Session LXXXIIII 20 May 2760

This is a report of a session of the Nova Roma Senate of a.d. XIII Kal. Iun. ‡, L. Arminio Ti. Galerio cos. ‡ MMDCCLX a.u.c..

M. Curiatius Complutensis Tribunus Plebis omnes civibus Novae Romae SPD

SENATE VOTING RESULTS

The Senate was called to discuss the following proposed Agenda by the Consul Arminius Faustus:

PREAMBLE

Recently, a contradiction has arisen about the real name a governor should have.

The "Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)" (therefore called SC XIX) was appointed by Consul Faustus as being in contradiction with NR Constituion, by allowing the governors to be called as "Praetor" while NR Constituion and Roman History clearly states a Praetor is to be elected by the Comitia Centuriata. The Consul observed that in case of Contradiction, the Constituion should take precedence, so SC XIX was void. The Consul also warned SC XIX could cause lots of problems on our legal system, since NR has not a Poemerium to bound the ´macronational´ magistrates and the ´provincial´ magistrates. Consul Faustus observes SC XIX was ´dead letter´ until now and it is in contradiction with later leges, Senatusconsulta and edicta.

I see no better way than relying to the wiseness of the Senatores, since they approved the SC XIX for the very first time, and, in certain sense, giving power to it. As a Republican solution, the Senate is invited to solve the question voting on the proposal below to prepare us any further changes on our legal system. The Senatores are invited to confirm SC XIX or to revoke it. The Senatores are invited to discuss deeply the question and ponder it with all their love for Nova Roma.

Past Consules had asked the Comitia and Senate to revoke approved laws and Senatusconsulta which interpretation could generate contradiction with the Constitution. So, it is a republican and democratic solution extensively being done by Nova Roma.

PROPOSAL

I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul L. Arminius Faustus?

Vote UTI ROGAS to revoke the SC XIX. Therefore, governors are to be called propraetores, and they will be called proconsules if the governor already was or is consul of Nova Roma.

Vote ANTIQVO to deny this proposal of revogation and keep SC XIX.

If Antiqvo wins, Consul Faustus will withdraw his objections listed above in obedience to the Senate. Until this Senate section is ended, Consul Faustus assumes the compromise to not use its constitutional prerrogative of Consular Intercessio against the uses of SC XIX in contradiction with the Constitution, according his interpretation.

Due to the nature of May, the Contio starts 5 May (to observe the notification period) and goes until 8 May. Days 9, 11, 13 and 15 are nefasti. So, although 10, 12 and 14 are comitialis, I prefer to start the voting on the continous Comitialis, ie, the voting starts 17 May and ends 20 May. A day will start at 0:00 Rome Time and will end at 23:59.

Contio: 5 (II. Ant. Id.) - 8 May (VII. Ant. Id.)

Voting: 17 (XIV. Ant. Kal. Iun.) - 20 May (XI. Ant. Kal. Iun.)

(Source: http://www.novaroma.org/calendar/maius.html)

The auspices were favourable, so I call the Senate to discuss and vote the matter above.

--

Valete bene in pacem deorum,

L. Arminius Faustus

Here is the list of the voting Senators:

• TGP:Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
• GEM:Gn. Equitius Marinus
• PMS:Pompeia Minucia Strabo
• GFBM:Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
• TOPA:Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
• CFBQ:Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
• CEC:C. Equitius Cato
• MMPH:M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
• LAF:L. Arminius Faustus
• LECA:L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
• CFD:Caius Flavius Diocletianus
• QFM:Q. Fabius Maximus
• ATMC:Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
• ATS:A. Tullia Scholastica
• MBA:Marcus Bianchius Antonius
• GSA;Gn Salvius Astur
• SAS:Sextus Apollonius Scipio
• JSM:Julilla Sempronia Magna
• MMA:M Minucius Audens
• MIP:M Iulius Perusianus
• CMM:C. Marius Merullus
• AMA:A Moravia Aurelia

The session was closed May 20th at the 11,59 PM Central European Summer Time (5:59pm EST).

The votes of A Moravia Aurelia and L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur arrived after the deadline of the votation.

