http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Session_LXXXIIII_20_May_2760&feed=atom&action=historySession LXXXIIII 20 May 2760 - Revision history2024-03-29T12:22:19ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.17.0http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Session_LXXXIIII_20_May_2760&diff=28796&oldid=prevM. Lucretius Agricola: fix date and line space problems2008-08-15T06:05:10Z<p>fix date and line space problems</p>
<a href="http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Session_LXXXIIII_20_May_2760&diff=28796&oldid=28795">Show changes</a>M. Lucretius Agricolahttp://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Session_LXXXIIII_20_May_2760&diff=28795&oldid=prevTiberius Galerius Paulinus: New page: <div class="scriptum"> {{Senate Session| 207|2007}} M. Curiatius Complutensis Tribunus Plebis omnes civibus Novae Romae SPD SENATE VOTING RESULTS he Senate was called to discuss the...2008-08-15T05:51:03Z<p>New page: <div class="scriptum"> {{Senate Session| 207|2007}} M. Curiatius Complutensis Tribunus Plebis omnes civibus Novae Romae SPD SENATE VOTING RESULTS he Senate was called to discuss the...</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div><div class="scriptum"><br />
<br />
{{Senate Session| 207|2007}} <br />
<br />
<br />
M. Curiatius Complutensis Tribunus Plebis omnes civibus Novae Romae SPD<br />
<br />
SENATE VOTING RESULTS<br />
<br />
he Senate was called to discuss the following proposed Agenda by<br />
the Consul Arminius Faustus:<br />
<br />
<br />
PREAMBLE<br />
<br />
Recently, a contradiction has arisen about the real name a governor<br />
should have.<br />
<br />
The "Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of Titles for<br />
Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)" (therefore called SC<br />
XIX) was appointed by Consul Faustus as being in contradiction with<br />
NR Constituion, by allowing the governors to be called as "Praetor"<br />
while NR Constituion and Roman History clearly states a Praetor is to<br />
be elected by the Comitia Centuriata. The Consul observed that in<br />
case of Contradiction, the Constituion should take precedence, so SC<br />
XIX was void. The Consul also warned SC XIX could cause lots of<br />
problems on our legal system, since NR has not a Poemerium to bound<br />
the ´macronational´ magistrates and the ´provincial´ magistrates.<br />
Consul Faustus observes SC XIX was ´dead letter´ until now and it is<br />
in contradiction with later leges, Senatusconsulta and edicta.<br />
<br />
I see no better way than relying to the wiseness of the Senatores,<br />
since they approved the SC XIX for the very first time, and, in<br />
certain sense, giving power to it. As a Republican solution, the<br />
Senate is invited to solve the question voting on the proposal below<br />
to prepare us any further changes on our legal system. The Senatores<br />
are invited to confirm SC XIX or to revoke it. The Senatores are<br />
invited to discuss deeply the question and ponder it with all their<br />
love for Nova Roma.<br />
<br />
Past Consules had asked the Comitia and Senate to revoke approved<br />
laws and Senatusconsulta which interpretation could generate<br />
contradiction with the Constitution. So, it is a republican and<br />
democratic solution extensively being done by Nova Roma.<br />
<br />
PROPOSAL<br />
<br />
I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of<br />
Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be<br />
revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by<br />
Consul L. Arminius Faustus?<br />
<br />
Vote UTI ROGAS to revoke the SC XIX. Therefore, governors are to be<br />
called propraetores, and they will be called proconsules if the<br />
governor already was or is consul of Nova Roma.<br />
<br />
Vote ANTIQVO to deny this proposal of revogation and keep SC XIX.<br />
<br />
If Antiqvo wins, Consul Faustus will withdraw his objections listed<br />
above in obedience to the Senate. Until this Senate section is ended,<br />
Consul Faustus assumes the compromise to not use its constitutional<br />
prerrogative of Consular Intercessio against the uses of SC XIX in<br />
contradiction with the Constitution, according his interpretation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Due to the nature of May, the Contio starts 5 May (to observe the<br />
notification period) and goes until 8 May. Days 9, 11, 13 and 15 are<br />
nefasti. So, although 10, 12 and 14 are comitialis, I prefer to start<br />
the voting on the continous Comitialis, ie, the voting starts 17 May<br />
and ends 20 May. A day will start at 0:00 Rome Time and will end at<br />
23:59.<br />
<br />
Contio: 5 (II. Ant. Id.) - 8 May (VII. Ant. Id.)<br />
Voting: 17 (XIV. Ant. Kal. Iun.) - 20 May (XI. Ant. Kal. Iun.)<br />
<br />
(Source: http://www.novaroma.org/calendar/maius.html)<br />
<br />
The auspices were favourable, so I call the Senate to discuss and<br />
vote the matter above.<br />
<br />
--<br />
Valete bene in pacem deorum,<br />
