Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Flavius Aetius
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:02:38 EDT

A popular account of the life of Flavius Aetius can be found in MEDIEVAL
WARLORDS by Tim Newark. There is also quite a bit on him in the two volume
set THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman seamen
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:11:56 EDT

Salve, William.

There is a Roman reenactment group the portrays the Legio I (or II) Adjutrix
which was made up of Roman marines and was recruited in the Flavian period.
Try to locate it through the links on the Legio XX website.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] klez (Again)
From:	Charlie Collins <cotta@spamcop.net>
Date:	Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:40:09 -0500

Or get a new Mac running Mac OSX(which also is Unix based) or any Mac
even. Switch from the Darkside.

Sextus Cornelius Cotta
(A Mac Freak!)

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Roman Days Report... :)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:08:57 EDT

Salvete,

Patricia Cassia and I have returned at last from Roman Days (and our vacation
which followed it!)

This year's Roman Days was a great success, including great weather,
interesting program events, and wonderful company with fellow Romans! Senator
Marcus Audens has already posted a wonderful write up of the event as a
whole, so I'll confine my report to highlights specific to Nova Roma.

As of this event, Nova Roma has been in 'official' attendance at Roman Days
for five years! We have had a full pavilion where Nova Roma information,
flyers and merchandise are available. Roman Days has been an *excellent* time
for presenting our micronation to the public - people get to meet real Nova
Romans face to face, ask questions, and generally get a feel for things that
our literature, lists and websites can't always convey. :)

This year's Roman Days was excellent for Nova Roma. Many dozens of flyers
were handed out, and the sales of Nova Roma T-shirts, official coinage and
bumper-stickers, and laminated wallet cards featuring the Roman Virtues were
outstanding! (I don't have exact figures of sales, but will post a report to
this list and the Senate in a day or two.) Patricia Cassia also had a
wonderful display of an altar to the Goddess Minerva, at which a few people
even made offerings! It was all a great opportunity to get Nova Roma's name
out there in a positive and productive way!

Roman Days this year was also a wonderful time for some Nova Romans to spend
time with each other in person. We had no less than FIVE Senators in
attendance: Consul Octavius Germanicus, Senator Marcus Minucius Audens,
Senator Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus, Senator Patricia Cassia, and myself.
While we didn't constitute a 'quorum' of the Senate, we were able to discuss
a few issues informally, and everyone seemed to greatly enjoy getting to do
so in person for once!

There were at least another half-dozen Nova Romans in attendance including
Gallio Marsalles of the XXIVth Legion, "Maximus" Minucius Gladius of the
'Ludi Maximus Gladitori", Merlinia Ambrosia, our new Sacerdotes Vestae,
Lucia Ambrosia Valeria
and other Citizens who's Roman names I apologize for not recalling well
enough to post... :) We got to socialize at the wonderful Roman feast put on
by Merlinia, and also at various parts of the event throughout the weekend.

There are many folks who deserve praise for the success of the event. Legio
XX and their commander for allowing Nova Roma to attend in force, Consul
Octavious for doing a fine job of working with the public at the NR pavilion,
Senator Audens and our other attendees from the Gladiator Sodalitas for
providing such exciting entertainment, Merlinia for providing delicious Roman
food, and others for being there and doing their part as well.

There will be full "Nova Roma" event in the Nova Brittania Provincia on Sept
7th this year - "Roman Market Day". We hope to have both Gladiators and
reenactors there, as well as LaWren's Nest selling wonderful reproduction
civilian and military clothing, weapons, etc.

Plans are also underway for making next year's "Roman Days" in Maryland an
even greater success... and hopefully others who were unable to attend this
year, such as Consul Sulla (who was recovering from an operation.), Senator
Q. Fabius, and Senator Pompeia Strabo.

In any case, I am glad to report that the event was a success, both for those
attending and for Nova Roma as a whole! :)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pontifex Maximus



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 01:45:04 -0700

Avete Omnes,

I come before you with the first law that will be up for consideration.
This law will be primarily a consolidation, with some subtle changes, in
regards to the procedures of the Comitia Centuriata.

Currently, there are 3 laws that establish procedures for the Comitia
Centuriata, they are:

Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
Lex Cassia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum
Lex Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum

If this law passes all previous laws relating to the establishment of
procedures for the Comitia Centuriata will be null and void.

I have incorporated all those changes into this provision.

Beyond that there are some subtle changes that my colleague and I worked
on to make the procedures more flexible such as changing the affects of
an intercessio from closing down the entire voting agenda to only
eliminating the piece of legisation that brought the intercession.
Also, we shortened the Contio and Voting time from 192 hours (8 days) to
120 hours (5 days).

Below is the entire text of the law for your consideration.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma
_____

I. All previous laws relating to the Comitia Centuriata are hereby
rescinded as they apply to the election of magistrates and the voting of
leges by the Comitia Centuriata. This Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione
Comitiorum Centuriatorum is hereby enacted to define the procedures by
which the Comitia Centuriata shall conduct the business of electing
magistrates and voting on leges.

II. Calling the Comitia to Order.
Either a Consul or Praetor may, as described in the Constitution, call
the Comitia to order, to hold a vote on a lex or leges, or to hold an
election. The magistrate who calls the Comitia to order shall be
referred to herein as the presiding magistrate.

A. This shall be done by making a public announcement announcing the
call in those public fora which shall have been designated for such
purpose, in which must be included:

1. The names of candidates for office and the office for which they are
running (when the Comitia is being called for an election);

2. Past experiences of other major positions within the Central
Government of the candidates in question and date of citizenship;

3. The full text of any leges, which are being voted on (when the
Comitia is being called to legislate);

4. The dates and time when the members of the Comitia shall begin
and finish voting;

5. Any special instructions that pertain to the mechanics of the
vote, if any.

B. The presiding magistrate shall have the responsibility for taking
all reasonable precautions to ensure that candidates for a vote hold
whatever qualifications are required by law. The Censors shall assist in
such efforts as to the best of their ability.

III. Timing of the vote.
A. The edictum containing the call to vote must be issued at least 120
hours (5 days) prior to the start of the vote. This period shall be
known as the Contio, and shall be used for formal discussion of the
issues and/or candidates before the People for vote.

1. In the event that, in an election for a magisterial office, there
are not sufficient candidates elected to fill all vacancies in that
office, the presiding magistrate may call for a follow-up election among
those same candidates who failed to obtain that office in the previous
election. For these follow-up elections, the 120-hour (5-day)
requirement for the length of the Contio (official discussion period)
shall be shortened to 24 hours.

B. During the Contio, the following conditions shall apply:

1. Those constitutionally empowered to do so may exercise their
powers of intercessio or nuntiatio.

a. The exercise of intercessio will remove an individual item from
the vote, but voting on the other items will still be allowed.

b. The exercise of nuntiatio shall extend the Contio, postponing
the start and end dates of the voting period by 24 hours, during which
time nuntiatio may again be exercised.

c. Should the exercise of nuntatio cause the voting period to move
such that it conflicts with calendarical restrictions as defined by the
Collegium Pontificum, the presiding magistrate may change or extend the
dates of the vote and/or contio at his discretion.