L. Arminius Faustus votes

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

VTI ROGAS - I have some reasons to vote for revokation of SC XIX. First, it enters in contradiction with the constitution. Second, it creates a different magistrature with the same name of others(Praetor against a "praetor"-governor. Third, this kind of modification should be done by a Constitution change to avoid contradiction. Fourth, on Ancient the praetores were governores, but they were elected by the Comitia, which is not the case of NR. Fifth, on Ancient Rome, governores made by the senate like NR were called propraetores like NR already do. Sixth, I see nothing in benefit to NR, this SC was dead letter since the begging it wasn´t followed. Seventh it is in contradiction with own latter and newer Senatusconsulta, that it is an indication the current Senate should be listened. Eighth there is no constitutional basis to differ the work of the Praetor to the governor praetor. Nineth there is no clear definition of Imperium and Provincia on NR legal system, so it can raise to many conflicts with the Praetores and Consules Imperium. Tenth, Last but not least, fishing dead letter laws brings no benefit to NR, it is just searching for legal niceties. So, by all these reasons, I vote to revoke.

I recall after this situation of SC XIX is solved, we can discuss further developments.

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus votes

I vote Antiqvo on its repeal. The Senatus Consultum on provincial titles should stand because your reasoning is wrong. The Senate of Nova Roma has the constitutional power to adopt any title we believe is appropriate.

Discessione Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

VTI ROGAS

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

UTI ROGAS

--

Vote of Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus

Salvete, senatores.

Here is my vote in the ongoing senate session.

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

UTI ROGAS - I fully appreciate the dangers in using the same title for different offices and support the measure to rectify this situation.

Vote of Senator Marcus Minucius Audens

Proposal I -- To revoke SC XIX;

YES - MMA

Vote of Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Salvete Omnes,

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

UTI ROGAS

Vote of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

UTI ROGAS

Discessiones Cn. Salvii Asturis

CN·SALVIVS·ASTVR·PATRIBVS·CONSCRIPTISQVE·S·P·D

S·V·B·E·E·V

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

I vote in favour. The idea to call provincial governors "praetores" is born from a deep lack of understanding of Roman historical practice. Since it is not based on historical practice, and it has no advantage at all - other than to be confusing - there is no reason why it should have been approved in the first place. I voted against it, and I vote to remove it today.

Discessiones M. Moravius Piscinus

M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Senatoribus patribus mátribusque conscriptís S.P.D: Vos quod fexitis, Deos omnes fortunare velim

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

MMPH: UTI ROGAS

Suffragia Pompeia Minuciae Strabone

Pompeia Senatesque sal

Item I:

To rescind Senatus Consultum XIX:

UTI ROGAS

Respectfully, I didn't vote for this Consultum in the first place.

Suffragia Diocletiani

Caius Flavius Diocletianus

PROPOSAL

I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul L. Arminius Faustus?

CFD: Uti Rogas

Discessiones Julillae Semproniae Magnae

I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul L. Arminius Faustus?

JSM: Uti Rogas

Discessiones M Iul Perusiani

M·IVL·PERVSIANVS·PATRIBVS·S·P·D

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

VTI ROGAS

Vote of Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Salvete Omnes,

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

UTI ROGAS

Vote of C. Equitius Cato

Cato omnes SPD

Salvete omnes.

Arminus Faustus wrote (in part):

"First, it enters in contradiction with the constitution."

CATO: I have not been shown this contradiction. It does not exist.

"Second, it creates a different magistrature with the same name of others (Praetor against a "praetor"-governor."

CATO: and why is having two magistracies with a similiar title so abhorrent? I think it speaks ill of our abilities to discern between a praetor of the Republic (such as, currently, myself) and the governor of a province.

"Sixth, I see nothing in benefit to NR, this SC was dead letter since the begging [sic] it wasn´t followed."

CATO: if a law is not obeyed that does not make it any less a law; the fault lies with those given the obligation to obey and/or enforce the law, not with the law itself.

"Seventh it is in contradiction with own latter and newer Senatusconsulta, that it is an indication the current Senate should be listened."

CATO: forgive me, but I have no idea what this means.

"Eighth there is no constitutional basis to differ the work of the Praetor to the governor praetor."

CATO: I would point my colleagues to the lex Constitutiva IV.3.a-e and V.C.1-5; These quite clearly define the "work" of the praetors of the Republic as opposed to the governors of provinces. And finally, again the lex Constitutiva says specifically: "The Senate may, by Senatus Consultum, create provinciae for administrative purposes and appoint provincial governors therefor, who shall bear such titles as the Senate may deem appropriate." (V.C)

Therefore, in the matter of Proposal I: to revoke SC XIX, I vote:

ANTIQUO

Marcus Bianchius Antonius - Votes

Revoke SC XIX

MBA: Uti Rogas

A. Tullia Scholastica

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

Vti rogas. I agree with the honorable Senator Cn. Salvius Astur's words copied below, and those of several others.

