Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 6 (Nova Roma) - Revision history

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 3 (Nova Roma) moved to Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 6 (Nova Roma): More logical to use final date of voting.

2007-09-15T16:33:42Z

Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 3 (Nova Roma) moved to Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 6 (Nova Roma): More logical to use final date of voting.

← Older revision

Revision as of 16:33, 15 September 2007

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Talk:Senate Report MMDCCLIX August 3 (Nova Roma) moved to Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 3 (Nova Roma): Capitals

2006-08-17T19:06:11Z

Talk:Senate Report MMDCCLIX August 3 (Nova Roma) moved to Talk:Senate report MMDCCLIX August 3 (Nova Roma): Capitals

← Older revision

Revision as of 19:06, 17 August 2006

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Italics

2006-08-17T12:06:02Z

Italics

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 17 August 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	The phrase '''"''Popularibus Romani''"''' is presumably an error for "''populo Romano''".		The phrase '''"''Popularibus Romani''"''' is presumably an error for "''populo Romano''".

−	==="Contio"===	+	==="''Contio''"===

	The term '''[[Contio (Nova Roma)\|''contio'']]''' is incorrectly used here. What is meant is simply the period during which the proposals were discussed before voting began.		The term '''[[Contio (Nova Roma)\|''contio'']]''' is incorrectly used here. What is meant is simply the period during which the proposals were discussed before voting began.

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Commentary

2006-08-17T11:51:38Z

Commentary

New page

==Preamble : Commentary==

==="''Popularibus Romani''"===

The phrase '''"''Popularibus Romani''"''' is presumably an error for "''populo Romano''".

==="Contio"===

The term '''[[Contio (Nova Roma)|''contio'']]''' is incorrectly used here. What is meant is simply the period during which the proposals were discussed before voting began.

==III : Commentary==

==="Age exemption"===

The [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] is empowered by the [[lex Vedia de magistratuum aetate (Nova Roma)|lex Vedia de magistratuum aetate]] to allow a citizen to stand for office before he reaches the minimum age stated in the [[lex Iunia de magistratuum aetate (Nova Roma)|lex Iunia de magistratuum aetate]]. This is the exemption sought here.

There is, however, a puzzle. The [[Lex Vedia de magistratuum aetate (Nova Roma)|lex Vedia]] states:

:An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the approval of both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two-thirds majority vote.

A two-thirds majority at this meeting would have been 17 votes. Each proposal received only 14 votes, but both were considered to have passed. Apparently a simple majority was considered sufficient. This may be an example of [[mos (Nova Roma)|mos]] displacing [[lex (Nova Roma)|lex]].

==III.A : Commentary==

==="Pius specially"===

The comment of [[Franciscus Apulus Caesar (Nova Roma)|Fr. Apulus]] that '''"both the Candidates, Pius specially, are good and skilled citizens"''' is not very helpful since "Pius" is a ''cognomen'' of both candidates. He probably meant [[Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (Nova Roma)|T. Octavius]], who had been called "Pius" for many years by the time of this meeting and is commonly so called, whereas [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)|Q. Metellus]] acquired the name "Pius" later and is not commonly called by that name.

==IV : Commentary==

==="''Inimicus''"===

As [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius]] indicated in the comment accompanying his vote, there is no Roman precedent for a declaration of an individual as ''inimicus populi Romani'', and indeed the Latin word "''inimicus''" more normally means a personal rival than a formal enemy of a state.

It is therefore far from clear what legal effect, if any, the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] intended this designation to have. The most likely interpretation is that no legal effect was intended and the declaration was intended to have purely symbolic value.