L. Arminius Faustus<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Here is the list of the voting Senators:<br />
<br />
*TGP:Tiberius Galerius Paulinus<br />
*GEM:Gn. Equitius Marinus<br />
*PMS:Pompeia Minucia Strabo<br />
*GFBM:Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus<br />
*TOPA:Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus<br />
*CFBQ:Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus<br />
*CEC:C. Equitius Cato<br />
*MMPH:M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus<br />
*LAF:L. Arminius Faustus<br />
*LECA:L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur<br />
*CFD:Caius Flavius Diocletianus<br />
*QFM:Q. Fabius Maximus<br />
*ATMC:Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato<br />
*ATS:A. Tullia Scholastica<br />
*MBA:Marcus Bianchius Antonius<br />
*GSA;Gn Salvius Astur<br />
*SAS:Sextus Apollonius Scipio<br />
*JSM:Julilla Sempronia Magna<br />
*MMA:M Minucius Audens<br />
*MIP:M Iulius Perusianus<br />
*CMM:C. Marius Merullus<br />
*AMA:A Moravia Aurelia<br />
<br />
The session was closed May 20th at the 11,59 PM Central European<br />
Summer Time (5:59pm EST).<br />
<br />
The votes of A Moravia Aurelia and L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur<br />
arrived after the deadline of the votation.<br />
<br />
----<br />
L. Arminius Faustus votes<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
VTI ROGAS - I have some reasons to vote for revokation of SC XIX.<br />
First, it enters in contradiction with the constitution. Second, it<br />
creates a different magistrature with the same name of others(Praetor<br />
against a "praetor"-governor. Third, this kind of modification<br />
should be done by a Constitution change to avoid contradiction. Fourth, on<br />
Ancient the praetores were governores, but they were elected by the<br />
Comitia, which is not the case of NR. Fifth, on Ancient Rome,<br />
governores made by the senate like NR were called propraetores like<br />
NR already do. Sixth, I see nothing in benefit to NR, this SC was dead<br />
letter since the begging it wasn´t followed. Seventh it is in<br />
contradiction with own latter and newer Senatusconsulta, that it is<br />
an indication the current Senate should be listened. Eighth there is no<br />
constitutional basis to differ the work of the Praetor to the<br />
governor praetor. Nineth there is no clear definition of Imperium and<br />
Provincia on NR legal system, so it can raise to many conflicts with the<br />
Praetores and Consules Imperium. Tenth, Last but not least, fishing<br />
dead letter laws brings no benefit to NR, it is just searching for<br />
legal niceties. So, by all these reasons, I vote to revoke.<br />
<br />
I recall after this situation of SC XIX is solved, we can discuss<br />
further developments.<br />
<br />
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus votes<br />
<br />
I vote Antiqvo on its repeal.<br />
The Senatus Consultum on provincial titles should stand because<br />
your reasoning is wrong. The Senate of Nova Roma has the<br />
constitutional power to adopt any title we believe is appropriate.<br />
<br />
<br />
Discessione Gnaeus Equitius Marinus<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
VTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
UTI ROGAS<br />
--<br />
<br />
Vote of Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus<br />
<br />
Salvete, senatores.<br />
<br />
Here is my vote in the ongoing senate session.<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
UTI ROGAS - I fully appreciate the dangers in using the same title<br />
for<br />
different offices and support the measure to rectify this situation.<br />
<br />
Vote of Senator Marcus Minucius Audens<br />
<br />
Proposal I -- To revoke SC XIX;<br />
<br />
YES - MMA<br />
<br />
Vote of Sextus Apollonius Scipio<br />
<br />
Salvete Omnes,<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
UTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Vote of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
UTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Discessiones Cn. Salvii Asturis<br />
<br />
CN·SALVIVS·ASTVR·PATRIBVS·CONSCRIPTISQVE·S·P·D<br />
<br />
S·V·B·E·E·V<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
I vote in favour.<br />
The idea to call provincial governors "praetores" is born from a<br />
deep<br />
lack of understanding of Roman historical practice. Since it is not<br />
based on historical practice, and it has no advantage at all - other<br />
than to be confusing - there is no reason why it should have been<br />
approved in the first place. I voted against it, and I vote to<br />
remove<br />
it today.<br />
<br />
Discessiones M. Moravius Piscinus<br />
<br />
M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Senatoribus patribus mátribusque<br />
conscriptís S.P.D: Vos quod fexitis, Deos omnes fortunare velim<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
MMPH: UTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
<br />
Suffragia Pompeia Minuciae Strabone<br />