CSA: The idea to call provincial governors "praetores" is born from a deep lack of understanding of Roman historical practice. Since it is not based on historical practice, and it has no advantage at all - other than to be confusing - there is no reason why it should have been approved in the first place. I voted against it, and I vote to remove it today.

Vote of Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato

With due respect to our Gods and Goddesses, and this honorable Assembly, I vote as follows:

Item I:

To rescind Senatus Consultum XIX:

ATMC - UTI ROGAS

Q. Fabius Maximus

Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX

QFM: Antiquo

First, it enters in contradiction with the constitution.

How does it do that? The constitution allows the Senate to create the position and choose who to administer it.

Second, it creates a different magistrature with the same name of others (Praetor against a "praetor"-governor.)

But Consul it is at least accurate. The Steersman for the Imperial provinces, appointed by the Emperor, is not the Republic. It is not used in any type of Roman republic. We profess to be the recreation of the Republic. I realize a lot of people here want to be emperor, but that's not going to happen. Octavius' restoration of the "republic" was a sham. It was never a Republic. He was first of the citizens, who controlled all. No one in Nova Roma is ever going to have that amount of control.

Third, this kind of modification should be done by a Constitution change to avoid contradiction.

But Consul we are following the Constitution. The Senate has this power. And this power of naming Province leaders guaranteed in the Constitution.

Fourth, on Ancient the praetores were governores, but they were elected by the Comitia, which is not the case of NR.

Yes you are correct about that. But they were never governors. That came under Augustus. These praetors are provincial only. The latin term praetor is derived from the Latin "prat-ire" I.E, 'to lead', 'to precede'. Livius says it was originally the name offered by the highest Roman magistrate, who later came to be called consul. You have a magistrate who leads a province.

Fifth, on Ancient Rome, governores made by the senate like NR were called propraetores like NR already do.

I have no idea where you get your knowledge but the Emperor appointed the Governors of his provinces. The Senate could only appoint Praetors to their provinces which I believe by the Principate were six.

VI and VII I do not understand your logic so I have no comment.

Eighth there is no constitutional basis to differ the work of the Praetor to the governor praetor.

But why is one needed? Do you really believe a provincial praetor is really going to think he has the same abilities of the City Praetors?

Ninth there is no clear definition of Imperium and Provincia on NR legal system, so it can raise to many conflicts with the Praetores and Consules Imperium.

That is utter nonsense. For one thing, the Constitution defines the pecking order, and Provincial magistrates are way down on the list.

Tenth, Last but not least, fishing dead letter laws brings no benefit to NR, it is just searching for legal niceties. So, by all these reasons, I vote to revoke.

I cordially disagree. So therefore I vote to retain.

Suffragium C Marii Merulli

Nego I vote not to rescind the old senatus consultum. The new version proposed does not improve significantly on the in-force title system as far as I can see and has "legatus pro praetor". Legatus pro praetore is a very awkward title and does not distinguish clearly the governing magistrate from the assisting ones (legati).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SUFFRAGIA ARRIVED AFTER THE DEADLINE

Suffragia L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Curiae salutem dicit

Salvete

'Iuppiter Optime Maxime, qui genus colis alisque hominem, per quem vivimus vitalem aevum, quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium, diem hunc sospitem quaeso meis rebus agundis'

I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul L. Arminius Faustus?

Cincinnatus Augur: ANTIQUO, Praetor Cato, Pontifex Q Fabius and Senator Merullus have demonstrated why there is no need for this, and I agree. As a side item, I do wish to have explained why the issue of the appointment of M Martianus is being neglected. What a fiasco!

Mars nos protegas!

I hope this isn't too late. We got a new computer Sunday and I'm still finding my way around. We were using a ten year old machine with windows 95 and now we've got the latest package. woohoo! We are waiting for the tech to come out and transfer all our data from the old machine email account is in semi limbo. I can get email but I don't have my 'address book' yet.

vote of A. Moravia Aurelia

Ø I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constitution, as stated by ConsulL. Arminius Faustus?

AMA: Uti Rogas

RESULTS

ABSTINEO: 0 ANTIQVO: 4 VTI ROGAS: 16

THE PROPOSAL IS PASSED AND THE SC IS REVOKED