep details such as how the veto must be issued, in what venue, how soon,
and what language it must include out of the Constitution. Thus the
requirement of an "enabling law" to provide those details.
> > 3) To allow the Consuls to have the power to arbitarily and utterly
> > eliminate the power of the Tribunes to exercise their Constitutional
duty to
> > report the business of the Senate, whenever it suits them, with no
> > justification required whatsoever.
>
> No. But having no restrictions whatsoever on the Tribune's right to
report
> on Senate business is guaranteed to lead to disaster. It already has; in
> March of this year, Tribune Piscinus (allegedly) told Propraetrix
> Livia Marcia that questions had been raised in the Senate about her
loyalty.
> When the other friends of Livia defended this action in the Senate,
> it eventually led to a mass resignation.
We both know that it might not have been the Tribune who did so. There were
more than a couple candidates from among the ranks of the Senate who could
have been responsible. That's no justification for giving the Consuls so
much power.
> If the entire Senate has to vote to make something confidential, then
> that power is as good as useless - since it takes several days for the
> Senate to vote on anything, the Tribunes might simply report on it
> before that vote is concluded. I suggested the Consuls be the ones
> to have this power because they can act quickly and decisively without
> waiting for a vote. I can see that you think this is too much power
> for the Consuls to have; I welcome any alternative solution that would
> prevent further crises like the one we had recently.
Actually, I was thinking of the Senate passing a general set of guidelines
for what should and should not be treated confidentially. Obviously, that
would be a question for the Senate itself to take up in detail, but I
believe it is possible for such a set of guidelines to be drawn up, giving
broad cases. The question need not be decided on a case-by-case basis as you
suggest.
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: |
RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:03:44 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:56 PM
>
> If we establish some sort of criteria now for what the Tribunes can
> report, and make it a part of this lex, then the decision would be a
> decision of the people as a whole. If this doesn't happen -- if the
> power is given to either the Tribunes or the Senate -- then we could
> be faced with either of the situations described here: a Senate voting
> to muzzle a tribune, or a tribune who regularly and with impunity
> defies Senatorial requests for privacy. Neither of these are desirable.
Nor are either of them likely, given the current state of the amendment
proposal.
> Let us not give the power to decide what is private entirely to either
> of the two parties involved; let the people decide by voting on a Lex.
Actually, that's what my suggestion from earlier today (posted in response
to your initial comments on the second verion) would do. To quote myself:
] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof,
] subject to rules of confidentiality as enacted by Senatus
] Consultum.
If you'll note, it makes reference to "rules of confidentiality", not
necessarily that confidential subjects would be decided on a case-by-case
basis. I believe it would be quite possible for the Senate to come up with a
set of broad categories and scenarios which could describe most such cases
where confidentiality was warranted.
So, the power is indeed given to the Senate, but the rules would be spelled
out in advance. Of course, there's always a need for flexibility, and the
Consuls may indeed need to have the authority to declare (or at least
propose) a topic to be confidential. But that is, I think, a matter for the
Senate itself to discuss, if the above change to the Constitution is
enacted.
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: |
RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV (ver. 2): Tribunes |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:12:47 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve Consul,
> > Let us not give the power to decide what is private entirely to either
> > of the two parties involved; let the people decide by voting on a Lex.
>
> Actually, that's what my suggestion from earlier today (posted in response
> to your initial comments on the second verion) would do. To quote myself:
>
> ] d. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the
> ] citizens informed as to the content and progress thereof,
> ] subject to rules of confidentiality as enacted by Senatus
> ] Consultum.
Not exactly the same; here, you propose making setting the rules of
confidentiality by Senatus Consultum. While I'd be fine with that,
there are many who think this gives too much power to the Senate;
thus it would be more fair to require that these conditions be set
by a Lex.