2. A member of the Collegium Augurum shall be invited by the
presiding magistrate to seek favorable auspices for the conduct of the
vote, subject to those rules and regulations the Collegium Augurum shall
set forth by decreta. Should the presiding magistrate himself be a
member of the Collegium Augurum, he may take the auspices for the vote
himself.

C. The period between the start and end of the voting must last no
less than 120 hours (5 days).

D. The ability to vote during the voting period may be impacted and/or
suspended due to calendrical issues as enacted by decreta of the
Collegium Pontificum.

E. The rogatores shall tally the vote and shall deliver the results to
the presiding magistrate within 48 hours of the close of the voting
period.

F. The presiding magistrate shall announce the results of the vote
within 24 hours of receiving the results from the rogatores, in at least
the same venues as the original announcement calling the vote was
published.

IV. Voting procedures.
A. The censors shall issue to each citizen a unique voter
identification code. This code shall be used to maintain anonymity in
the voting process, and to minimize the possibility of vote fraud. In a
timely fashion prior to the vote, the censors shall make available to
the rogatores a list of valid voter identification codes and the
centuries with which they are associated. The rogatores shall not have
access to the names of the citizens associated with particular voter
identification codes.

B. In consultation with the rogatores, the curator araneum shall make
available a cista; a secure web-based form to allow citizens to vote
directly through the official Nova Roma web site. This form shall record
the voter identification number and desired vote(s) of the individual.
The information thus collected will either be forwarded to the rogatores
as it is gathered, or at the end of the process, at their discretion.
Alternative methods of voting may be enacted by other legislation as
required.

C. Each Citizen shall have the opportunity to vote for a single
candidate for each office for which a vacancy exists, regardless of the
number of vacancies within a given magistracy. Citizens may cast a vote
for a candidate not listed on the ballot, or may waive their right to
cast a vote for a given magistracy. Once cast, no vote may be altered,
even with the correct voter identification code. Should multiple votes
be registered with the same voter identification code, only the first
one recorded shall be used when tallying the vote.

V. Procedures for counting votes.
A. Votes shall be counted by centuries.

1. In the case of a magisterial election, each century shall cast a
number of votes equal to the number of vacancies for the magistracy in
question or the number of candidates who received individual votes from
members of that century, whichever is less. Votes shall be assigned to
those candidates who received votes by members of the century, with
those candidates receiving the most valid individual votes receiving the
century's vote first, then working down in descending order until either
all the century's votes have been assigned, or there are no remaining
candidates who received votes from citizens in that century.

2. In the case of a vote on a lex, each century shall vote in favor
of the lex if a majority of the votes received by members of the century
are in favor. Otherwise, the century shall be considered to have voted
against the proposed lex.

3. Should a tie occur within a given century, the winner shall be
the candidate who is a paterfamilias or materfamilias, or if such shall
not decide the issue, the winner shall be decided by lot. The rogatores
may decide how such decisions by lot shall be made in a fair manner.

4. No candidate may win a century unless he or she has received
at least one vote from a citizen within that century.

B. A vote or election shall be decided by a majority of the centuries.

1. In the case of a magisterial election, candidates must receive
votes from a simple majority of the centuries casting votes in order to
win.

a. Should not enough candidates receive votes from at least a
simple majority of the centuries casting votes to fill all vacancies, a
new election shall be called within 30 days from the end of the current
election.

b. Should more candidates receive votes from at least a simple
majority of the centuries casting votes than there are vacancies, the
winner shall be the candidate who is a paterfamilias or materfamilias,
or if such shall not decide the issue, the winner shall be decided by
lot. The rogatores may decide how such decisions by lot shall be made in
a fair manner.

2. In the case of a vote on a lex, a simple majority of the
centuries casting votes must vote in favor for the lex to be adopted.

3. "A simple majority" is hereby defined as "one half of the number
of centuries casting votes, plus one". Abstentions are not considered
votes, and a century in which all voters abstained shall not be counted
toward this total.

C. Votes may be tallied by automated means should the rogatores
determine such is preferable to, and at least as accurate as, a manual
count.

D. Only the aggregate votes of the centuries shall be delivered to the
presiding magistrate; the votes of individual citizens shall be secret.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Populi Tributorum
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 01:55:20 -0700

Avete Omnes,

Below will be posted the second law that will be up for consideration.
The reason that this law is being submitted is to make it consistent
with the Lex Cornelia Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum Centauriatorum in
terms of some sections of the procedures and to make the dates run
concurrently with the Comitia Centuriata at 5 days for the Contio time
and 5 days for voting.

If you have any questions please feel free to post them. I will do my
best to answer each question.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

____

I. All previous laws relating to the Comitia Centuriata are hereby
rescinded as they apply to the election of magistrates and the voting of
leges by the Comitia Populi Tributa. This Lex Cornelia Octavia de
Ratione Comitiorum Populi Tributorum is hereby enacted to define the
procedures by which the Comitia Populi shall conduct the business of
electing magistrates and voting on leges.
II. Calling the Comitia to Order.
Either a Consul or Praetor may, as described in the Constitution, call
the Comitia to order, to hold a vote on a lex or leges, or to hold an
election. The magistrate who calls the Comitia to order shall be
referred to herein as the presiding magistrate.
A. This shall be done by making a public announcement announcing the
call in those public fora which shall have been designated for such
purpose, in which must be included:
1. The names of candidates for office and the office for which they are
running (when the Comitia is being called for an election);