<br />
Pompeia Senatesque sal<br />
<br />
<br />
Item I:<br />
<br />
To rescind Senatus Consultum XIX:<br />
<br />
UTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Respectfully, I didn't vote for this Consultum in the first place.<br />
<br />
Suffragia Diocletiani<br />
<br />
<br />
Caius Flavius Diocletianus<br />
<br />
<br />
PROPOSAL<br />
<br />
I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of<br />
Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be<br />
revoked<br />
due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul<br />
L. Arminius Faustus?<br />
<br />
CFD: Uti Rogas<br />
<br />
Discessiones Julillae Semproniae Magnae<br />
<br />
I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of<br />
Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be<br />
revoked<br />
due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul<br />
L. Arminius Faustus?<br />
<br />
JSM: Uti Rogas<br />
<br />
<br />
Discessiones M Iul Perusiani<br />
<br />
M·IVL·PERVSIANVS·PATRIBVS·S·P·D<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
VTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Vote of Sextus Apollonius Scipio<br />
<br />
Salvete Omnes,<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
UTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Vote of C. Equitius Cato<br />
<br />
Cato omnes SPD<br />
<br />
Salvete omnes.<br />
<br />
Arminus Faustus wrote (in part):<br />
<br />
"First, it enters in contradiction with the constitution."<br />
<br />
CATO: I have not been shown this contradiction. It does not exist.<br />
<br />
"Second, it creates a different magistrature with the same name of<br />
others (Praetor against a "praetor"-governor."<br />
<br />
CATO: and why is having two magistracies with a similiar title so<br />
abhorrent? I think it speaks ill of our abilities to discern between<br />
a praetor of the Republic (such as, currently, myself) and the<br />
governor of a province.<br />
<br />
"Sixth, I see nothing in benefit to NR, this SC was dead letter<br />
since<br />
the begging [sic] it wasn´t followed."<br />
<br />
CATO: if a law is not obeyed that does not make it any less a law;<br />
the fault lies with those given the obligation to obey and/or<br />
enforce<br />
the law, not with the law itself.<br />
<br />
"Seventh it is in contradiction with own latter and newer<br />
Senatusconsulta, that it is an indication the current Senate should<br />
be<br />
listened."<br />
<br />
CATO: forgive me, but I have no idea what this means.<br />
<br />
"Eighth there is no constitutional basis to differ the work of the<br />
Praetor to the governor praetor."<br />
<br />
CATO: I would point my colleagues to the lex Constitutiva IV.3.a-e<br />
and V.C.1-5; These quite clearly define the "work" of the praetors<br />
of<br />
the Republic as opposed to the governors of provinces. And finally,<br />
again the lex Constitutiva says specifically: "The Senate may, by<br />
Senatus Consultum, create provinciae for administrative purposes and<br />
appoint provincial governors therefor, who shall bear such titles as<br />
the Senate may deem appropriate." (V.C)<br />
<br />
Therefore, in the matter of Proposal I: to revoke SC XIX, I vote:<br />
<br />
ANTIQUO<br />
<br />
Marcus Bianchius Antonius - Votes<br />
<br />
Revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
MBA: Uti Rogas<br />
<br />
A. Tullia Scholastica<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
<br />
<br />
Vti rogas. I agree with the honorable Senator Cn. Salvius<br />
Astur's words copied below, and those of several others.<br />
<br />
<br />
CSA: The idea to call provincial governors "praetores" is born<br />
from a deep<br />
lack of understanding of Roman historical practice. Since it is not<br />
based on historical practice, and it has no advantage at all - other<br />
than to be confusing - there is no reason why it should have been<br />
approved in the first place. I voted against it, and I vote to<br />
remove<br />
it today.<br />
<br />
Vote of Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato<br />
<br />
<br />
With due respect to our Gods and Goddesses, and this honorable<br />
Assembly, I vote as follows:<br />
<br />
Item I:<br />
<br />
To rescind Senatus Consultum XIX:<br />
<br />
ATMC - UTI ROGAS<br />
<br />
Q. Fabius Maximus<br />
<br />
Proposal I - To revoke SC XIX<br />
QFM: Antiquo<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First, it enters in contradiction with the constitution.<br />
<br />
How does it do that? The constitution allows the Senate to create<br />
the position and choose who to administer it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, it creates a different magistrature with the same name of<br />
others (Praetor against a "praetor"-governor.)<br />
<br />
But Consul it is at least accurate. The Steersman for the Imperial<br />
provinces, appointed by the Emperor, is not the Republic. It is not<br />
used in any type of Roman republic. We profess to be the recreation<br />