We have two groups with incompatible desires: the Senate wishes to
have the privacy to discuss confidential matters, and the Tribunes have
a responsibility to the people to report on the Senate's doings. If
either the Senate or the Tribunes is given sole control of determining
what the rules are, they may enact rules extremely favorable to their
side. But, by requiring that it be put to a general vote in the Comitia,
only a law that is fair and balanced would pass.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Gladiator School |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:19:35 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Ladies and Gentlemen of Nova Roma;
I have just been talking to a gentleman by the name of John J. Ebel
better known to those of you who attended "Roman Days" as Maximus, the
Gladiator. He has been so kind as to invite me to an event in
Hempstead, New York (Long Island) at Eisenhower Park on August 4 and 5
of this year, called the "International Cultural Heritage Festival,"
Mr. Ebel and some other gentlemen that I have spoken to indicate that it
is a very nice weekend with a popular "Timeline" and they (the
organizers) are quite anxious, after John showing them pictures of
"Roman Days". to have the XXIVth Legio and the Gladitorial School
attend.
Mr, Ebel has asked me to attend and I have asked him for permission to
extend the invitation to Nova Roma in general, and to the Sodalitas
Militarium, Legio VIth, and the Citizens of the Provincias of Nova
Britannia and MediAtlantica, in particular (due to the nearness of the
event).
He has agreed with enthusiasm, and so I make the following invitations:
--as Praefectus Castorum of the Sodalitas Militarium, I invite all
Militarium Members who are able, to strongly consider attending this
opportunity, for a fun time, and the opportunity to perhaps establish a
second "Roman Days" in a more Northerly Latitude;
--As the Honorary Legate to Legio VIth, I invite the Commander and
membership of the VIth Legio to consider this opportunity. John has
indicated that Roman Soldiers would be more than welcome here;
--As the ProConsul of Nova Britannia, I declare this event to be an
official face-to-face activity of the Provincia, even though the event
itself lies just out of the political boundarie of the Provincia, the
cultural aspects far outweigh the political ones;
--Also as ProConsul, I invite my ProConsular Collegues and Honored
Consuls Germanicus and Julianus to attend and the Honored Germanicus to
issue the invitation to his Provincia if such has not already been done.
Those in Nova Roma who may be interested in this Gala Event may contact
myself for more information regarding Motels and local offerings which
is being currently researched. Mr. John Ebel is currently off-line with
E-Mail due to some mechanical and construction considerations. Maximus,
Gallio and I look forward to seeing as many there as we saw in Roman
Days!!!!!!!
Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
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: |
[novaroma] The Senate, Plebescitum and more |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:27:11 +0200 |
|
Salvete Illustrus Senator and Consul Flavi Vedi Germanice et Omnes!
I found this reference to the sources. We can say this was how it once was
done!
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/S
MIGRA*/Leges_Publiliae.html
Leges Publiliae
Article by George Long, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College
on pp696-697 of
William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London,
1875.
................................................................................
.....................................................................
The meaning of the third Lex is plain enough. Puchta shows or tries
to show that the first Lex
Publilia simply rendered unnecessary the confirmation of a
Plebiscitum by the Comitia
Centuriata; and therefore there remained only the confirmation of
the Senate. Accordingly,
the effect of the first Lex was to make the Comitia Tributa cease to
have merely the initiative
in legislation; henceforth, Plebiscita did not require the
confirmation of a Lex Centuriata, but
only that of the Senate and we may, probably, from this time date
the use of the expression:
"Lex sive id Plebiscitum est."
................................................................................
...............................................................................
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Tribunes decide in college by a majority |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:27:34 +0200 |
|
Salvete Illustrus Senator and Consul Flavi Vedi Germanice et Omnes!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus [mailto:tjalens.h@--------]
>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:20 PM
>>
>> I support these opinions (below) by both the Senior Consul and the
>> Illustrus Senator and Tribunus Plebis Titus Labienus Fortunatus and
>> Honorable Lucius Sicinius Drusus. But I fail to see this change in the new
>> version of the Lex poroposal by the Senior Consul.