2. Date of Citizenship of each candidate.
3. The full text of any leges which are being voted on (when the
Comitia is being called to legislate),
4. The dates when the members of the Comitia shall begin and finish
voting,
5. Any special instructions that pertain to the mechanics of the vote,
if any.
B. The presiding magistrate shall have the responsibility for taking all
reasonable precautions to ensure that candidates for a vote hold
whatever qualifications are required by law. The Censors shall assist in
such efforts as to the best of their ability.
III. Timing of the vote.
A. The edictum containing the call to vote must be issued at least 120
hours (5 days) prior to the start of the vote. This period shall be
known as the Contio, and shall be used for formal discussion of the
issues and/or candidates before the People for vote.
B. During the Contio, the following conditions shall apply:
1. Those constitutionally empowered to do so may exercise their powers
of intercessio or nuntiatio.
a. The exercise of intercessio will remove an individual item from the
vote, but voting on the other items will still be allowed.
b. The exercise of nuntiatio shall extend the Contio, postponing the
start and end dates of the voting period by 24 hours, during which time
nuntiatio may again be exercised.
c. Should the exercise of nuntatio cause the voting period to move such
that it conflicts with calendarical restrictions as defined by the
Collegium Pontificum, the presiding magistrate may change or extend the
dates of the vote and/or contio at his discretion.
2. A member of the Collegium Augurum shall be invited by the presiding
magistrate to seek favorable auspices for the conduct of the vote,
subject to those rules and regulations the Collegium Augurum shall set
forth by decreta. Should the presiding magistrate himself be a member of
the Collegium Augurum, he may take the auspices for the vote himself.
C. The period between the start and end of the voting must last no less
than 120 hours (5 days).
D. The ability to vote during the voting period may be impacted and/or
suspended due to calendrical issues as enacted by decreta of the
Collegium Pontificum.
E. The rogatores shall tally the vote and shall deliver the results to
the presiding magistrate within 48 hours of the close of the voting
period.
F. The presiding magistrate shall announce the results of the vote
within 24 hours of receiving the results from the rogatores, in at least
the same venues as the original announcement calling the vote was
published.
IV. Voting procedures.
A. The censors shall issue to each citizen a unique voter identification
code. This code shall be used to maintain anonymity in the voting
process, and to minimize the possibility of vote fraud. In a timely
fashion prior to the vote, the censors shall make available to the
rogatores a list of valid voter identification codes and the centuries
and/or tribes with which they are associated. The rogatores shall not
have access to the names of the citizens associated with particular
voter identification codes.
B. In consultation with the rogatores, the curator araneum shall make
available a cista; a secure web-based form to allow citizens to vote
directly through the official Nova Roma web site. This form shall record
the voter identification number and desired vote(s) of the individual.
The information thus collected will either be forwarded to the rogatores
as it is gathered, or at the end of the process, at their discretion.
Alternative methods of voting may be enacted by other legislation as
required.
C. Each Citizen shall have the opportunity to vote for a single
candidate for each office for which a vacancy exists, regardless of the
number of vacancies within a given magistracy. Citizens may cast a vote
for a candidate not listed on the ballot, or may waive their right to
cast a vote for a given magistracy. Once cast, no vote may be altered,
even with the correct voter identification code. Should multiple votes
be registered with the same voter identification code, only the first
one recorded shall be used when tallying the vote.
V. Procedures for counting votes.
A. Votes shall be counted by tribes.
1. In the case of a magisterial election, each tribe shall cast a number
of votes equal to the number of vacancies for the magistracy in
question. Votes shall be assigned to those candidates who received votes
by members of the tribe, with those candidates receiving the most valid
individual votes receiving the tribe's vote first, then working down in
descending order until all the tribe's votes have been assigned.
EXAMPLE: Four candidates are running for Consul. Each tribe casts two
votes, because there are two vacant positions. In tribe III, there are
26 votes for candidate A, 32 votes for candidate B, 2 votes for
candidate C, and 13 votes for candidate D. The tribe's two votes are
cast for candidates A and B, since they received the two highest
vote-totals within the tribe.
2. In the case of a vote on a lex, each tribe shall vote in favor of the
lex if a majority of the votes received by members of the tribe are in
favor. Otherwise, the tribe shall be considered to have voted against
the proposed lex.
3. Should a tie occur within a given tribe, the winner shall be the
candidate who is a paterfamilias or materfamilias, or if such shall not
decide the issue, the winner shall be decided by lot. The rogatores may
decide how such decisions by lot shall be made in a fair manner.
B. A vote or election shall be decided by a majority of the tribes.
1. In the case of a magisterial election, candidates must receive votes
from at least 18 of the 35 tribes in order to win.
a. Should not enough candidates receive votes from at least 18 of the 35
tribes to fill all vacancies, a new election shall be called within 30
days from the end of the current election.
b. Should more candidates receive votes from at least 18 of the 35
tribes than there are vacancies, the winner shall be the candidate who
is a paterfamilias or materfamilias, or if such shall not decide the
issue, the winner shall be decided by lot. The rogatores may decide how
such decisions by lot shall be made in a fair manner.
2. In the case of a vote on a lex, 18 of the 35 tribes must vote in
favor for the lex to be adopted.
C. Votes may be tallied by automated means should the rogatores
determine such is preferable to, and at least as accurate as, a manual
count.
D. Only the aggregate votes of the tribes shall be delivered to the
presiding magistrate; the votes of individual citizens shall be secret.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 02:11:46 -0700

Avete Conscript Fathers et Omnes,

It is my sincere pleasure to come before you with a revision and
expansion of the Lex Vedia Senatoria. As we all are aware of this year
has been one of conflict between the Censors and the Senate (or
individual Senators depending on your interpretation) and I believe that
this will resolve much of that conflict. By making sure and clarifying
that any action to remove a Senator must be done in full disclosure to
the public and reinforcing the Constitution in stating that Nota's are a
temporary measure ( based on IV.A 1.f.2 where it states: A nota against
a member of the Senate is sufficient to remove that individual from the
Senate until such time as it is removed.) unless accompanied by a 2/3
Senate vote reinforcing any Nota. I hope that you will consider this
revision of the Lex Vedia as reasonable and necessary.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

In accordance with paragraph IV.A.2.c. of the Constitution of Nova Roma,
the Lex Cornelia Senatoria is hereby enacted to establish the guidelines
by which the censors may add names to the list of Senators which they
maintain. All previous laws governing this process are hereby rescinded

I. Any individual elected to the office of consul, censor, or praetor
shall automatically be included in the album Senatorum (assuming that
the individual was not already a member of the Senate).

II. Any individual appointed as a Propraetor for 3 consecutive years
shall be able to petition the Senate to be admitted to its rank. If the
vote in the Senate is successful, based on 2/3 majority, that Propraetor
will be automatically admitted into the Senate.

A. This provision is not retroactive. However those propraetors
serving at the time this lex is passed will have those terms count
toward the satisfaction of the 3 year requirement.

III. Any individual elected to the office of Curule Aedile or appointed
as Propraetor may, at the discretion of the censors, subject to
guidelines set by law, may be included in the album Senatorum six months
after assuming office (assuming that the individual was not already a
member of the Senate).

IV. Upon issuance of a Senatus Consultum nominating an individual to
membership in the Senate, the Censors may, at their discretion, subject
to guidelines set by law, include that individual in the Senate.

A. Censorial Discretion must be exercised, via a report filed to the
Senate prior to the vote beginning on the Senatus Consultum in question.

B. This report must state the reason for rejection for consideration.

C. If there is no report filed or if the report is filed after voting
begin in the Senate by the Censors, then the Censors abstain their voice
and if the candidate passes the Senate, that individual would be
immediately included in the Album Senatorium.

V. Senators may voluntary remove themselves by private notification to
the Censors and Consul or by public announcement on the Senate List or
on official Nova Roma Public forum.

VI. Nota's issued by the Censors can remove Senators.

A. All Nota's must be publicly posted in official Nova Roma Fora (main
list) accompanied with the reason for the Nota being issued.

