| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule |
| From: |
Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:28:54 -0800 (PST) |
|
Ave,
Distortion? I never distorted anything. I never
specifically stated for what the United States
Congress uses that 2/3 rule. I study politics I am
fully aware of how the US Congress operates. It uses
such a rule for impeachments, and appointments such as
Supreme Court justices, etc. I apologize if what I
said came across the wrong way. I did not intend to
distort US governmental processes by what I said.
vale,
Quintus Cornelius Caesar
--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> This is a total distortion of the rules of the US
> Congress. The ONLY time a 2/3 majority is required
> is
> when a member of Congress is expelled from office or
> a
> Constionual Admendment is being voted on.
>
> For passing laws all that is required is a simple
> majority of Representives casting votes. A quoram of
> half the members being present is required to hold a
> vote, so if only half the members are present anf
> half
> of them plus one vote for a law it can pass with as
> little as just over 25% of the members voting on it.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> --- Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@--------> wrote:
> > Ave,
> > In response to the comments of Gnaeus Salix
> > Astur
> > I have to say this:
> > The 2/3 majority rule is used in the United
> > States first off to answer your question.
> Secondly
> > how is that 2/3 majority rule discriminate? The
> > Congess of the United States uses that rule for
> its
> > voting procedures. No Americans really complain
> > about
> > being discriminated against via the 2/3 rule. I
> > will
> > not dispute that 50%+1 shows a majority. However
> > its
> > a pathetic majority and if you have a vote of
> 51-49
> > it
> > shows that a piece of legislation just barely was
> > passed. However when you create a requirement for
> a
> > larger gap between Yes and No votes then it truly
> > shows that a large majority of the population are
> in
> > favor of that item being voted upon. A 2/3 rule
> > also
> > means that those who caft the legislation etc. are
> > going to need to craft it in such a way that it
> > represents the interests of those across the board
> > not
> > just a majority who maybe in power. Say you have
> > something like Northern Ireland where there's a
> > Protestant majority and a Catholic minority and
> lets
> > change the proportions of Protestants to being 55%
> > of
> > the population and Catholics 45% of the populous.
> > There is no one clear cut group with a 2/3
> majority.
> >
> > So legiislation would have to be created that
> would
> > represent the interests of the Catholics just as
> > much
> > as the Protestants to obtain that 2/3 majority in
> a
> > vote. It doesn't discriminate but prevents a
> > dictatorship under the guise of a democratic
> > institution.
> > vale,
> > Quintus Cornelius Caesar
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
> > http://personals.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:03:26 -0500 |
|
Salve,
> I must agree with you in principle, that 51% majority rule is the tyranny
of the majority over the minority,>
Tyranny? Perhaps you have a vastly different understanding of the
connotations of that word than I do, but to say that more people choosing
option A over option B is some form of "tyranny" is strange to say the
least.
I suppose, however, that we could always opt for complete anarchy. That way
every single person's whim and desire would be fully met and no one would
ever be forced to suffer the "tyranny" of law. Sorry, but by using your
logic the few individuals who get their jollies by killing others must feel
pretty oppressed by the vast majority who think it is wrong.
There has been a lot of talk of principles in this thread, but a key
foundation is missing. We are a nation of laws. Yes, those laws should be
in the best interest of the people, but how are we to know that if a simple
"more of us want it than don't" does not even suffice. Those who break it
down to "well, not *enough* of you want that, so even though you all
outnumber us, we still don't think you should win" might want to step back
and consider that only anarchy provides for every individual to be fully
satisfied 100% of the time.
I, for one, do not ever see Nova Roma traipsing that dangerous and useless
road. May all the Gods be thanked for that.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Propraetorship of Venedia |
| From: |
alexprobus1@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:59:18 -0000 |
|
Salvete mi care Formosane ,
I would like to responce to your post according the recent Senate
vote. Well, I could understand your disappointment after your
candidacy on governorship was not approved by The Senate and could
understand the feelings of Venedian citizens who supported you. On
the other hand I think the decision of the Senate may to be respected
and your efforts on consolidating the situation in the province may
to continue. That will be the best thing to do at the moment, I
guess. I would like to assure you that my vote was not forced in any
way by other Senators or Nova Roman magistrates. It was my own vote
and was dictated by my own only motives. So, in this intentions, I
would appreciate my name not to be used in the current political
discussions on the forum as an argument. Frankly to say, I do believe
that all of us here in the forum share common values. Sometimes the
form is a little bit different but the base is similar.
I will try to organize a meeting of the Pannonian citizens in
December /about the 29 and 30/ and would like to invite you personaly
and other Polish citizens to be present there. What is your opinion
about?
I have considered about three localities of meeting: Bratislava in
Slovakia, Brno in Czech Republic or Budapest in Hungary. Which one is
the most fit to you?
Bene vale
Alexander I.C. Probus
> I am disappointed that the Senate did not see fit to
> appoint me governor of the Provincia Venedia. Considering
> the overwhelming - indeed effectively unanimous - support
> of the provincial citizens for my candidacy expressed to
> the Senate in petitions, it is certainly a slap in the
> faces of the whole citizenry here, and will be so
> perceived.