>>
>> I feel that we solve some probems, simplifie the the process and guarentee
>> the effectiveness of the office of tribunes by the rule of announcing
>> intercessio by a majority of the Tribunes.
>
>Until and unless I see some sources on the subject, I'm not going to include
>it in the proposal. Personally, I don't see the need for a majority such as
>has been described (I feel individual intercessio will work just fine), but
>I'm open to hearing more about it.
I found this reference to the sources, is it of some help? I would argue
that we take the "majority road".
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/S
MIGRA*/Tribunus.html
>Article by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D., F.R.S.E., Rector of the High School of
>Edinburgh
>on pp1148-1152 of
>
> William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
> A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray,
>London, 1875.
>
>
>...............................................................................
>................................................................................
>..................................................
>...............................................................................
>................................................................................
>...................................................
>Before the year 394 B.C. every thing had been decided in the college by a
>majority (Liv. ii.43, 44; Dionys. ix.1, 2, 41, x.31);
>...............................................................................
>................................................................................
>.....................................................
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
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: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salve, Fortunate.
--- Fortunatus <labienus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > 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.
>
> It appears that I came across as more stridently pedantic than I
> intended. If I may ask without causing further offence, what are
> your
> sources?
I am talking about several history books, but to show you a simple
example, have a look at this:
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Tribunus.html
where you can read: "As regards the number of the tribunes of the
people, all the ancient writers agree (see the passages in Niebuhr, i.
n1356), that at first they we only two, though the accounts differ as
to the names of the first tribunes."
<<snipped>>
> > 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?
>
> I would prefer four other colleagues that I might be able to convince
> than one entrenched opponent in office.
Why do you suppose that those four would be easier to convince?
Wouldn't it be more probable to have "one entrenched opponent" if you
have four or five colleagues than if you just have 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.
>
> Again, I admit that it is possible that you are correct. I see the
> danger of two tribuni who are adamantly opposed, and you see the
> danger
> of a group failing to reach concensus. Both are valid concerns.
I also see the danger of two tribuni constantly opposed. I just think
that, by raising the number of tribuni, this possibility simply
increases. And remember that just one of those five or six needs to be
an obstructionist, to paralize the whole Tribunate, as he would have
the right of intercessio over all the actions of his colleagues.
Keeping the number at two reduces this possibility and makes everything
more simple.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
> --
> "Ipsa scientia potestas est."
> -Francis Bacon
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
=====
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] Something Interesting |
| From: |
"DECIVS CORNELIVS SEPVLCHATIVS" <sstorm1@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:57:27 -0500 |
|
Interesting, perhaps, save that I tried to write them and ask them what they were all about (never having heard of hellenistic rome before) and never got a response, either by e- nor snail mail.
DECIVS CORNELIVS SEPULCHATIVS
=========^=====================
LEGATVS
LEGIO XXXI - AQVILAE
http://legionxxxi.homestead.com/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ferguson
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 1:17 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Something Interesting
Avete omnes cives Novae Romae!
I just found something that is within our realm of
interests:
http://www.imperiumnovum.org/
This url is a link to the site of another micronation
similar in goals to ours, but different in structure.
I have not given it a very close look yet (and I
stress this point), but I would bet that it is
definately worth a look.
Valete optime! :->!
Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus,
Civis Novae Romae.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:24:40 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete omnes; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
--- Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> I would like to make a few points regarding the Tribunes of the Plebs
> & the Comitia they operate in, because we not only have some
> historical inaccuracies regarding the way our Tribunes operate, but
> also the Comitia.
Your comments are always extremely welcome by me, L. Sicini.
> Starting with the Comitia Plebis Tributia.