B. Nota's are temporary measures that do not have the ability to remove
a Senator permanently unless accompanied by a 2/3 approval vote in the
Senate.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] OT: About the Klez virus
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:26:19 EDT

Salvete,

The "Klez" virus seems to be a real threat to some of our Citizens. However,
most of us are unlikely to replace our operating systems, or go through the
expense and hassle of replacing our computers entirely. (And if everybody
did that, the hackers would just start writing viruses for other operating
systems and Macs... they go wherever they can get the biggest bang for their
efforts.)

An easier way to remove the threat is simply download a "Klez" removal tool
from Symmantec:

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.klez.removal.tool.

html

Removing the "Klez" virus involves downloading a detector patch (KlezFix.com)
to the computer desktop, restarting your computer in "safe" mode, and running
the detector. It will tell you if you're infected with the virus, and will
remove the virus if you are.

The bad news is that Klez attacks Norton Antivirus (and I believe McAffee
Antivirus too). You may have to reinstall your antivirus software if you
discover you're infected when you run the detector from Symmantec. More info
can be found on their "Klez information page":

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.klez.h@mm.html

My apologies for the off-topic messaage! Hopefully we can now leave computer
subjects and get back to Roman discussion... :)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:57:20 -0500 (CDT)

Civibus Novae Romae M. Octavius Germanicus Consul SPD,

I hereby VETO the proposed Lex Cornelia Senatoria.

I do not take this action likely; I do not do this because of
personal opposition to the author.

Rather, I veto it for these reasons:

That I, the colleague of Consul L. Cornelius, did not see this
item before it was posted publically, although I had asked for
it several times; and that I was informed of only one of
several items contained herein.

That section IV diminishes the powers granted to the Censors
by the Constitution.

Several days ago, I learned that my colleague intended to put forth a
"Lex Cornelia Senatoria". As Senate membership has been a controversial
issue this year, I asked for the specifics. He did not have the full text
ready, but stated that it was about bringing provincial governors into the
Senate after three years in office.

We debated that issue for much of Friday, finally agreeing on a
version that would allow propraetores to enter the Senate upon
receiving a vote from 2/3rds of the Senate.

When the proposed lex appeared this morning, I was very surprised by
its contents. My colleague had repeatedly told me that it contained
only a provision for Propraetores to enter the Senate after three
years.

This final version contained much more than that. Section IV is
a complete reworking of our methods for adding Senators. It shifts
the final decision away from the Censores.

The Constitution states that the Censores have, as one of their
"honors, powers, and obligations":
To maintain the album senatorium (list of Senators), including the
power to add and remove names on that list according to
qualifications set by law;

The Constitution is clear on this. The Censores have the "power to add
and remove names on that list". The Censores have this power; not
the Senate. This proposal would put the decision in the hands of the
Senate, with the Censores merely having a limited opportunity to
halt the process.

The Censores maintain the Album Senatorium, not the Senate. The
Senate advises the Censores - not the other way around. Our system
contains a balance of powers: magisterial, oligarchic, and democratic;
this law is an attempt to upset that balance, to disempower the Censores
and to take away a power explicitly granted to them by the Constitution.

This proposal is unconstitutional, and I VETO it.

Valete,
M. Octavius Germanicus, Consul.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[Fwd: [SenatusRomanus] Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria]
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:01:52 -0700

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:

> Avete Omnes,
>
> Well this is entirely not unexpected, but I want to comment on this
> because there is some inaccuracy here:
>
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
>> Civibus Novae Romae M. Octavius Germanicus Consul SPD,
>>
>> I hereby VETO the proposed Lex Cornelia Senatoria.
>>
>> I do not take this action likely; I do not do this because of
>> personal opposition to the author.
>>
>> Rather, I veto it for these reasons:
>>
>> That I, the colleague of Consul L. Cornelius, did not see this
>> item before it was posted publically, although I had asked for
>> it several times; and that I was informed of only one of
>> several items contained herein.
>>
>
> This is correct. Just as you have not shown me all of the laws you
> have promulgated.
>
>>
>> That section IV diminishes the powers granted to the Censors
>> by the Constitution.
>
> I disagree, it clarifies the powers granted to the Censors.
>
>>
>> Several days ago, I learned that my colleague intended to put forth
>> a
>> "Lex Cornelia Senatoria". As Senate membership has been a
>> controversial
>> issue this year, I asked for the specifics. He did not have the
>> full text
>> ready, but stated that it was about bringing provincial governors
>> into the
>> Senate after three years in office.
>
> That is correct.
>
>>
>> We debated that issue for much of Friday, finally agreeing on a
>> version that would allow propraetores to enter the Senate upon
>> receiving a vote from 2/3rds of the Senate.
>
> That is correct too.
>
>>
>> When the proposed lex appeared this morning, I was very surprised by
>>
>> its contents. My colleague had repeatedly told me that it contained
>>
>> only a provision for Propraetores to enter the Senate after three
>> years.
>
> That is not correct. You have not asked me about what else were the
> contents of the law.
>
>>
>> This final version contained much more than that. Section IV is
>> a complete reworking of our methods for adding Senators. It shifts
>> the final decision away from the Censores.
>
> That is not correct. Section IV is essentially the same as the
> Senatus Consultum that was passed on Feb 26th. Here is the entire
> text of that:
>
> The Lex Vedia Senatoria (III.) it states that, "Upon issuance of a
> Senatus consultum nominating an individual to membership in the
> Senate,
> the censors may, at their discretion, include that individual in the
> album Senatorum." Pursuant to that clause the following Senatus
> Consultum is drafted.
>
> A. Any individual, who is constitutionally empowered to summon the
> Senate must notify the Censors of their intent to bring an agenda item
>
> for the purpose of having the Senate recommend prospective members
> to the Senate.
>
> B. This notification must be given at least a nundinium prior to the
> summons of the Senate.
>
> C. The Censors must keep the information confidential.
>
> D. When the Senate is summoned, and this agenda item is presented the
> following information must be included:
>
> I. The name of the prospective Senator.
> 2. The date of their membership to Nova Roma began
> 3. Prior experience within Nova Roma
> 4. Censors report. This report will be the official opinion of the
> Office of the Censors. The report will consist of an acceptance, a
> rejection or a neutral stance within the Censors office. If there is a
>
> rejection a statement must be included when the agenda item is
> presented
>
> to the Senate. If the Censors have failed to deliver a report the
> presiding
> magistrate will disclose that information to the Senate.
>
> Here we have a Senatus Consultum that clarifies that the Censors
> powers and I am restating this Senatus Consultum in the Lex Cornelia
> Senatoria.
>
>>
>> The Constitution states that the Censores have, as one of their
>> "honors, powers, and obligations":
>> To maintain the album senatorium (list of Senators), including
>> the
>> power to add and remove names on that list according to
>> qualifications set by law;
>
> The passage of the Lex Cornelia Senatoria would not diminsh that
> power. As a matter of fact by passage of this law it would set those
> qualifications that the Constitution clearly allows.
>
>>
>> The Constitution is clear on this. The Censores have the "power to
>> add
>> and remove names on that list". The Censores have this power; not
>> the Senate. This proposal would put the decision in the hands of
>> the
>> Senate, with the Censores merely having a limited opportunity to
>> halt the process.
>
> You forgot the important part, Colleague, and that is that they have
> the power to add adn remove names ACCORDING to qualifications set by
> law, which is exactly what the Lex Cornelia Senatoria is doing. There
> is nothing in the Lex Cornelia that would prevent the Censors to
> remove Senators, however, it spells out procedures as to how it is
> done.
>
>>
>> The Censores maintain the Album Senatorium, not the Senate. The
>> Senate advises the Censores - not the other way around. Our system
>> contains a balance of powers: magisterial, oligarchic, and
>> democratic;
>> this law is an attempt to upset that balance, to disempower the
>> Censores
>> and to take away a power explicitly granted to them by the
>> Constitution.
>
> The Censores will still maintain the Album, no change has been
> legislated. The Censors still have the ability to file Nota's and
> remove Senators on a temporary basis. The only additional check is
> that for any permanent removal a Senatus Consultim would be
> necessary. I believe this is not unconstitutional, for there is
> nothing in the constitution that states ONLY the Censors can remove
> Senators. If we take such a narrow interpretation then the entire Lex
> Vedia is unconstitutional because it automatically appoints Praetors,
> Consuls and Censors without Censorial Discretion.
>
> Very Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul of Nova Roma
>
>>
>> This proposal is unconstitutional, and I VETO it.
>>
>> Valete,
>> M. Octavius Germanicus, Consul.
>>
>> --
>> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
>> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
>> Curator Araneum et Senator
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