>
> I had hoped that the Senate would have shown the maturity
> to work together with me, since I had been willing to work
> with them by expressing my willingness to take on this
> post. And indeed I am the only Venedian meeting the
> Senate's own guidelines for being a governor - which would
> apparently mean that the Senate intends to let the province
> drift, just to score a political or personal point against
> me. It is hard to see in that the sense of responsibility
> that the Senate is theoretically supposed to provide in
> this republic.
>
> It is regrettable, surely, that many of those voting
> against me are doubtless still stung by the regrettable
> necessity that I felt some time ago of calling the majority
> (not all) of them "moral idiots" in connection with their
> treatment of Marius and minorities he represented. That
> they should be stung is natural, but a citizen has to speak
> out when there is evil in high places, and I did my simple
> duty for the welfare of Nova Roma.
>
> I would like to thank the honourable senators who were so
> good as vote or speak up for me and the desires of the
> Roman people of Venedia. And I note with sympathy that
> Senator Probus was forced to promise to abstain in order to
> get my candidature voted on at all - which I think reflects
> on the manoeuverings of my opponents most unfavourably. A
> senator has to give up his vote just to get a gubernatorial
> candidate voted on for a province that needs a governor and
> has the unanimous support of the citizenry?! Sounds a bit
> irregular, perhaps?
>
> I am not surprised by this result, but being an optimist
> by nature, I had had a bit of hope for something better
> from the Senate.
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Propraetorship of Venedia |
| From: |
"Maia Apollonia Pica" <mjarc@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 06:09:27 +0100 |
|
Salve, Senator Audens!
I only want to reply to a small part of your message, the one which
seems to be directly connected with Venedian citizens other than
Formosanus.
> The Citizens of Venedia need not "drift" at all, as there is at least
> one with whom I have spoken who is fully qualified in, my humble
> opinion, to serve as govenor. However, that person chooses not to do
> so, and you refuse, apparently because of your pride, to assist that
> person to be the govenor,
If that person chooses not to serve as governor in the first place,
then assisting them in being one is a little out of the question,
isn't it? And if you mean the person I think you do, then I happen to
_know_ that they would get all the assistance they might desire.
However, having said so much, Senator, I feel you really should have
mentioned this person's name. I have only two possible names in mind
and unfortunately one of them is mine, so maybe I had better say a
few words quickly.
Yes, everybody in Venedia (at least everybody I have spoken to so
far) is disgusted with this decision of the Senate. Why shouldn't we
be? It is illogical, impractical, against the welfare of the province
and of NR as a whole. It also shows total disregard for our
petitions, which means disregard of the Senate towards the People.
Ugly.
Mind you, I am not trying to attack or offend anything or anybody.
This is just a civis expressibg her simple opinion.
The two people which I guess you might have meant, Petrus Domitianus
and/or me, are, if possible, more disappointed than the other
Venedians.
And now I really need something clean, constructive and
straightforward. A bit of Latin maybe.
Vale!
Maia Apollonia Pica
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] =?iso-8859-1?Q?COMITIA=20CENTURIATA=20=2D=20Finalized=20Agenda=20=26=20Schedule?= |
| From: |
tiberius.ann@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:15:42 +0100 |
|
Salvete quirites,
I have followed the discussion of the agenda of the comitia without saying
anything for most of the time now. At the moment I am wondering about the
following:
I am supposed to translate the documents that are voted on into German because
some of my fellow citizens in the province of Germania Superior don't have
much practice in legal English and therefore the lex texts are like Chinese
to them.
Now PLEASE tell me, what am I supposed to translate, if the consul gives
out an official agenda for voting and then, during the contio, people are
not at all happy with that agenda??????
Do I have to wait for a new agenda after the contio and before the voting,
or is the agenda not being changed by all these different wants and needs?
PLEASE ANSWER THIS MAIL BECAUSE IT HAS A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE VOTING
NUMBERS IN THE PROVINCE OF GERMANIA SUPERIOR. IF I CAN'T PRESENT DECENT
TRANSLATIONS, MANY CITIZENS WILL NOT VOTE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SURE WHAT
WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the good of the state, Tiberius Annaeus Otho
scriba legata Germaniae Superioris
________________________________________
E-Mail for everyone! http://www.bluemail.ch/ powered by Bluewin!
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] =?iso-8859-1?Q?COMITIA=20CENTURIATA=20=2D=20Finalized=20Agenda=20=26=20Schedule?= |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:17:21 US/Central |
|
Salve Tiberi Annee
> Now PLEASE tell me, what am I supposed to translate, if the consul gives
> out an official agenda for voting and then, during the contio, people are
> not at all happy with that agenda??????
The law requires the consul to issue an edictum that contains the entire text
of all potential leges to be voted on prior to the contio. Therefore, in order
to change the text of any proposal, the consul would have to scrap the current
vote and issue a new edictum (thereby starting a new 8-day period for contio).