> We had a major controversy earlier this year over some plebecitae
> introduced in the Comitia. I Don't intend to get into the measures
> themselves, but the venue. Many Patricians were upset that they
> couldn't vote on these pleblecitiae. This is a major problem. In
> Antiquita MOST of the Leges were in fact Pleblecitiae that the
> Patricians were NOT allowed to vote on. The ill will has caused the
> Tribunes to shy away from using the Comitia to pass pleblecitae. Part
> of the problem is Patricians are a FAR larger percentage of our
> population than they ever were in Antiquita where they were only a
> few
> families in a large city. All I can say to the Patricians is you
> chose
> the order you belong to. You wanted those 5 Century points, and the
> cost of those points is NOT being able to vote in one of the
> Comitiae.
>
> This problem was made worse by the Modern Patrician Gens being far
> more open than the ancient Patricians were in allowing people into
> thier order. The result is a Plebian assembly that is more
> undemocratic than the ancient assembly, at least as far as the 31
> Rural tribes are concerned. In Antiquita the small number of
> Patricians wouldn't have made a differance in most votes. In Nova
> Roma
> thier votes would make a differance. I don't think it would be wise
> to
> limit membership in the Patrician Gens to try to restore the ancient
> ratio of Patricians to Plebians, so I think we should try an
> inovation.
>
> Limit the Plebian assembly to being an elective body only, and make
> up
> for this by giving the Tribunes the power to enact leges through the
> Comitia Populi Tributa. This would give the Tribunes the legslative
> powers they had in Antiquita without leaving a very large percentage
> of our population without a voice in these leges. The Patricians
> would
> retain thier 5 points to make up for not being able to vote for, or
> serve as Tribunes.
I can think of a simpler solution, that would allow us to keep close to
Roman tradition. If a patrician is not happy with not being allowed to
vote on the Comitia Plebis Tributa, then he can leave his gens and join
a plebeian gens. I guess many will be able to accept him.
As for the patricians being such a large part of the population, I
think that the changes that you proposed earlier about considering
plebeian familiae belonging to (actually) patrician gentes would solve
that in the middle term. As more and more new cives join Nova Roma,
many of them creating a new familia inside a gens, and thus being
necessarily plebeians, the relation between patricians and plebeians
will become closer to the historical rate.
<<snipped>>
> I Would suggest that we return to this older model, as it fits our
> needs better. I suggest that a Tribune's Veto halt an action for a
> period of time, say three days. If two of the remaing four Tribunes
> Concur during that three day period then an intercessio will be in
> place. This could also be reversed for a slightlty stronger indiviual
> intercessio, that three of the remaining four would have to state
> that
> they do NOT concur.
It seems a good idea. However, as I would prefer to keep the number at
two, I can not fully support it.
=====
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] Nova Roma is grand! |
| From: |
J O <romalist2@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:37:05 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Ave All!
It's Decimus Antoninius Aquitanius Organbidexka here!
I've been out of the loop of Nova for over a month,
though I have popped in to keep tabs on things at
times, but never found myself with much to say. You
could call me an inactive citizen I guess, but that
hasn't lessend my feelings for our Republic. And
though I have not participated much in Nova Roma as of
late, I have been very active in Roman related
projects. I have been learning how to sculpt and make
casts in plaster (hopefully metal soon enough) for to
make statues and figurines of a Roman nature of
course. I've been working on making a mosaic (where I
live, supplies for such projects are scarce, so I've
been making my own tiles by hand). And I've been
painting, making reproductions of ancient Roman
frescos.
So my artistic Roman projects continue. I'm not one
for politics to any great degree, but I think that
just like any culture at any point in time throughout
history, Nova Roma too needs people of all kinds.
In conclusion on this thought, let it be known that
although I appear to be an inactive citizen, I am
actually a very active citizen in the 'real world',
although working alone. My thoughts oft turn to NR
while I work on these projects and I'm very happy that
our organization exists!
I write this letter to let everyone know that although
many citizens seem inactive or dormant for periods of
time, there must be a number of those that continue in
their own way to be active and appreciate Nova Roma's
existence.