>>
>> Community email addresses:
>> Post message: SenatusRomanus@onelist.com
>> Subscribe: SenatusRomanus-subscribe@onelist.com
>> Unsubscribe: SenatusRomanus-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>> List owner: SenatusRomanus-owner@onelist.com
>>
>> Shortcut URL to this page:
>> http://www.onelist.com/community/SenatusRomanus
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 10:30:21 -0500 (CDT)

> This is correct. Just as you have not shown me all of the laws you
> have promulgated.

I invite you to cite any occasion on which I have withheld the text
of a proposal after you asked for it.

You will not find any. Nor will you find any occasions where I
summarized the secret text of a proposal to you as containing one
thing, where actually it contained three things.

> I disagree, it clarifies the powers granted to the Censors.

It does not "clarify" it, it changes it drastically. Your proposal
would have persons become Senators immediately upon a vote of the
Senate. You are changing the Censores' total control of the process
to the mere ability to halt the process during a limited time frame.
That is not a "clarification", it's an evsiceration.

>> When the proposed lex appeared this morning, I was very surprised by
>> its contents. My colleague had repeatedly told me that it contained
>> only a provision for Propraetores to enter the Senate after three
>> years.
>
> That is not correct. You have not asked me about what else were the
> contents of the law.

I asked, "What is this about?". You replied, "I have posted to the
Senate about brining in governors after they have been in office for
3 years..this is what I am referring too.". You failed to mention the
other two radical changes you planned to make. How could you have
possibly thought I was interested in only one of three items?

> That is not correct. Section IV is essentially the same as the
> Senatus Consultum that was passed on Feb 26th. Here is the entire
> text of that:

Your section IV would have the senate-nominated individuals automatically
becoming Senators, upon issuance of the S.C. Currently, that decision
rests with the Censores. Nothing in that SC obligates the Censores to
include the nominees in the Senate.

> You forgot the important part, Colleague, and that is that they have
> the power to add adn remove names ACCORDING to qualifications set by
> law, which is exactly what the Lex Cornelia Senatoria is doing.

Qualifying for a position is not the same as receiving it. I am
qualified to manage Cisco routers, yet the company I work for
has not given me control of its routers, as I have other
responsibilities.

The Lex Vedia Senatoria already establishes those qualifications.
The Censores then make the final decision from among those persons
who qualify. That is constitutional. Placing the decision in the
hands of the Senate upsets the balanced system.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:48:38 -0700

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

>
> > This is correct. Just as you have not shown me all of the laws you
> > have promulgated.
>
> I invite you to cite any occasion on which I have withheld the text
> of a proposal after you asked for it.
>
> You will not find any. Nor will you find any occasions where I
> summarized the secret text of a proposal to you as containing one
> thing, where actually it contained three things.
>

I asked you to send me the Lex Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum
Centuriatorum before you posted it on the ML. I didn't get it.
However, my not getting the law and seeing it on the ML did not affect
my view of it. It is not important in the big scheme of things, but
since you asked that is the example I am referring too.

>
> > I disagree, it clarifies the powers granted to the Censors.
>
> It does not "clarify" it, it changes it drastically. Your proposal
> would have persons become Senators immediately upon a vote of the
> Senate. You are changing the Censores' total control of the process
> to the mere ability to halt the process during a limited time frame.
> That is not a "clarification", it's an evsiceration.
>

I disagree it does not change it drastically. Item IV would have the
Censors utilize their discretionary power AT the time the Senatorial
Agenda becomes known. If the Censores decide against the candidate they
notify the Senate before the vote and that item is essentially
stalled. Here it is for you to review it again:

IV. Upon issuance of a Senatorial Agenda item nominating an individual
to membership in the Senate, the Censors may, at their discretion,
subject to guidelines set by law, include that individual in the Senate.

A. Censorial Discretion must be exercised, via a report filed to the
Senate prior to the vote beginning on the Senatus Consultum in question.

B. This report must state the reason for rejection for consideration.

C. If there is no report filed or if the report is filed after voting
begin in the Senate by the Censors, then the Censors abstain their voice

and if the candidate passes the Senate, that individual would be
immediately included in the Album Senatorium.

This is a qualification of Censorial Power that is granted by the
Constitution of Nova Roma.

>
> >> When the proposed lex appeared this morning, I was very surprised
> by
> >> its contents. My colleague had repeatedly told me that it
> contained
> >> only a provision for Propraetores to enter the Senate after three
> >> years.
> >
> > That is not correct. You have not asked me about what else were the
>
> > contents of the law.
>
> I asked, "What is this about?". You replied, "I have posted to the
> Senate about brining in governors after they have been in office for
> 3 years..this is what I am referring too.". You failed to mention the
>
> other two radical changes you planned to make. How could you have
> possibly thought I was interested in only one of three items?
>

At the time you asked me Item IV was not included in the law. Quite
frankly I did not decide on including Item IV until late Friday nite
after a Chat with Praetor Pompeia Cornelia. So at the time we were
talking that was the entire scope of the law.