of the Republic. I realize a lot of people here want to be emperor,<br />
but that's not going to happen. Octavius' restoration of<br />
the "republic" was a sham. It was never a Republic. He was first of<br />
the citizens, who controlled all. No one in Nova Roma is ever going<br />
to have that amount of control.<br />
<br />
Third, this kind of modification should be done by a Constitution<br />
change to avoid contradiction.<br />
<br />
<br />
But Consul we are following the Constitution. The Senate has this<br />
power. And this power of naming Province leaders guaranteed in the<br />
Constitution.<br />
<br />
<br />
Fourth, on Ancient the praetores were governores, but they were<br />
elected by the Comitia, which is not the case of NR.<br />
<br />
Yes you are correct about that. But they were never governors.<br />
That came under Augustus. These praetors are provincial only. The<br />
latin term praetor is derived from the Latin "prat-ire" I.E, 'to<br />
lead', 'to precede'. Livius says it was originally the name offered<br />
by the highest Roman magistrate, who later came to be called<br />
consul. You have a magistrate who leads a province.<br />
Fifth, on Ancient Rome, governores made by the senate like NR were<br />
called propraetores like NR already do.<br />
<br />
I have no idea where you get your knowledge but the Emperor<br />
appointed the Governors of his provinces. The Senate could only<br />
appoint Praetors to their provinces which I believe by the Principate<br />
were six.<br />
VI and VII I do not understand your logic so I have no comment.<br />
<br />
<br />
Eighth there is no constitutional basis to differ the work of the<br />
Praetor to the governor praetor.<br />
<br />
But why is one needed? Do you really believe a provincial praetor<br />
is really going to think he has the same abilities of the City<br />
Praetors?<br />
<br />
<br />
Ninth there is no clear definition of Imperium and Provincia<br />
on NR legal system, so it can raise to many conflicts with the<br />
Praetores and Consules Imperium.<br />
<br />
That is utter nonsense. For one thing, the Constitution defines<br />
the pecking order, and Provincial magistrates are way down on the<br />
list.<br />
<br />
Tenth, Last but not least, fishing dead letter laws brings no<br />
benefit to NR, it is just searching for legal niceties. So, by all<br />
these reasons, I vote to revoke.<br />
<br />
I cordially disagree. So therefore I vote to retain.<br />
<br />
<br />
Suffragium C Marii Merulli<br />
<br />
Nego I vote not to rescind the old senatus consultum. The new<br />
version proposed does not improve significantly on the in-force title<br />
system as far as I can see and has "legatus pro praetor". Legatus<br />
pro praetore is a very awkward title and does not distinguish clearly<br />
the governing magistrate from the assisting ones (legati).<br />
<br />
<br />
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br />
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br />
<br />
SUFFRAGIA ARRIVED AFTER THE DEADLINE<br />
<br />
Suffragia L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur<br />
<br />
L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Curiae salutem dicit<br />
<br />
Salvete<br />
<br />
'Iuppiter Optime Maxime, qui genus colis alisque hominem, per quem<br />
vivimus vitalem aevum, quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium,<br />
diem hunc sospitem quaeso meis rebus agundis'<br />
<br />
I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) : Standardization of<br />
Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be<br />
revoked<br />
due to its contradition with the NR Constituion, as stated by Consul<br />
L. Arminius Faustus?<br />
<br />
<br />
Cincinnatus Augur: ANTIQUO, Praetor Cato, Pontifex Q Fabius and<br />
Senator Merullus have demonstrated why there is no need for this,<br />
and<br />
I agree.<br />
As a side item, I do wish to have explained why the issue of the<br />
appointment of M Martianus is being neglected. What a fiasco!<br />
<br />
Mars nos protegas!<br />
<br />
I hope this isn't too late. We got a new computer Sunday and I'm<br />
still finding my way around. We were using a ten year old machine<br />
with windows 95 and now we've got the latest package. woohoo!<br />
We are waiting for the tech to come out and transfer all our data<br />
from the old machine email account is in semi limbo. I can get email<br />
but I don't have my 'address book' yet.<br />
<br />
vote of A. Moravia Aurelia<br />
<br />
Ø I. Should the SC XIX ("Senatus Consultum (XIX) :<br />
Standardization of Titles for Provincial Magistrates Adopted August 7, 2751)") be<br />
revoked due to its contradition with the NR Constitution, as stated by<br />
ConsulL. Arminius Faustus?<br />
<br />
AMA: Uti Rogas<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
RESULTS<br />
<br />
ABSTINEO: 0<br />
ANTIQVO: 4<br />
VTI ROGAS: 16<br />
<br />
<br />
THE PROPOSAL IS PASSED AND THE SC IS REVOKED<br />
<br />
<br />
</div></div>Tiberius Galerius Paulinus