P.S I love the coins! Optimus!
_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
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: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:18:01 -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
__________________________________________________
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] Intercessio Lex |
| From: |
Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:30:38 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete omnes; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
--- Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> Salvete,
> An excellent idea Flavius Vedius, here is the new thread.
>
> Another idea we may wish to look at for an intercessio is that it
> require a majority of the tribunes posting within a 72 hour peroid
> agree. For example a single Tribune's Veto would stand if no other
> Tribune opposed it within 72 hours. If one Tribune opposed it, then
> it would be split 1 to 1, and the Veto would fail. If three Tribunes
> spoke out two in favor and one opposed then the intercessio would be
> in effect. The same could hold for any given number, with a tie
> allways being decided as a failed intercessio.
>
> I do think that it's important that an intercessio by a single
> Tribune halt the action for 72 hours to give the other Tribunes a
> chance to concur or defeat the intercessio.
I have to say that I find much logic behind this proposal (as usual in
Drusus' posts). After much thinking, I think this would really be the
best way to grant that the tribunician power will be used wisely AND
when necessary.
=====
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] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes |
| From: |
Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:40:15 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salve, consul Germanice.
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus [mailto:tjalens.h@--------]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:20 PM
> >
> > I support these opinions (below) by both the Senior Consul and the
> > Illustrus Senator and Tribunus Plebis Titus Labienus Fortunatus and
> > Honorable Lucius Sicinius Drusus. But I fail to see this change in
> the new
> > version of the Lex poroposal by the Senior Consul.
> >
> > I feel that we solve some probems, simplifie the the process and
> guarentee
> > the effectiveness of the office of tribunes by the rule of
> announcing
> > intercessio by a majority of the Tribunes.
>
> Until and unless I see some sources on the subject, I'm not going to
> include
> it in the proposal.
Just to make things clear; are you talking about historical sources? If
that is the case, are you referring to Roman historical reports or to
modern historical reports?
If you refer to both, then sources have already been provided by L.
Sicinius Drusus. If you just trust the former, please let me humbly
remind you that not everything Titus Livius (just to give an
example)wrote is worth of credit, and that modern historians can be
more accurate some times (they usually are, simply because they use a
more refined method).
> Personally, I don't see the need for a majority
> such as
> has been described (I feel individual intercessio will work just
> fine), but
> I'm open to hearing more about it.
I think that you really want to make sure that the tribuni will use
intercessio just when there is a real need for it, but that they will
not be stopped from using it if needed. I really think that majority
vote is the best way to comply with these two requirements.
=====
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] Something Interesting |
| From: |
"Raina Faolan" <GuruPoet@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:49:57 -0400 |
|
Salve,
I went to this site a while ago, you're right it is intresting.
Vale,
Aeternia
>From: Patrick Ferguson <pvitruviusiulianus@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Something Interesting
>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Avete omnes cives Novae Romae!
>
>I just found something that is within our realm of
>interests:
>
>http://www.imperiumnovum.org/
>
>This url is a link to the site of another micronation
>similar in goals to ours, but different in structure.
>I have not given it a very close look yet (and I
>stress this point), but I would bet that it is
>definately worth a look.
>
>Valete optime! :->!
>
>Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus,
>
>Civis Novae Romae.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Virtual temple |
| From: |
"Raina Faolan" <GuruPoet@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:56:14 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
Titans? You mean like Oceanus, Doris, and such? There was a book I found on
the Titans through amazon.com, I'll look for it and send you the title
privately.
Vale,
Aeternia
>From: "Sokarus Apollonius Callias" <hadescallias@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Virtual temple
>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:48:18 +0200
>
> hi, i worship a group of Gods called the Titans. on my site i'm putting
>all available information about them online but i can't find all the info
>required. prayers i can find but help will be grateful. Are there
>priesthood for these deities? because you can sign me up for it.i'm an
>artist in training and i want to use it for my religion.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