>
> > That is not correct. Section IV is essentially the same as the
> > Senatus Consultum that was passed on Feb 26th. Here is the entire
> > text of that:
>
> Your section IV would have the senate-nominated individuals
> automatically
> becoming Senators, upon issuance of the S.C. Currently, that decision
>
> rests with the Censores. Nothing in that SC obligates the Censores to
>
> include the nominees in the Senate.
>

No it does not. Please re-read IV A-C that I posted afew paragraphs
above. Censor discretion is still there. It just would be "set by law"
that they would exercise their discretionary powers prior to a Senate
vote and that they would actually need to state a reason for rejection.

>
> > You forgot the important part, Colleague, and that is that they have
>
> > the power to add adn remove names ACCORDING to qualifications set by
>
> > law, which is exactly what the Lex Cornelia Senatoria is doing.
>
> Qualifying for a position is not the same as receiving it. I am
> qualified to manage Cisco routers, yet the company I work for
> has not given me control of its routers, as I have other
> responsibilities.
>

>
> The Lex Vedia Senatoria already establishes those qualifications.
> The Censores then make the final decision from among those persons
> who qualify. That is constitutional. Placing the decision in the
> hands of the Senate upsets the balanced system.
>

The System is already unbalanced. The discretion of the Censors is the
only check. What is to prevent the Censors from deciding that opposing
the views of their faction is immoral? If the Censors have no
accountability what is to prevent them from secretly altering the
album? To prevent them from tossing a few key Senators out prior to a
vote that will go against their faction. Imagine a worse case scenario
that the Censors were Marcus Apollonius and Gnaeus Moravius Piscnus.
How many Senators would be tossed for opposing their "democratic"
program?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Chainquiz VIII
From:	"curiobritannicus" <Marcusaemiliusscaurus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:10:24 -0000

Salvete omnes!

The next question is upon us. The first person to answer yesterday's
question was Lucius Sicinius Drusus, who knew that Gaius Marius was
Caesar's uncle by his marriage to Julia.

He asks: Why did Romulus kill Remus?

If you know the answer, please e-mail me at
marcusscribonius@hotmail.com with your answer, your Roman name, and
the question you would like to answer.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] OT: About the Klez virus
From:	Pan144@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:18:36 EDT

Just thought I'd comment on what Marcus Cassius Julianus reported about the
Klez virus. I got it! Everything Marcus Cassius says is true. I went to the
Symmantec website, downloaded the "tool" I needed to kill the virus, and also
upgraded my Norton Antivirus. My computer is working just fine now. Whew!
Thanks for your information, Marcus Cassius. My computer was sick before you
posted this message, but the information should certainly help other citizens
if they're unlucky enough to end up with an infected computer.


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Ludi Vestalia - Cultural Contribution Shortlist
From:	"curiobritannicus" <Marcusaemiliusscaurus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:38:06 -0000

Salvete omnes,

The first week of voting is over! I have received many votes, for
many different people. However, three people have received more
votes than all the others put together - they are, in no specific
order:

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Marcus Minucius Audens
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

I now call upon you to vote once again, this time for one of these
three only. Each of these good men has contributed a great deal to
Nova Roma, but who do you think has contributed the most?

To vote, please e-mail me at marcusscribonius@hotmail.com with your
Roman name, and the name of the person who you think has contributed
the most.

NB: Please do not post your vote on the main list.

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Aedilis Plebis.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:27:19 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Consul,

> I asked you to send me the Lex Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum
> Centuriatorum before you posted it on the ML. I didn't get it.

I mailed it to you, in full, at 9:45:19 CST January 2nd, at the same
time I mailed Pontifex et Augur L. Equitius. I posted it to the
main list at 14:21:44 on January 4th, once the auguries were complete.

> However, my not getting the law and seeing it on the ML did not affect
> my view of it. It is not important in the big scheme of things, but
> since you asked that is the example I am referring too.

You have no examples where I withheld the text of a law that you
asked for.

> At the time you asked me Item IV was not included in the law. Quite
> frankly I did not decide on including Item IV until late Friday nite
> after a Chat with Praetor Pompeia Cornelia. So at the time we were
> talking that was the entire scope of the law.

You knew that I had strong opinions on the subject of the Censors'
powers; we had argued about it for hours the day before. Yet you
didn't think it was necessary to inform me of such a change? Nearly
24 hours passed between the time you added Item IV and the time
you posted to the main list - in all that time you couldn't notify
me that you intended to do something very controversial?

When you posted it here, without any prior warning, I had no other
choice but to veto it.

> No it does not. Please re-read IV A-C that I posted afew paragraphs
> above. Censor discretion is still there. It just would be "set by law"
> that they would exercise their discretionary powers prior to a Senate
> vote and that they would actually need to state a reason for rejection.

An utterly pointless and unnecessary change.

The Senate does not add Senators; the Censores do. The Constitution
states that the Censores add names to the Album Senatorium. With your
proposal, they would not have the power to add; their only power would
be to prevent the Senate from doing so.

> The System is already unbalanced. The discretion of the Censors is the
> only check. What is to prevent the Censors from deciding that opposing
> the views of their faction is immoral?

If you wish to draft a lex concerning removal of immoral Senators,
then please do so; I may even vote for it. But don't make it part
of a law that is deeply flawed in its other provisions; and don't
try to sneak it past me.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:42:25 -0700

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

>
> Salve Consul,
>

Ave, Consul,

>
> > I asked you to send me the Lex Octavia de Ratione Comitiorum
> > Centuriatorum before you posted it on the ML. I didn't get it.
>
> I mailed it to you, in full, at 9:45:19 CST January 2nd, at the same
> time I mailed Pontifex et Augur L. Equitius. I posted it to the
> main list at 14:21:44 on January 4th, once the auguries were complete.
>
>

I honestly never got it, and I checked. The only time I saw that law
was when it was posted to the ML.

>
> > However, my not getting the law and seeing it on the ML did not
> affect
> > my view of it. It is not important in the big scheme of things, but
>
> > since you asked that is the example I am referring too.
>
> You have no examples where I withheld the text of a law that you
> asked for.
>

As I have stated above I never received the email.

>
> > At the time you asked me Item IV was not included in the law. Quite
>
> > frankly I did not decide on including Item IV until late Friday nite
>
> > after a Chat with Praetor Pompeia Cornelia. So at the time we were
> > talking that was the entire scope of the law.
>
> You knew that I had strong opinions on the subject of the Censors'
> powers; we had argued about it for hours the day before. Yet you
> didn't think it was necessary to inform me of such a change? Nearly
> 24 hours passed between the time you added Item IV and the time
> you posted to the main list - in all that time you couldn't notify
> me that you intended to do something very controversial?
>

And I am not removing any Censorial Power. I am qualifying it by
passing guidelines when Censorial Power may be exercised. This is
something that the Constitution completely allows.

>
> When you posted it here, without any prior warning, I had no other
> choice but to veto it.
>

You vetoed it because you did not like it, not because it violates any
part of the Constituion. You prefer a system where our censors have no
check and can remove individuals from the Senate at will, in secret,
with no input from anyone. I believe this is dangerous, I hope that the
People of Nova Roma see this for what it is and support my attempts in
correcting this. We have already had one attempt to remove two Senators
in secret. Must we wait til we wait for this to happen again?