You should, therefore, translate the original agenda as issued.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Propraetorship of Venedia |
| From: |
MarcusAudens@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:11:03 -0500 (EST) |
|
Citizens of Venadia;
I am sorry that you see the decision of the Senate in such a poor light.
The Senate has taken many things into consideration in that vote and
apparently you see only the portions that apply to yourselves.
That you hold your own views is certainly your right. My point was that
Venadia is NOT dependent upon one person to organize itself. There are
others who can do the job, as you well know. If Venadia chooses in and
of itself to "drift" that must be thier decision. Already a member of
the Senate, a valuable colleague, and a valued Senator, has offered to
meet with you to iron out your difficulties. I would say that is not an
indication of a despised group of people but rather one who is willing
to help as they may, particularly since his was the vote brought into
erroneus question regarding Senate Conrtrol by Formosanus.
The rejection of Formosanus was based on his past wllingness to assault
everything that does not meet with his approval. His response to the
decision of the Senate is a further indication, in my view, that the
previous disruptive behavior would continue, and that his much vaunted
"peace feelers" were put in place for the purpose of gaining his desire
.
I respect your views, and I am sorry to hear them as it places us
further apart than I would like to be, however, I do not consider your
views to be "illogical, ugly, impractical", or a complete disregard for
the collective efforts of a serious body of Nova Roma Citizens selected
for thier service by the Citizens of Nova Roma. It certainly does not
indicate a disregard of the citizen's petitions which, at least in my
case caused my early support for the initial creation of Venadia, it's
separation from another unit which did not relect the same ideals,
culture and beliefs, and which generated a good deal of thought and
discussion with colleagues and friends before reaching my final
decision. They are simply your views, you have a right to them, and
they must be a starting point for any further discussion or efforts.
I believe that it is a bit early to blame the Senate for the failure of
the welfare of the province of Venadia, Nova Roma, and the Citizens of
Nova Roma in regard to this decision. In my view that is a premature
comment and a rather far reaching one, considering the past history of
the candidate. I have taken more time with Formosanus than with any
other candidate for any other office simply because I wished to make
sure I understood where he was coming from. This extensive
correspondence, which admittedly may not be how you see the gentleman,
went a long way toward my final decision.
No, I did not name those who in Venadia, in my opinion, could serve as
Govenor. I did not do so because I do not know all of you well, but I
do know that with your collective interest and with the abilities of
those of your number, the success of the Province is extremely likely,
particularly with the offered help of my most excellent colleague.
Further, since my opinions give you such heartburn and you label them in
such ahorrific way, since you tend not to give me the normal courtesy of
my views, as opposed to yours, nor the possibiity that a decision such
as has been registered is far better for the micronation as a whole on
the basis of a large majority of those chosen to make such decisions, I
did not feel it prudent to point out any individual for fear of hurting
that person's chances should they wish to involve themselves in the
organization and administration of the said Province. Your description
in your letter on my opinons and beliefs give some cresedence to that
decision to which you object.
As I have said previously Formosanus' response to the Senate vote says
it all, and both mine and my colleague's correction of Formsanus'
statement regarding one of the Senator's votes puts a cap on the
argument, again in my view.
In closing, I am sorry that we could not come to some sort of
concurrence, I am again sorry that you cannot grant me the sureity of my
views that you reserve only for yours. I have nothing against you and
your friends / fellow citizens, and my decision was made in the best
interests for your Province as I see the situation. Further, I am sure
that if you will accept the help being offered, that your Venadia will
be a jewel in NR's Crown, in the fullness of time, but not, I fear,
without the understanding that differing views may extend far deeper
than simple surface considerations.
Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] COMITIA CENTURIATA - Finalized Agenda & Schedule |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 19:49:17 +0100 |
|
Salvete omnes,
I don't have the faintest idea who said this, but...
>
> > I must agree with you in principle, that 51% majority rule is the
tyranny
> of the majority over the minority,>
>
Better a 51 vs 49 tyranny in a democratic system than a 1 vs 99 tyranny in a
dictatorial system.
Valete,
Draco
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Market Day Chat |
| From: |
trog99@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:15:16 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnes:
My personal kudos to M. Octavius Germanicus for reviving interest in
our Market Day Chats in the Nova Roma Chatroom.
I understand him to be absent today, so I thought I would take the
liberty of telling you that, according to him, we had the best turnout
and conversation in a long time.
I bumped into two civites from my provincia, and we had a guest among
us.
We talked about gatherings, exercised our Latin skills (or in the case
of Po, lack thereof, uggh), and how some of us want to put our nose to
the grindstone and master the principles of this language, once and
for all.
A certain Southern Senator humoured us Canadians with such, apparently
world-renowned Canukian sayings of the MacKenzie brothers...to wit,
"Take off eh,.............._______s!!!"
We won't get into the tongue twisters! If you missed it, well you
should have been there!
All in all, a very pleasant expenditure of a couple of hours.
I am just happy that I happened to score the night off, due to a shift
change.
Bene valete!
Pompeia Cornelia
|