>
> > No it does not. Please re-read IV A-C that I posted afew paragraphs
>
> > above. Censor discretion is still there. It just would be "set by
> law"
> > that they would exercise their discretionary powers prior to a
> Senate
> > vote and that they would actually need to state a reason for
> rejection.
>
> An utterly pointless and unnecessary change.
>

I disasgree. But that is not the point, the point was that your initial
disagreement is wrong. Now that it is wrong your retort is that it is
pointless and unnecessary.

>
> The Senate does not add Senators; the Censores do. The Constitution
> states that the Censores add names to the Album Senatorium. With your
>
> proposal, they would not have the power to add; their only power would
>
> be to prevent the Senate from doing so.
>

Once again, the Censors WOULD exercise their discretionary powers in the
beginning of the process. And, once again, the Constitution states that
the Censores add names to the Album Senatorium based on qualifications
set by law. This legal and lawfully proposed law would set those
qualifications when the Censors would exercise their discretionary
power. This law takes nothing away from the Censors.

>
> > The System is already unbalanced. The discretion of the Censors is
> the
> > only check. What is to prevent the Censors from deciding that
> opposing
> > the views of their faction is immoral?
>
> If you wish to draft a lex concerning removal of immoral Senators,
> then please do so; I may even vote for it. But don't make it part
> of a law that is deeply flawed in its other provisions; and don't
> try to sneak it past me.
>

That is something that might be dealt with in the future. But that is
not the subject of the law in question. I am trying to prevent an abuse
of what occurred when our Censors attempted to remove 2 Senators earlier
this year in secret on the Senate list. That type of action brings
potential instablity to Nova Roma and sets a very dangerous precedent.
I would think you, of all people, who have spent so much time building
up Nova Roma would see the benefit of having such a check on such
powerful magistrates to prevent this situation from happening again.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:16:55 -0500 (CDT)

> I honestly never got it, and I checked. The only time I saw that law
> was when it was posted to the ML.

In that case, we have an imperfect mail system to blame, if indeed it
never got there. But I asked repeatedly for the text of your proposal
on friday, and repeatedly you declined to give it to me - or even
summarize what it was about. You can't blame that on misdirected mail.

> And I am not removing any Censorial Power. I am qualifying it by
> passing guidelines when Censorial Power may be exercised. This is
> something that the Constitution completely allows.

You are limiting the exercise of their abilities to a very brief
interval. You are removing their ability to "add" senators, as
given to them by the Constitution.

> You vetoed it because you did not like it, not because it violates any
> part of the Constituion.

I have explained at great length that it does violate the Constitution.
You continue to ignore the meaning of the word "add".

> You prefer a system where our censors have no check and can
> remove individuals from the Senate at will, in secret,

This is a lie, and you well know it. The part of your secret law that
I objected to most strongly deals with the addition of Senators, not
their removal.

> We have already had one attempt to remove two Senators
> in secret. Must we wait til we wait for this to happen again?

In secret? There must have been nearly a hundred messages debating
this subject in the Senate, before it happened. Everyone who was
paying attention knew what the Censors intended.

> I disasgree. But that is not the point, the point was that your initial
> disagreement is wrong.

Your attempt to shackle the Censors is wrong, and nothing of the sort
will ever happen as long as I am Consul. Furthermore, your attempt
to sneak this in after telling me only one small part of what your
proposal entailed dishonours our office.

> Once again, the Censors WOULD exercise their discretionary powers in the
> beginning of the process. And, once again, the Constitution states that
> the Censores add names to the Album Senatorium based on qualifications
> set by law.

Yes - they ADD names. They do not merely set the stage so the Senate
can add names later. They ADD names. It is the Censors who add names
to the Album, not the Senate.

> That is something that might be dealt with in the future. But that is
> not the subject of the law in question. I am trying to prevent an abuse
> of what occurred when our Censors attempted to remove 2 Senators earlier
> this year in secret on the Senate list.

That's not the subject either. You're trying to undermine the Censores
by taking away their ability to add Senators - removal has very little
to do with the objectionable Section IV of your proposal.

> I would think you, of all people, who have spent so much time building
> up Nova Roma would see the benefit of having such a check on such
> powerful magistrates to prevent this situation from happening again.

I do want checks on powerful magistrates. I do not want to disempower
our highest magistrates.

I have a question for you - what do you intend to do this year to
limit the future power of the Consuls? The Consuls are in a position
to cause far more harm than the Censores are, and with the higher
turnover in that office, the chance of two malicious Consuls is much
higher than the chaance that we'll have two malicious Censores. So,
do you also intend to establish eight-day periods that are the only
time the Consuls can exercise their Consitutional powers? If not,
why not?

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:13:25 -0700

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

>
> > I honestly never got it, and I checked. The only time I saw that
> law
> > was when it was posted to the ML.
>
> In that case, we have an imperfect mail system to blame, if indeed it
> never got there. But I asked repeatedly for the text of your proposal
>
> on friday, and repeatedly you declined to give it to me - or even
> summarize what it was about. You can't blame that on misdirected
> mail.
>

And I understand that. As I have stated it made no difference as I had
no problem with the law you proposed.

>
> > And I am not removing any Censorial Power. I am qualifying it by
> > passing guidelines when Censorial Power may be exercised. This is
> > something that the Constitution completely allows.
>
> You are limiting the exercise of their abilities to a very brief
> interval. You are removing their ability to "add" senators, as
> given to them by the Constitution.
>

There is nothing illegal, or against the Constitution to define a window
when the Censores may exercise their discretionary powers. Lets briefly
look at how long it took the Censores to respond to the situation where
Priscilla Vedia was nominated to the Senate (and remember I supported
the Censores decision to not put her in office). Remember the numerous
requests that were made to have our Censores send her an email..over a
period of 6-8 weeks. Don't you think that was unprofessional? And,
disrespectful for Vedia to be forced to wait so long after the Senate
deemed her qualified to take her seat with us?

>
> > You vetoed it because you did not like it, not because it violates
> any
> > part of the Constituion.
>
> I have explained at great length that it does violate the
> Constitution.
> You continue to ignore the meaning of the word "add".
>

No, I haven't.

>
> > You prefer a system where our censors have no check and can
> > remove individuals from the Senate at will, in secret,
>
> This is a lie, and you well know it. The part of your secret law that
>
> I objected to most strongly deals with the addition of Senators, not
> their removal.
>

It is not. Censorial discretion is maintained, you act like it is it is
removed permanently, when it is not. I have quoted and re-quoted the
law. The People of Nova Roma should be able to judge this for
themselves, you have taken that ability away from them with your veto.

>
> > We have already had one attempt to remove two Senators
> > in secret. Must we wait til we wait for this to happen again?
>
> In secret? There must have been nearly a hundred messages debating
> this subject in the Senate, before it happened. Everyone who was
> paying attention knew what the Censors intended.
>

Right, the Senate not the Main List under public scrutiny. The removal
of a Senator is something that should be handled in public where our
citizens can see exactly why it is being done. Instead all debate
occurred in a list where 99% of our citizens were unable to see the near
chaos it caused, until Flavius Vedius breached Senatorial
Confidentiality. This is entirely wrong and I request our Tribunes to
draft an Open Governmental Act, in order to prevent our magistrates from
acting in secret especially when it comes to the removal of Board
members who have a direct say in the policies of Nova Roma!

>
> > I disasgree. But that is not the point, the point was that your
> initial
> > disagreement is wrong.
>
> Your attempt to shackle the Censors is wrong, and nothing of the sort
> will ever happen as long as I am Consul. Furthermore, your attempt
> to sneak this in after telling me only one small part of what your
> proposal entailed dishonours our office.
>

And your attempt to protect a system that allows for secret governmental
maneuverings in an effort to remove board members at the whim of Censors
with virtually no check is wrong and it weakens the Board of Directors
of Nova Roma. Your unwillingness to add a necessary check potentially
exposes Nova Roma to potential crises in the future. And I am
disappointed in your maintaining your position that Censors have the
right to treat citizens with utter disrespect, it is quite a shame that
I have felt it necessary to legislate respect, given that our censors
showed no respect to Priscilla Vedia over the course of months it took
them to respond to her from the time her name was officially brought
before the Senate.

>
> > Once again, the Censors WOULD exercise their discretionary powers in
> the
> > beginning of the process. And, once again, the Constitution states
> that
> > the Censores add names to the Album Senatorium based on
> qualifications
> > set by law.
>
> Yes - they ADD names. They do not merely set the stage so the Senate
> can add names later. They ADD names. It is the Censors who add
> names
> to the Album, not the Senate.
>

To qualifications set by law.

<SNIP>

>
> > I would think you, of all people, who have spent so much time
> building
> > up Nova Roma would see the benefit of having such a check on such
> > powerful magistrates to prevent this situation from happening again.
>
> I do want checks on powerful magistrates. I do not want to disempower
>
> our highest magistrates.
>

I see no disempowerment in the Lex Cornelia Senatoria.

>
> I have a question for you - what do you intend to do this year to
> limit the future power of the Consuls?

Nothing there has been no abuse by the Consuls, ever, to my knowledge.

> The Consuls are in a position
> to cause far more harm than the Censores are, and with the higher
> turnover in that office, the chance of two malicious Consuls is much
> higher than the chaance that we'll have two malicious Censores.

I disagree, the Censores have the potential to cause more damage to the
respectability of Nova Roma because they can act unilaterally at their
whim. We are bound to present laws to the Comitia and thus must seek
the approval of the People of Nova Roma. Censors have the ability to
file Secret Nota's on anyone for any reason PERIOD. Censores have the
ability to remove a Senator from the Album Senatorium in secret for any
reason and what's worse is that they have tried to do so already! So
respectfully, colleague, I believe the Censors can be a more dangerous
office than that of Consul. Remember if Flavius Vedius did not breech
Senatorial confidentiality even today the Public would have NO knowledge
that our Censores tried to remove two Senators.

> So,
> do you also intend to establish eight-day periods that are the only
> time the Consuls can exercise their Consitutional powers? If not,
> why not?
>

Are three days not enough?

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Cornelia Senatoria
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:37:21 -0500 (CDT)

> There is nothing illegal, or against the Constitution to define a window
> when the Censores may exercise their discretionary powers.

There is absoulutely no need for it either.

> Remember the numerous requests that were made to have our Censores
> send her an email..over a period of 6-8 weeks. Don't you think
> that was unprofessional?

It was unprofessional of the outgoing consul to attempt to force the
Censores to act when they had no intention of creating any new
Senators at that time.

> And disrespectful for Vedia to be forced to wait so long after the
> Senate deemed her qualified to take her seat with us?

That certainly wasn't the Censores fault. They stated up front they
would not be adding new Senators until well after the elections were
done; Vedius chose to jump the gun, and manufactured the disagreement
that eventually led to his leaving.

Now, as a result of that, you seek to curtail the powers of the
persons who were the wronged parties. That is utterly bizarre.

> It is not. Censorial discretion is maintained, you act like it is it is
> removed permanently, when it is not. I have quoted and re-quoted the
> law.

As have I. The Censors add Senators; they do not merely have an
opportunity to object when the Consuls decide to do so.

> The People of Nova Roma should be able to judge this for
> themselves, you have taken that ability away from them with your veto.

I will veto every attempt to shatter our fragile balance of power.
Our system has three types of authority: magisterial/autocratic,
oligarchic, and democratic. You seek to use one to reduce the other,
and I will not be a party to that.

> This is entirely wrong and I request our Tribunes to
> draft an Open Governmental Act, in order to prevent our magistrates from
> acting in secret especially when it comes to the removal of Board
> members who have a direct say in the policies of Nova Roma!

You are in no position to chastise anyone about acting in secret. You
neglected to tell your colleague about a very controversial proposal,
even though I asked you repeatedly for the full text of what you
intended. You have disgraced the office we both hold with that
dishonorable behavior.

Never again will I trust that you are telling the whole truth.

> And your attempt to protect a system that allows for secret governmental
> maneuverings in an effort to remove board members at the whim of Censors
> with virtually no check is wrong and it weakens the Board of Directors
> of Nova Roma.

I do not support such, and you continued insistance that I do brands
you a liar and a fraud. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO that there is indeed
a check on the Censores - the Tribunes can and did act to stop the
Censores from removing the two inactive Senators.

It is a historical fact that the Tribunes acted to stop the Censores.
Why do you continue to distort this? Why do you continue to insist
that your incoherent attempt at a lex is needed, when that problem
was already solved months ago?

> Your unwillingness to add a necessary check potentially
> exposes Nova Roma to potential crises in the future.

It is not necessary. The Tribunes are a check. By what leap of logic
can you possibly say that another solution is needed, when the Tribunes'
veto already accomplished what you wanted?

> And I am
> disappointed in your maintaining your position that Censors have the
> right to treat citizens with utter disrespect,

I am disappointed and disgusted with your shameful lack of respect
for your "colleague" and for the Senate. Three times on Friday I
asked you to post your proposed lex to the Senate where it could
be reviewed; three times you denied this. Then, when we had
reached a tentative agreement, you post this abominable piece of
work without any advance warning.

> > I have a question for you - what do you intend to do this year to
> > limit the future power of the Consuls?
>
> Nothing there has been no abuse by the Consuls, ever, to my knowledge.

I see; you want to limit one office because you disagree with the
actions taken by its present holders, yet see no need at all to
place restrictions on an equally powerful office.

You're not interested in balance. You're not interested in checks,
or accountability. All you care about is ensuring that all future
magistrates do things "your way".


Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator