| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:14:07 -0800 |
|
>
> > How is it that in your electorial system so many Patricians have the
> > "One Man One Vote" principle apply, while the Plebeians are
> > disproportionately placed in large centuries where their votes are
> > diluted?
>
> The division into centuries is a function of century points, with those
> who have accumulated more century points entitled to be placed in a
> smaller century. Membership in the Patrician or Plebeian order accounts
> for a mere ten points - others are given for length of time as a citizen
> and for offices held, as of course you are aware. Persons who have
> held several positions over the years, such as L. Equitius and L.
Cornelius,
> have accumulated a very large number of century points, fairly and
legally.
> Merely being patrician is not enough to get anyone into a private
> century.
Ave,
I wanted to add some comments on this as Censor of Nova Roma. Gn. Moravius,
how long have you been a citizen? 6-8 months correct? Not much longer than
that....whereas, M. Cassius, Lucius Equitius, Fl. Vedius and others have
been citizens since NR first began. Back in March 1998, which is a
difference of what...2 to 2 1/2 years? Most of us who are in one person
centuries (including your Paterfamilias) if you did your research before you
posted, you would see we have held political and/or religious offices since
that time. Most of use have held multiple offices.
The Century points are designed to give points for people who have devoted
their time and effort to help build Nova Roma. Assuming you are still in
Nova Roma in 3 years you will have a large number of Century points
too....compared to new citizens who have just been approved.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
*Just to show you how many offices I have served in NR*
Censor et Senator
Consul et Praetor Urbanus et Quaestor
Proconsul of California Provinca
Paterfamilias of the Patrician Gens Cornelia
Lictor
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:20:16 -0600 |
|
Salve Quinte Sertori
> Thank for the clarification, but now another point confuses me. It is
> about the proper titles for first time Governors. According to the
> following Senatus Consultum, I believe all first time Governors are
> to be titled Praetor! I saw many new Governors calling themselves
> Propraetors but decided to say nothing till I received your post.
The senatusconsultum you cited was issued prior to our current
constitution, which states the titles for provincial governors as
follows:
The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
-Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by their normal
title;
-Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul has
expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, shall be
called proconsuls;
-Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as praetor has
expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, as well as
those citizens whom the Senate shall appoint who are not currently
serving as consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Social/political et Lucius Sergius |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:51:16 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Gai Senti,
> By the way the voting system is positioned at the moment,
> the first people to join Nova Roma (who, being the first 30 tribes,
> are patricians)
This is incorrect -- it is the first thirty gentes that are patrician.
Tribal allocation is not based on patrician/plebeian status, rather, it
is based on whether a person voted in the previous election.
> have more power than any others and more influence in certain centruies.
Patricians do have a slight edge in the centuries, compensating for the
handicap of being ineligible to serve as Tribune or vote for Tribune.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] More on the Non-Election of Draco |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:53:41 -0000 |
|
Quiritibus salutem
I wrote:
> > Proconsul Audens reverendissime:
> >
> > I do not wish to make a battle of this any more than you do,
Decius Iunius Palladius replied:
> Then don't...
And promptly did so himself. I have considered the option of not replying at
all, or of replying privately, but it really won't do.
I observed:
> > For myself, I would not call Germanicus', Palladius', Maximus' or
> Sulla's
> > comments on their refusal to ratify the electoral vote for Draco,
> > 'reasoning' : their
> > comments look to me much more like one single justification, rather
> than
> > actual reasons.
>
>
> Well, that was an ill-thought out shot, one I would not have expected
> of you. I would never have called into question a vote of yours,
> however seemingly inconsidered, and especially not on the main list.
I am sorry that Palladius fails to perceive the appropriateness of
discussing senators' arguments and votes on the Main List. I personally
believe that senators' votes and arguments on matters before the Senate are
posted to the Main List in order for everyone who wishes to discuss them,
not that they are posted for unquestioning acceptance. If something is said
in the senate which I believe to be incorrect or misleading (as Palladius'
statement about Draco's not seeking prior approval of an age exemption was),
I'll say so.
If I think someone's reputatio is being smeared, I'll say so. I do not
admire the practice of senators tearing strips of each other in the Curia,
only to close ranks afterwards when a vote and supporting statement is made
public. Where is the dignitas in that?
> >I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
> > defence of his pater something akin to maiestas.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, I did not mention his supposed defence of
> his paterfamilias. To be frank I had not been following the little
> battle in the sandbox where this was taking place. The only posts of
> his I read during the period were those where he commented on Nova
> Roman laws.
I never said that Palladius mentioned Draco's defence of Formosanus. There
is no 'supposed' about it. Palladius should not offer comment about what he
admits he did not bother to read. In fact, nobody who accused Draco of
disrespect in the senate vote mentioned the alledged disrespect in any
context whatever, which is a curious thing in iteslf. They had to be
reminded that in one or two cases they themselves had been the authors of a
disrespect they then rather inconsistently affected to deplore in a junior.
> >I would have been >far less
> > surprised
> > if they had said instead that:
> >
> > i) Draco is far too damn clever than anyone has a right to be at
> that age;
>
> I would not have said that since this was not evident. His arguments
> were reasonably well argued but not outstanding. I was not swayed
> either way here.
Next time I make a joke, I shall tell Palladius so that he can see it
coming.
Draco's mature abilities go far beyond his logical discourse. One should
consider his achievements.What people accomplish is rather more important
than what they say.
Rhetoric is cheap in Nova Roma. Achievements for the public good are
precious.
Votes which seem to inhibit such a person's future achievements for the
public good
are hard for me to understand.
> > ii) Draco is a foreigner;
>
> I did not know and do not know (nor do I care) what nationality he
> is. As far as I knew he was an American. I take it that is not the
> case but it is of no consequence.
It would be, for a legate of Gallia to be an American. One must pay
attention to current affairs, especially when they concern a person one is
voting on, and offering comments about.
> I judge people as Nova Romans and
> frankly am insulted that you insinuate I might do otherwise (even if
> you are attempting to be humorous).
I think there are many standards by which we judge Nova Romanitas, all of
them more or less refracted through the national and cultural mindsets in
which we live. We cannot ever entirely escape our own time, place and
culture. We must have some self-critical humility in this respect -
otherwise we delude ourselves. I do confess to a repeated impression that
there are NoviRomani among us who, however, cannot or will not see their own
personal cultural standpoint as being simply that, rather than as the only
valid standard by which to judge another's Romanitas. Palladius of course
has every right to feel insulted if he thinks this cannot apply to him.
> > iii) Draco is a member of gens Apollonia;
>
> Well, I hadn't that of that point, perhaps I should have added it to
> my justification. ;)
To do so would be to enter what Palladius dismisses as a 'battle in the
sandbox'. He cannot have it both ways.
> > Palladius' statement that Draco did not previously apply to the
> Senate for
> > an age exemption is, as you know, patently untrue. It is of course
> perfectly
> > possible that Palladius suffered a memory failure and was so
> (erroneously)
> > sure of his facts that he didn't bother to check them.
>
> Since you read the senate board you already know that I admitted I
> was wrong on this point but I guess nothing feels as good as kicking
> a dead horse?
I repeat: one cannot have it both ways. If Palladius wishes to engage in
certain kinds of dialectic he disparages, he must include himself with those
disparaged by association, in the same breath. If I am kicking a dead horse
in the sandbox, so is he.
>However, my primary point was still valid, that Draco
> is too young to even be a citizen without written parental permission
This was not Palladius' primary point, for if it had been he would have said
so at once. It came as an afterthought. Let's call it a tertiary point,
which would be more accurate.
> and thus in my opinion was way too young for an exemption. I assume
> he has that written permission and it is on file with the censors
> but it still indicates just how far below the age limit for a
> magistracy he is.
Palladius here displays an unfortunate rigidity and inflexibility of
thinking, since the gap between the minimum age for independent citizenship
(civis sui iuris) and the minimum age for holding office as Aedilis, is
three years. Three years is not a long time.
> >Since this is a
> > possibility, it was wrong of Draco to call Palladius a liar, and he
> does owe
> > Palladius an apology for that.
>
> Frankly I do not think he would be so imprudent and stupid as to say
> that publicly, if what you say about his character is right. I have
> checked the records back a little ways and saw no such comment.
Draco was accused of calling Palladius a liar, nonetheless.
> No
> doubt he said as much to you privately but that is another matter. I
> am sure he appreciates you mentioning it on the list. :)
Now Palladius accuses Draco of calling him a liar to me, privately. This is
untrue. It is in any case an unprovable smear. I trust Palladius now regrets
having said this.
> >But Palladius, by making that untrue
> > statement, may have influenced many of his colleagues in the Senate
> to vote
> > 'NEGAT' on Draco's election as well, on the basis of incorrect
> information.
>
> Again, you are wrong, as you well know since you read the senate list
> (perhaps while you are telling me to check my facts you should check
> yours).
I didnot take note of who voted in what order and at what time. At the time
Palladius voted, and accused Draco of not applying for an age exemption as
the primary reason for his voting against such an exemption, several
senators had not yet voted who could have done.
>My vote was dead last, it came just under the wire and
> influenced no one. Also, my vote did not change the outcome, he still
> would not have gotten enough votes and he did not have the vote of
> both censors.
Palladius will perhaps recall that some senatores on the list received my
vote last. Evidently the order in which votes are received by different
e-mail accounts varies. If all who had been entitled to vote had voted,
their votes could arguably have been influenced by Palladius' unfounded
allegation against Draco. I still maintain that a mistaken allegation made
in public against someone requires an apology. Agreed, however, that the
Censorial veto makes a mockery of a senate vote under such circumstances.
> > That, I believe, is worth an apology by Palladius to Draco, and to
> the
> > Senate, and, by extension, to the electorate.
>
> Draco, I am sorry that you are not better served by your so-called
> defenders such as Vado. They are intentionally misrepresenting your
> case
Oh dear. Palladius is again indulging in vituperations which he is unable to
substantiate.
I criticised him for making a mistake (giving him the benefit of the doubt).
He reciprocates by calling me a liar.
> and are not helping you build up the goodwill you that you will
> need to be a productive magistrate in the future, as no doubt you
> will be.
True, Draco does not yet have a track record of productivity as a Censor or
editor of the Eagle, like Palladius. But Draco is already a productive
magistrate, in provincia Gallia. He is a legate and the Propraetor's deputy.
The goodwill others have towards him is founded on his achievements, and not
on the words of others.
> If it makes you feel any better, Draco, the primary reason I voted
> against you was your age.
This was not the primary reason given to the senate.
>While I did believe that you had not
> applied ahead of time, if I had known otherwise it would have made
> little difference.
But then Palladius would have had to have changed the centre of gravity of
his argument at the outset, not in retrospect.
>If you had passed your 18th birthday I would
> probably have voted the other way.
Nova Roma is of course a free country, in which citizens are free to believe
whatever they like. Does six months make such an unconditional difference
between a person fitted, and not fitted, for office?
> > However it was meant, the damage is done, and we all have to live
> >with it,of
> > course.
>
> No damage was done since my comments came in the last moments of
> voting, as you well know.
See my comments above. And if anyone had believed Palladius' allegations,
damage would have been done to Draco's reputatio.
> >The Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate is unclear as to whether an
> > underage candidate should seek exemption before (or after)
> declaring his or
> > her candidacy, or before (or after) being elected:
> >
> > "VI. 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."
> >
> > Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an unworkably-
> worded
> > lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority about what it
> ought, in
> > retrospect, to mean.
>
> I'm sorry I wasn't perfect and couldn't anticipate all situations.
The manifest unworkability of the Lex Iunia required no anticipation. The
senate was unclear from the start as to whether a vote should be taken
before or after the election, or before or after announcement of candidacy.
The moment its application was attempted, due time was not allowed for a
pre-election vote to be taken by the senate on an exemption, so we had the
farce of voting on whether to allow an exemption on an individual who had
already been elected, whithout knowing whether the Censors had a right of
prior veto or not.
I do not understand Palladius' sense of personal inuria. If I were to refer
to a lex someone made as a steaming pile of merda (or even a little
undersized piece of merda), it is clear that I am not so referring to the
person. The person who never made a mistake never made anything. But what
shall we say of a person who refuses neither to admit a mistake, nor to
express regret for a mistake?
> No
> doubt you are and would have if the situation were reversed but it
> wasn't. This is a learning process for all of us (pardon, except for
> you) and if a law is deficient, then it can be amended.
I quote (or paraphrase) Germanicus: "Why is it that we never have time to
craft a law properly in the first place, but always seem to have time to
tinker with it afterwards?"
> I am quite surprised by the seemingly personal (even insulting) tone
> of this message--I would have thought it unlike you. Our occasional
> communications in the past have always been cordial, even friendly--
> our previous discussion about Symmachus for example. I am sorry to
> have to respond in even somewhat like fashion.
I accept that Palladius has every right to see himself as a paradigm of
injured innocence.
People can believe whatever they like (and they often do). But if Palladius
had alledged about Symmachus what he alledged about Draco, our
correspondence on that subject would not have been cordial.
I feel it is disingenuous both to pretend to a moral high ground by
criticising another's post, and then to descend to the level of the lowest
possible interpretation of that post, to indulge one's spleen by retaliating
with interest. Palladius was under no obligation to react to my post in this
way. He chose his interpretation, and his reaction. He must accept the
responsibility for any result.
> I have now responded here and had previously commented in the senate.
> I have received no communication from him about my vote and do not
> post on nor read the main list enough to follow every comment he
> might have made, though I looked today for the insult you say he
> leveled, to no success.
I leave it to Draco's detractors to find that post. The onus of proof is on
them as his accusers, not on me - nor indeed on Palladius, if he also finds
the allegation objectionable. If Palladius wishes to disassociate himself
from Draco's detractors in this, I am gratified.
If Palladius wishes to reopen a correspondence on historical fact (relating
to Symmachus or anybody else), I shall be further gratified. I shall be
cordial. I shall be friendly, as to one often of like mind and interest. I
do not enjoy the dialectic of vituperation, but neither will I ignore it.
N. Moravius Vado.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1164 Election Issues Recap |
| From: |
"John Dobbins" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:03:44 -0000 |
|
snip
>
> * Use the consecutive vote-counting mechanism to resolve ties in
magisterial
> elections. Seems to be a divided issue.
>
> Lucius Equitius: I'm waiting for citation; however, I recall
reading
that
> the centuries began voting with the first century and continued
until the
> issue was decided. I do not recall anything like a lottery, they
would have
> gone from the most prestigious first, down to the 'capita cense'.
>
snip
>
> Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus, Censor
Salve,
I'm new to this group and Nova Roma (Citizenship applied for).
If my memory is correct, There was a drawing for the first century to
vote, however this was limited to the junior centuries of the first
class. After this Century voted, the remainder voted in order
starting
the the highest, and voting continued until the election was decided.
This would have meant that the counting would have taken place after
each Century voted, prior to the next Century's vote.
I attempted to find a reference to this so I could post it, and I may
have found something. The site is in English but most of the
citations are in Latin or Russian, so I not sure. A Google search for
voting order centuriate assembly turned up this page.
http://koptev.newmail.ru/biearly.htm
which is a biblography for for the site, and contains this citation.
L.J.Grieve, Proci patricii: a question of voting order in the
centuriate assembly. - 302-317.
For those who are fortunate enough to understand Latin, This site
looks like an excellent source for Roman Law.
http://koptev.newmail.ru/
Vale
John Dobbins
(Lucius Sicinius Drusus, if approved by the Censors)
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:45:40 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:52 PM
>
> I understand a little better what you're trying to achieve, it's
> like this:
>
> Candidate A gets 15 tribes, Candidate B and C get 10 each.
>
> Some number gets picked between 1-35. We start counting there. Let's say
at
> 10. So Cand. B gets tribe 12, 14, 15, C get 21, etc.....we keep going
until
> eventually one or the other hits 10 tribes and is the winner.
>
> If this was ever an actual practice, I'd like citations on it.
Ask and ye shall receive.
"The lot played a vital role in the electral process. It was used to pick
the tribe (designated as the principium) or the century (centuria
praerogativa) which voted first and provided a lead for the other voters.
The lot also determined the order of voting by the tribes or the order in
which the votes were announced. This was important, because the first
candidates to achieve a simple majority of the groups were declared elected
up to the number of posts available, even though they might not have polled
the largest number of votes, if all the votes of all the groups had been
counted." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 516)
Now, granted we must adapt the ancient form to the necessities of our modern
life (no one is proposing that we hold our votes on a single day in a
prescribed order), but we can at least get the same end result by counting
the vote in such a manner as I described. (Deciding ties based on age is an
intriguing idea, but I've yet to see any mention of such a practice in Roma
Antiqua.) It's not perfect, but nothing will be until we're all standing
together in a physical Forum dropping our wax tablets in a real cista. For
now, compromise we must, but let us at least compromise in the direction of
Roma Antiqua.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:10:43 -0600 |
|
T Labienus L Cornelio omnibusque SPD
> Sulla: Actually no, I do not think that the Praetor's edict would be
> binding on the Censor. You forget a KEY point Tribune Piscinus.
> According to 4.A it states, that the Ordinarii, in decreasing order of
> authority are as follows. Thus the Censors are listed higher than the
> Praetors. This is how the Vedian Constitution works. The Praetors are
> lower in the hierarchy than the Censors.
As a censor, you are still bound to abide by the laws (by laws, I refer
to dictatorial edicta, consular edicta under a senatus consultum
ultimum, leges, plebiscita, decreta, senatusconsulta, and edicta) of the
Respublica. If a praetor issues an edictum in order to administer the
law, you are bound by that edictum. And, if you take any action that
violates an edictum issued by a aedile, praetor, or consul, I will veto
you.
Valete
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:16:15 -0800 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fortunatus" <labienus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action
> T Labienus L Cornelio omnibusque SPD
>
> > Sulla: Actually no, I do not think that the Praetor's edict would be
> > binding on the Censor. You forget a KEY point Tribune Piscinus.
> > According to 4.A it states, that the Ordinarii, in decreasing order of
> > authority are as follows. Thus the Censors are listed higher than the
> > Praetors. This is how the Vedian Constitution works. The Praetors are
> > lower in the hierarchy than the Censors.
>
> As a censor, you are still bound to abide by the laws (by laws, I refer
> to dictatorial edicta, consular edicta under a senatus consultum
> ultimum, leges, plebiscita, decreta, senatusconsulta, and edicta) of the
> Respublica. If a praetor issues an edictum in order to administer the
> law, you are bound by that edictum. And, if you take any action that
> violates an edictum issued by a aedile, praetor, or consul, I will veto
> you.
I never stated that the Censors do not have to obey the law (Dictatorial
Edicta, Consular Edicta under a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Leges,
Plebiscita, decreta, senatus consulta) But edicts are different which was
my point. Under article 4, it lists magistrates in level of importance.
Censors are listed first. Higher than the Praetors, and Aediles. That was
my point, gotten directly from the Constitution of Nova Roma.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:10:03 -0600 |
|
9 Jan 2001
Salve Senator
Thank you I understand now.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fortunatus" <labienus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates?
> Salve Quinte Sertori
>
> > Thank for the clarification, but now another point confuses me. It is
> > about the proper titles for first time Governors. According to the
> > following Senatus Consultum, I believe all first time Governors are
> > to be titled Praetor! I saw many new Governors calling themselves
> > Propraetors but decided to say nothing till I received your post.
>
> The senatusconsultum you cited was issued prior to our current
> constitution, which states the titles for provincial governors as
> follows:
>
> The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
> -Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by their normal
> title;
> -Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, shall be
> called proconsuls;
> -Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as praetor has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their role as governor, as well as
> those citizens whom the Senate shall appoint who are not currently
> serving as consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:30:05 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
A conceptual question has come up as I and some others were discussing the
possibility of local chapters (which I'm calling Civitae for now). Just what
sort of relationship would (or should) the provincial governors and legati
have with such local chapters? I would think that concerning the scheduling
of events and local recruiting the Civitae would be relatively autonomous,
with the Provincial government perhaps serving in an advisory and
coordinating capacity. Provincial governors would probably be in charge of
issuing the charters for new Civitae, and making sure they adhere to
whatever standards are set (a minimum number of meetings per year, minimum
population, etc.).
But so far the model leaves the Provincial Governors (and their legati) with
little to do vis-a-vis the Civitae (and indeed leaves the Civitae doing many
of the things-- events and recruiting-- that were originally envisioned as
being done by the Governors and Legati). Should there be areas where the
Governor would have authority rather than the Civitas (perhaps in the realm
of finances)? Should the Governor have veto power over the actions of the
Civitas? Should he appoint local magistrates, or vett their appointment, or
would the Civitas be completely self-sufficient in terms of its own internal
administration? All these things were done at various times and in various
types of settlement in Roma Antiqua, so we have a broad spectrum of models
to choose from.
Any thoughts?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:37:26 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Luci Corneli,
> I never stated that the Censors do not have to obey the law (Dictatorial
> Edicta, Consular Edicta under a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Leges,
> Plebiscita, decreta, senatus consulta) But edicts are different which was
> my point. Under article 4, it lists magistrates in level of importance.
> Censors are listed first. Higher than the Praetors, and Aediles. That was
> my point, gotten directly from the Constitution of Nova Roma.
Nevertheless, you're required to comply with the edict unless it is
superceded by a law or an edict of higher authority. Merely ignoring
it is not an option, unless it can be demonstrated that the original
edict was unlawful (i.e., outside of the issuing magistrate's
jurisdiction). If you want to violate an edict, you'll need to issue
an edict of your own authorizing that activity.
Vale, O.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:47:50 -0600 |
|
T Labienus Quinto Sertorio omnibusque SPD
> I believe Provincia Governors are Magistrates for the following
> reasons; In the constitution in Section IV it states:"Magistrates
> are the elected and appointed officials responsible for the
> maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. " Why does this not
> include Governors?
It seems at first that we have run across another ambiguity in the
constitution. That extremely broad definition includes anyone who holds
a government post. However, the apparitores are explicitly excluded
from the list of magistrates, and Senatores are explicitly defined in a
separate section than magistrates, though they easily fit the broad
definition you quoted.
The fact that the magistrates are specifically defined under their own
section in the constitution also implies that those officials described
elsewhere are not necessarily magistrates. Are the pontifices
magistrates? They are, after all, "responsible for the maintenance...of
the affairs of state."
Still, to be fair, it does seem that should one attempt to define a
propraetor, one would be forced to agree that they fulfill a role an
important and administrative function in much the same way as, say, the
praetores.
> Also stated is, "There are two categories of magistrates: ordinarii
> (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii (those who are
> only occasionally appointed or elected)." After a closer look I feel
> that the position of Governor falls under the area of ordinarii,
Actually, they are certainly not ordinarii, as the constitution
explicitly states, "The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are
as follow," and lists only censores, consules, praetores, aediles
curules, aediles plebis, quaestores, tribuni plebis, the
vigintisexviri, and apparitores (who are defined as not being
magistrates).
Indeed, the constitution says, "There are two categories of magistrates:
ordinarii (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii (those
who are only occasionally appointed or elected)." Propraetores are
"only occasionally appointed" by the Senate, and would therefore fall
under the extraordinarii. However, the constitution also explicitly
defines the extraordinarii as either a dictator or an interrex.
Only the loose definition you cited would allow a propraetor to be
counted as a magistrate (at least in specific constitutional terms, as
opposed to informal conversation), but the section of the constitution
that defines the magistrates only ambiguously allow for magistrates
other than those defined in section IV.
> this position has been explained in a different section of the
> Constitution because of the following, also from Section IV,
> "Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than December
> 15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on January
> 1st. (Exceptions to these provisions regarding elections may be found in
> section V of this Constitution.)" Italics are mine... Section V has to
> therefore also include ordinarii! And all ordinarii ARE Magistrates. The
> only exceptions to these provisions regarding elections in Section V deal
> with Provincia Governors so they have to be Magistrates!
This is not true. Section V also states, "Should a magistrate's office
become vacant during the course of his term, the Senate may appoint a
replacement to serve out the remainder of the term should there be less
than three months remaining therein." This is clearly an exception to
the section you cite, and clearly involves those positions explicitly
defined as the ordinarii.
It seems to me that magistrates, as defined by the constitution, should
be taken to include only those "elected and appointed officials
responsible for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state" who
are also members of the central government, and whose actions can
directly affect the whole populace. Provincial governors only have
authority within their provinciae, and serve through the will of the
Senate, as opposed to the will of the people. (Yes, the argument could
be made that the extraordinarii also serve in this capacity. I admit
the point, but would argue that they are a special case.)
Valete
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:45:45 -0800 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <hucke@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action
> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> > I never stated that the Censors do not have to obey the law (Dictatorial
> > Edicta, Consular Edicta under a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Leges,
> > Plebiscita, decreta, senatus consulta) But edicts are different which
was
> > my point. Under article 4, it lists magistrates in level of importance.
> > Censors are listed first. Higher than the Praetors, and Aediles. That
was
> > my point, gotten directly from the Constitution of Nova Roma.
>
> Nevertheless, you're required to comply with the edict unless it is
> superceded by a law or an edict of higher authority. Merely ignoring
> it is not an option, unless it can be demonstrated that the original
> edict was unlawful (i.e., outside of the issuing magistrate's
> jurisdiction). If you want to violate an edict, you'll need to issue
> an edict of your own authorizing that activity.
Ave
Thank you for your comment on this Senator M. Octavius, yes...I can see
exactly. If I publish an edict authorizing the activity, based on article
4, a Censor's edict would supersecede a the lower magistrates edict. Thank
you for that, I didnt think of that solution. Hopefully a situation would
not come up that would warrant this action.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Veto of a non-action |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:07:53 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Gnae Moravi,
> The vote
> on a candidate exemption under the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate,
> whether in the affirmative or negative, is nonetheless a Senatus
> consulta, therefore an action, and therefore it is under the perview of
> the Tribuni Plebis to issue an intercessio.
If that happened, the candidate would not be able to assume office. The
_Lex Iunia_ states that "no person may assume the office", for each
of the offices that are listed there. Section VI of this lex 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."
If the terms of section VI are not fulfilled by an exception being granted
by the Senate; if the Senate votes against the exemption or fails to vote
at all, then an exemption has not been granted and the candidate
may not assume office.
The language is clear and unambiguous. Without a specific action
performed by the Senate, "no person may assume the office" until
reaching the required age.
> Further, in the sequence as it took place in this particular incident,
> the Senate's vote amounted to an action, not a non-action, as it was used
> to prevent the elected official from assuming the office to which he was
> elected.
It was a declaration that the requested action not be performed. If
vetoed by a tribune, that declaration by the Senate would have no
effect -- but section VI would not be satisfied, for an exemption
was not granted, and the Lex Iunia forbids that candidate from
assuming office.
> Inaction on the part of the Senate would have meant that the elected
> official would have been installed, and then could have assumed his
> office. In order to break that sequence the Senate had to have taken
> action.
I strongly disagree. The law requires that an "exemption" be "granted".
A silence on the part of the Senate does not constitute an exemption.
> As Section IV.7.a gives interpretive powers to the Tribuni
> Plebis, and no where else are such powers given by the Constitution to
> any other magistrate, then only the the Tribuni Plebis have the power of
> constitutional review.
The words "interpret" and "review" do not occur in Section IV.7, or
anywhere else in the magistrates' section. Interpreting the Constitution
is a fundamental part of every magistrate's duty. IV.7 merely grants
to Tribunes the right of intercessio when they feel the constitution is
being violated.
> The stipulation of the Constitution that
> Praetores, Aediles Plebis and Curule Aediles may issue edicta "to
> administer the law" only allows them to execute the law, not to interpret
> the law.
It is logically impossible to execute a law without interpreting the law.
> If a magistrate would for example request information from the censors,
> necessary for the performance of his duties, and the censors did not
> comply, then the magistrate should first go to a Praetor to have issued
> an edictum that is "binding" on the censors. If the censors did not
> comply to the Praetor's edictum then they would be in violation of the
> Constitution. Since censors do not have a power of intercessio, they
> cannot overturn the Praetor's decision. Were the censors to then refuse,
> or should they ignore a Praetor's order, then other action might be
> necessary to compel the censors to fulfill their duties mandated by the
> Constitution.
On this point, I agree.
> "Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?"
> And who, under the provisions of the Constitution, has sole authority to
> interpret the Constitution?
Every magistrate with Imperium. Section III.A.1 (concerning Lictors):
1.To invest elected and appointed magistrates with Imperium (which is
necessary to employ coercitio (the power to compel obedience to his
edicts), interpret and execute law, and possess the honor of being
preceeded by lictors as a symbol of office), without right of
refusal individually or as a body;
Here, "interpret and execute law" is listed as a function of Imperium.
Thus, all magistrates with Imperium may interpret the law.
> The consuls likewise are primarily adminstrative officials,
> overseeing and operating through their accensi.
Consuls posess imperium and the power of coercitio. They can interpret
and execute the law and compel obedience to their edicts.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Ancient Practice (was Re: Age-Laws Change) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:12:25 -0600 |
|
Salvete
> Ask and ye shall receive.
Thank you, Consul Vedius. This is exactly the kind of information we
need to begin to tackle this problem reasonably. Now, of course, I have
some questions about the ancient practice.
> "The lot played a vital role in the electral process. It was used to
> pick the tribe (designated as the principium) or the century (centuria
> praerogativa) which voted first and provided a lead for the other
> voters.
> The lot also determined the order of voting by the tribes or the order
> in which the votes were announced. This was important, because the first
> candidates to achieve a simple majority of the groups were declared
> elected up to the number of posts available, even though they might not
> have polled the largest number of votes, if all the votes of all the
> groups had been counted." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 516)
Okay, there are 35 tribes. Any candidate who wins 18 tribes will have
the majority described above. Now, let's say we're electing 8
quaestores and only 8 people are running. It's more than likely that no
one candidate will carry the necessary 18, so voting will not stop until
all tribes are counted, and we have exactly the same situation we have
now.
Now, let's also look at the centuries. No candidate in any of our
elections has managed to carry 97 centuries. Therefore, voting would,
in every case we've had so far, continue through all centuries and leave
us with the situation we have now.
How does this net us anything? Would we only employ this 'first come,
first elected' system in the case of ties, after counting the vote as we
currently do? This is not the historical method, as I have stated
before.
Is there any source that explains the ancient situation in enough detail
to really be of use to us? If not, any solution we come up with will be
modern, and we'll just be arguing fairness vs. historical 'flavor' all
over again.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] RE: Are Provincia Propraetores Magistrates? |
| From: |
Razenna <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:11:42 -0800 |
|
Propraetors hold and exercise Imperium. That makes them "magistrates". Of course
NR provincial propraetors are similar to NR Tribunes of the People and Censors, they
ain't what they used to be -- in Roma Antigua. NR picks and chooses what is to be
in the pattern of Ancient Roma, and what is not.
C. Aelius Ericius.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>From the 1999/2752 Nova Roma Constitution:
1.Governors shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
a.To hold imperium and have the honor of being preceeded by six lictors
solely within the jurisdiction of their
provincia;
b.To proclaim those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks
which advance the mission and
function of Nova Roma, solely within the jurisdiction of their
provincia (such edicts being binding upon
themselves as well as others);
c.To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of their
provincia;
d.To appoint legati (legates) to administer sub-divisions of their
province with all of the authority of the
governor and to remove the same as they see fit;
e.To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other
tasks, as the governor shall see fit.
2.The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
a.Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by their
normal title;
b.Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul has
expired, yet who are continuing in their
role as governor, shall be called proconsuls;
c.Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as praetor has
expired, yet who are continuing in their
role as governor, as well as those citizens whom the Senate shall
appoint who are not currently serving as
consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:55:18 -0600 |
|
9 Jan 2001
Salve Consul
I can not help but feel that this tool, as good as it sounds, will in the
long run somewhat undermine the powers of the Propraetors. In my Provincia
plan I allowed for the appointment of Prefectus for smaller divisions, but
they would not be remotely autonomous! I think other Propraetors many feel
the same about the organization of autonomous cells in their Provincias,
especially when so many Provincias are just getting Propraetors and starting
to try and organize. The model in your first paragraph dose not appeal to me
as a Propraetor looking to establish a new administration and control it,
and the questions in the second paragraph all have the end result of loss of
more control for the Propraetors. Why do you deem it necessary to form this
third level of government.
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------
Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office |
| From: |
Ira Adams <iadams@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:31:59 -0600 |
|
Salve
I'm certain you say this in jest. I repeat:
"Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be construed as approval of his
candidacy."
The alternative?
'I asked nicely if I could have the money in his bank vault and he never
replied. It is often said "Qui tacet, consentit."'
Yes, I'm sure the courts anywhere would accept that argument - aren't
you? ;-)
It simply won't fly.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
On 1/9/01 1:04 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:
>Salve Senator Australice,
>
>>
>> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
>> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
>> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
>> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
>> construed as approval of his candidacy.
>>
>> Having run illegally, the votes he received were cast in error. His
>> candidacy was illegal and therefore his "election" was null and void. He
>> cannot be "allowed to assume office" because he was not legally elected
>> to the office.
>
>This isn't true, as M Marcius Rex has been so kind to point out. The Senate
>simply did not reply. Qui tacet, consentit, is often said!
>
>Vale bene!
>Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
>Legatus Galliae Borealis,
>Procurator Galliae,
>Scriba Aedilis Plebis
>Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
>--**--
>Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
>Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
>Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
>Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
>http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:22:18 -0700 |
|
Well, somebody, somewhere, ought to be keeping tabs on whether a candidate is a
valid candidate or not before the polls are opened. If a candidate isn't going
to be allowed to assume office, and it's pretty much a given that the Senate
would not have allowed Draco to assume office regardless of anything he said in
the election, I believe, then his name shouldn't have been allowed on the
ballot.
It's not DRACO's fault that the Senate et Censores chose not to ratify his
election. It's not DRACO's fault that his name was allowed to be submitted to
the people to be voted on. Draco attempted to get senatorial consent....in the
face of no word from the Senate, he assumed he had the green light. If I'd been
in his shoes, I'd have done the same.
So partly the Senate is to blame, for not giving a response that Draco could use
to guage.
Who's suppossed to be monitoring such things as who ends up on the ballot? One
suggestion that comes to mind is.....the Rogators. However, the way this
election was structured, that was not a function of the Rogators, and in fact
the Rogators didn't even know the final ballot until the polls opened. We got
sneak previews as to the form, but we certainly weren't involved in the content,
nor did we have enough prior information to know whether any candidate wasn't
going to be a "valid" candidate.
So partly we Rogators are at fault, for not persisting with a question we didn't
think to ask about whether all on the ballot were rightfully there (and which
would have halted the election after the polls opened, anyway).
Another option for monitoring who ends up on the ballot could be the Censors.
This actually makes more sense, inasmuch as the censors are the ones who have
all the information needed to alert as to any red flags about a candidate. I
certainly wouldn't, at surface, know whether a candidate was 17 or 71. (I for
one didn't know Draco was 17 1/2 until after the election, since I was not
reading the list like I normally do.) Or whether they were Nova Roma citizens in
good standing. Only the Censors would know that.
So partly the Censors (et Senators) are at fault, for allowing the name to be
posted on the ballots despite information they had which they knew would lead to
a weak shot at a favorable Senatus Consultum.
As far as I'm concerned, Draco's name shouldn't have made it onto the ballot.
But it did, and whoever is responsible for that, it's NOT Draco. If he were
declaring candidacy in a macronational election, you better believe there would
be officials responsible for verifying the validity of his candidacy. If by a
fluke his name got on the ballot, the Election Commission would be to blame, not
the candidate.
Let's give the kid a break. He's got a lot of smarts and potential about him,
but he's still younger than the rest of us. If he were your son, or younger
brother, wouldn't you want his interest in taking an active role fostered? At
least, if you have to reject him from the elected role of his choice, reject him
with civility and forthrightness. (Even if you don't feel you were met with the
same from him -- an eye for an eye is Hammurabic.) Let's recognize that some of
the fault for the situation falls on a lot of shoulders, and own up to our own
culpabilities instead of shoving it back onto Draco.
Let's refrain from saying...."Sorry kid, you're not getting the office you were
elected to.....and it's your own fault anyway."
Ouch. That would sting ME and dissuade ME, a thirty-something corporate type.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Ira Adams wrote:
> Salve
>
> I'm certain you say this in jest. I repeat:
>
> "Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be construed as approval of his
> candidacy."
>
> The alternative?
>
> 'I asked nicely if I could have the money in his bank vault and he never
> replied. It is often said "Qui tacet, consentit."'
>
> Yes, I'm sure the courts anywhere would accept that argument - aren't
> you? ;-)
>
> It simply won't fly.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
> On 1/9/01 1:04 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:
>
> >Salve Senator Australice,
> >
> >>
> >> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> >> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
> >> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
> >> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
> >> construed as approval of his candidacy.
> >>
> >> Having run illegally, the votes he received were cast in error. His
> >> candidacy was illegal and therefore his "election" was null and void. He
> >> cannot be "allowed to assume office" because he was not legally elected
> >> to the office.
> >
> >This isn't true, as M Marcius Rex has been so kind to point out. The Senate
> >simply did not reply. Qui tacet, consentit, is often said!
> >
> >Vale bene!
> >Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> >Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> >Procurator Galliae,
> >Scriba Aedilis Plebis
> >Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
> >--**--
> >Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
> >http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
> >Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
> >http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
> >Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
> >http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
> >Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
> >http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Provincial Administration |
| From: |
gmvick32@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:34:58 -0700 |
|
I second Quintus Sertorius' concern over how these issues affect the provincial
administration. I think a lot of these issues cannot be addressed without a
board of governors considering the issues and drafting the proposal. I don't
know who is involved in these discussions, but we need to make sure the right
people (i.e., primarily the set of provincial propraetors/proconsuls) are taking
part in the discussions.
It's been my understanding all alone that affairs inside a province were
essentially at the parvenue of the propraetor to manage. Therefore, I'm
concerned that we are getting a little too much definition and proscription
happening from the greater magistrates and Nova Roma in determining something
that is essentially a provincial issue, without a concentrated effort by the
governors to address the situation. At this time, I don't think this is
something that should be discussed on the open list, and move that the topic be
moved over to the NovaRomaProv list attached to the Limes Cooperation.
For any provincial propraetors not part of the Limes Cooperation, this is the
perfect opportunity to look at joining and having a say in standardizing
organizational issues inside the province.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Propraetrix, Amer. Austroccidentalis
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete!
>
> A conceptual question has come up as I and some others were discussing the
> possibility of local chapters (which I'm calling Civitae for now). Just what
> sort of relationship would (or should) the provincial governors and legati
> have with such local chapters? I would think that concerning the scheduling
> of events and local recruiting the Civitae would be relatively autonomous,
> with the Provincial government perhaps serving in an advisory and
> coordinating capacity. Provincial governors would probably be in charge of
> issuing the charters for new Civitae, and making sure they adhere to
> whatever standards are set (a minimum number of meetings per year, minimum
> population, etc.).
>
> But so far the model leaves the Provincial Governors (and their legati) with
> little to do vis-a-vis the Civitae (and indeed leaves the Civitae doing many
> of the things-- events and recruiting-- that were originally envisioned as
> being done by the Governors and Legati). Should there be areas where the
> Governor would have authority rather than the Civitas (perhaps in the realm
> of finances)? Should the Governor have veto power over the actions of the
> Civitas? Should he appoint local magistrates, or vett their appointment, or
> would the Civitas be completely self-sufficient in terms of its own internal
> administration? All these things were done at various times and in various
> types of settlement in Roma Antiqua, so we have a broad spectrum of models
> to choose from.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: More on the Non-Election of Draco |
| From: |
bcatfd@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:57:21 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@d...> wrote:
>
> Quiritibus salutem
>
> I wrote:
>
> > > Proconsul Audens reverendissime:
> > >
> > > I do not wish to make a battle of this any more than you do,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius replied:
>
> > Then don't...
>
> And promptly did so himself. I have considered the option of not
replying at
> all, or of replying privately, but it really won't do.
You are right, I rose to the bait--or perceived bait--when I should
not have. These arguments can spin out of control. You post a message
with an unpleasant spin to it, I reply and put another nasty twist to
it, you do the same, etc. This can go on and on with little purpose
served. For my part I stop here.
> If I think someone's reputatio is being smeared, I'll say so. I do
not
> admire the practice of senators tearing strips of each other in the
Curia,
> only to close ranks afterwards when a vote and supporting statement
is made
> public. Where is the dignitas in that?
>
> > >I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
> > > defence of his pater something akin to maiestas.
> >
> > In case you hadn't noticed, I did not mention his supposed
defence of
> > his paterfamilias. To be frank I had not been following the little
> > battle in the sandbox where this was taking place. The only posts
of
> > his I read during the period were those where he commented on Nova
> > Roman laws.
>
> I never said that Palladius mentioned Draco's defence of Formosanus.
You said "I confess I'm surprised that they found Draco's spirited
defence of his pater something akin to maiestas." I took that "they"
to include me since you had been referring to my vote along with
others. A natural mistake, don't you think?
> > Since you read the senate board you already know that I admitted I
> > was wrong on this point but I guess nothing feels as good as
kicking
> > a dead horse?
>
> I repeat: one cannot have it both ways. If Palladius wishes to
engage in
> certain kinds of dialectic he disparages, he must include himself
with those
> disparaged by association, in the same breath. If I am kicking a
dead horse
> in the sandbox, so is he.
As I said earlier, I rose to a perceived bait. I guess I did step
into the sandbox, you are right.
> Palladius here displays an unfortunate rigidity and inflexibility of
> thinking, since the gap between the minimum age for independent
citizenship
> (civis sui iuris) and the minimum age for holding office as
Aedilis, is
> three years. Three years is not a long time.
Generally speaking, it is not. However 3 years between certain ages
is a long time. The 3 years between a 27 year old and a 30 year old
or between a 50 year old and a 53 year old is not significant at all.
However, the 3 years between a 17 year old and a twenty year old, or
even between a 20 year old and a 23 year old person is a long time
*generally* speaking. It is a long time in terms of physical
development and mental maturity.
> Now Palladius accuses Draco of calling him a liar to me, privately.
This is
> untrue. It is in any case an unprovable smear. I trust Palladius
now regrets
> having said this.
I do.
> I didnot take note of who voted in what order and at what time. At
the time
> Palladius voted, and accused Draco of not applying for an age
exemption as
> the primary reason for his voting against such an exemption, several
> senators had not yet voted who could have done.
When I voted I was under the impression that I was voting right at
the deadline or even beyond it. I was pretty sure no one else would be
voting after me--no one did.
> >My vote was dead last, it came just under the wire and
> > influenced no one. Also, my vote did not change the outcome, he
still
> > would not have gotten enough votes and he did not have the vote of
> > both censors.
>
> Palladius will perhaps recall that some senatores on the list
received my
> vote last. Evidently the order in which votes are received by
different
> e-mail accounts varies.
Granted. When I voted I noticed that your vote had been done much
earlier that day. However, you are right, delivery times vary.
>If all who had been entitled to vote had voted,
> their votes could arguably have been influenced by Palladius'
unfounded
> allegation against Draco. I still maintain that a mistaken
allegation made
> in public against someone requires an apology.
*Could* have influenced but did not. Anyone who voted after me would
have been voting after voting was completed. It is difficult to
apologize for an act which damaged no one and which I do not believe
could have. That is not the point though, is it? Right is right,
honor is honor.
Draco,
I was operating under a false assumption that you had not
applied for a senatorial exemption in advance. Apparently I was wrong
and I am sorry. I was not trying to intentionally damage you and glad
that my mistake, in the end, did not affect the outcome.
>Agreed, however, that the
> Censorial veto makes a mockery of a senate vote under such
circumstances.
Which is why I am in favor of the law being amended to clarify the
process--that the applicant (before the declaration of candidacy)
approach the censors first, receive their approval and then have the
full senate vote.
> > > Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an
unworkably-
> > worded
> > > lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority about what it
> > ought, in
> > > retrospect, to mean.
> I do not understand Palladius' sense of personal inuria. If I were
to refer
> to a lex someone made as a steaming pile of merda (or even a little
> undersized piece of merda), it is clear that I am not so referring
to the
> person. The person who never made a mistake never made anything.
But what
> shall we say of a person who refuses neither to admit a mistake,
nor to
> express regret for a mistake?
Unfortunately I got the impression that you were not referring to the
law but to the author of the law. I got this impression because you
said "Now in my view, anyone responsible for designing such an
unworkably-worded lex as that, is hardly the most credible authority
about what it ought, in retrospect, to mean." By your reaction I take
it you did not mean it in a personal vein but I took it otherwise. I
probably am a bit touchy but in retrospect a second glance at what
you wrote might lead you to also believe that the author of the law
was your inadvertent target and not the law itself.
> No
> > doubt you are and would have if the situation were reversed but it
> > wasn't. This is a learning process for all of us (pardon, except
for
> > you) and if a law is deficient, then it can be amended.
>
> I quote (or paraphrase) Germanicus: "Why is it that we never have
time to
> craft a law properly in the first place, but always seem to have
time to
> tinker with it afterwards?"
Because we are all still novices at this and sometimes do not see the
problems with a law until its provisions are enforced. If we waited
until we came up with a perfect body of law we would never get
anything done and have no laws. I think this learning experience is
useful. Laws are changed all the time in macronations as well.
> > I am quite surprised by the seemingly personal (even insulting)
tone
> > of this message--I would have thought it unlike you. Our
occasional
> > communications in the past have always been cordial, even
friendly--
> > our previous discussion about Symmachus for example. I am sorry to
> > have to respond in even somewhat like fashion.
>
> I accept that Palladius has every right to see himself as a
paradigm of
> injured innocence.
> People can believe whatever they like (and they often do). But if
Palladius
> had alledged about Symmachus what he alledged about Draco, our
> correspondence on that subject would not have been cordial.
As I recall, you said something about Symmachus that I corrected you
on, but I do not recall the exact details (I believe you called him
elderly when he was much younger during the period in question or
something minor like that) Anyway, I am hoping you are kidding about
a potential less than cordial discussion over a man 1500 years dead,
no matter what was said about him.
> I feel it is disingenuous both to pretend to a moral high ground by
> criticising another's post, and then to descend to the level of the
lowest
> possible interpretation of that post, to indulge one's spleen by
retaliating
> with interest. Palladius was under no obligation to react to my
post in this
> way. He chose his interpretation, and his reaction. He must accept
the
> responsibility for any result.
You are right, one should always reflect and reflect again before
sending such a message. I was hotheaded as I am on occasion. Who
benefits by such a conversation? Certainly not you and certainly not
me. Perhaps we provide entertainment for a few but that is not our
task here. I am going to try and take the advice I gave a fine young
Nova Roman recently to not take things here so personally and to try
and keep things in perspective. Nova Roma is not so important as to
want to inflict damage on others, even if only through email.
> > I have now responded here and had previously commented in the
senate.
> > I have received no communication from him about my vote and do not
> > post on nor read the main list enough to follow every comment he
> > might have made, though I looked today for the insult you say he
> > leveled, to no success.
>
> I leave it to Draco's detractors to find that post. The onus of
proof is on
> them as his accusers, not on me - nor indeed on Palladius, if he
also finds
> the allegation objectionable. If Palladius wishes to disassociate
himself
> from Draco's detractors in this, I am gratified.
I have no interest in pursuing what he might have said. It would have
been said in understandable haste and anger over what he thought was
an intentional slur by me. If he did say it, I am sure he regrets it
as he knows I did not intentionally try to misrepresent his case.
However, I would advise him not repeat the act in the future despite
the provocation. A hotheaded response can spin things out of control
quickly, as I can testify having been the author of a few myself. :)
> If Palladius wishes to reopen a correspondence on historical fact
(relating
> to Symmachus or anybody else), I shall be further gratified. I
shall be
> cordial. I shall be friendly, as to one often of like mind and
interest. I
> do not enjoy the dialectic of vituperation, but neither will I
>ignore it.
Then we are in agreement. As for a further discussion of Symmachus,
that may come soon.
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Are Provincia Propraetores Magistrates? |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:06:59 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Senator C. Aelius Ericius pointed out the right.
If we read the Consitution word by word, the Extraordinarii are listed in
Sect. IV.B and the provincial governors in Sect. V.C.1.a. This indicates
that the governors are not Ordinarii and not Extraordinarii, they are simply
an own sort of office-holders.
But the Section V.C.1.a says that the governors hold imperium and are
preceeded by six lictors, like the Praetors (Sect. IV.A.3.a Constitution),
within the jurisdiction of their provincia. That makes them comparable with
the Praetors.
The Section V.C.1.b gives the governors the authority to issue edicta to
advance the mission and function of Nova Roma within their provincia. The
same right is given to the Consules (Sect. IV.A.2.b Constitution) for the
whole Res Publica. That makes the governors comparable with the Consuls.
I don´t want to argue with titles here, but only with powers and
obligations. The aforesaid honors, powers and obligations show that the
governors are a special form of imperium-holding officials, and that is,
imho, the most important. They have authorities comparable with Praetors and
Consuls making them comparable with those magistrates, especially the
Consuls.
I prefer the term "magistrate" for the governors, since this title makes the
office and it´s authorities more accessible and clear. Futhermore, I see the
lawfully appointed provincial Legati as magistrates, too, since they have
the same authority of the governor (Sect. V.C.1.d. Constitution) within a
sub-division of the province.
Btw, this points might be of interest in the debate about an obligatory
Cursus Honorum, and the offices that enables a candidate to run for specific
higher offices within the hierarchy.
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Razenna" <razenna@-------->
To: "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:11 AM
Subject: [novaroma] RE: Are Provincia Propraetores Magistrates?
> Propraetors hold and exercise Imperium. That makes them "magistrates".
Of course
> NR provincial propraetors are similar to NR Tribunes of the People and
Censors, they
> ain't what they used to be -- in Roma Antigua. NR picks and chooses what
is to be
> in the pattern of Ancient Roma, and what is not.
>
> C. Aelius Ericius.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> From the 1999/2752 Nova Roma Constitution:
>
> 1.Governors shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
> a.To hold imperium and have the honor of being preceeded by
six lictors
> solely within the jurisdiction of their
> provincia;
> b.To proclaim those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in
those tasks
> which advance the mission and
> function of Nova Roma, solely within the jurisdiction of
their
> provincia (such edicts being binding upon
> themselves as well as others);
> c.To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of
their
> provincia;
> d.To appoint legati (legates) to administer sub-divisions of
their
> province with all of the authority of the
> governor and to remove the same as they see fit;
> e.To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative
and other
> tasks, as the governor shall see fit.
> 2.The titles for provincial governors are as follow:
> a.Those currently serving as consuls or praetors shall go by
their
> normal title;
> b.Consuls serving as governors whose term in office as consul
has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their
> role as governor, shall be called proconsuls;
> c.Praetors serving as governors whose term in office as
praetor has
> expired, yet who are continuing in their
> role as governor, as well as those citizens whom the Senate
shall
> appoint who are not currently serving as
> consul or praetor shall be called propraetors.
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Are Provincia Preators Magistrates? |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:31:10 -0000 |
|
10 Jan 2001
Salve Senator
Once again, you have fully explain my confusion! I understand now.
Vale
Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> T Labienus Quinto Sertorio omnibusque SPD
>
> > I believe Provincia Governors are Magistrates for the following
> > reasons; In the constitution in Section IV it states:"Magistrates
> > are the elected and appointed officials responsible for the
> > maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. " Why does this
not
> > include Governors?
>
> It seems at first that we have run across another ambiguity in the
> constitution. That extremely broad definition includes anyone who
holds
> a government post. However, the apparitores are explicitly excluded
> from the list of magistrates, and Senatores are explicitly defined
in a
> separate section than magistrates, though they easily fit the broad
> definition you quoted.
>
> The fact that the magistrates are specifically defined under their
own
> section in the constitution also implies that those officials
described
> elsewhere are not necessarily magistrates. Are the pontifices
> magistrates? They are, after all, "responsible for the
maintenance...of
> the affairs of state."
>
> Still, to be fair, it does seem that should one attempt to define a
> propraetor, one would be forced to agree that they fulfill a role an
> important and administrative function in much the same way as, say,
the
> praetores.
>
> > Also stated is, "There are two categories of magistrates:
ordinarii
> > (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii (those who
are
> > only occasionally appointed or elected)." After a closer look I
feel
> > that the position of Governor falls under the area of ordinarii,
>
> Actually, they are certainly not ordinarii, as the constitution
> explicitly states, "The ordinarii, in decreasing order of
authority, are
> as follow," and lists only censores, consules, praetores, aediles
> curules, aediles plebis, quaestores, tribuni plebis, the
> vigintisexviri, and apparitores (who are defined as not being
> magistrates).
>
> Indeed, the constitution says, "There are two categories of
magistrates:
> ordinarii (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii
(those
> who are only occasionally appointed or elected)." Propraetores are
> "only occasionally appointed" by the Senate, and would therefore
fall
> under the extraordinarii. However, the constitution also explicitly
> defines the extraordinarii as either a dictator or an interrex.
>
> Only the loose definition you cited would allow a propraetor to be
> counted as a magistrate (at least in specific constitutional terms,
as
> opposed to informal conversation), but the section of the
constitution
> that defines the magistrates only ambiguously allow for magistrates
> other than those defined in section IV.
>
> > this position has been explained in a different section of the
> > Constitution because of the following, also from Section IV,
> > "Elections of the ordinarii shall take place no later than
December
> > 15th, and newly-elected officials shall assume their offices on
January
> > 1st. (Exceptions to these provisions regarding elections may be
found in
> > section V of this Constitution.)" Italics are mine... Section V
has to
> > therefore also include ordinarii! And all ordinarii ARE
Magistrates. The
> > only exceptions to these provisions regarding elections in
Section V deal
> > with Provincia Governors so they have to be Magistrates!
>
> This is not true. Section V also states, "Should a magistrate's
office
> become vacant during the course of his term, the Senate may appoint
a
> replacement to serve out the remainder of the term should there be
less
> than three months remaining therein." This is clearly an exception
to
> the section you cite, and clearly involves those positions
explicitly
> defined as the ordinarii.
>
> It seems to me that magistrates, as defined by the constitution,
should
> be taken to include only those "elected and appointed officials
> responsible for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of
state" who
> are also members of the central government, and whose actions can
> directly affect the whole populace. Provincial governors only have
> authority within their provinciae, and serve through the will of the
> Senate, as opposed to the will of the people. (Yes, the argument
could
> be made that the extraordinarii also serve in this capacity. I
admit
> the point, but would argue that they are a special case.)
>
> Valete
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Reply to Vedius on CPT |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:48:35 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus, S.P.D.
I am not among those who have, I think erroneously, come to feel
that we are oppressed by the Patricians. The distinction between the Two
Orders was primarily introduced, I imagine, for the sake of interest and
historical authenticity. I tend to support this fundamental divion for
those reasons.
However, it is also true that the Patricians include leaders and
gentiles from the early days (as in Roma Antiqua), who have through
various means also augmented their relative power and influence through
senate membership and holding office. This class, let us call them "The
Establishment", which may also include a few Plebeians, has at its
disposal many institutional arrangements which gives it a very
disproportionate amount of power, and in some cases, attitudes to match.
I myself have experienced being condemned by a certain patrician
magistrate on another list as "a mere civis", as though being a Civis
Romanus were not in itself something worthy. He said that in wrath, but
no doubt this kind of thinking is latent in his mind and perhaps the
minds of more than one of the Establishment. (I certainly do not say
*all*, please note!)
In Roma Antiqua there was an Establishment too, and in this way we
can indeed experience the same kind of historical division and enjoy -
if that's the word - the pleasures (?) of lordship and humble status.
However, the reason why Rome and Her Republic are so worthy of respect
unto today is that the Common People, the Plebs, were not content with
being subjugated to a disproportionately powerful Establishment, but
produced a democratic (in modern terms) counter-structure in the form of
the Tribunate of the People, sacrosanct and with powers of coercion, to
guarantee their collective interests, protect them individually, and
make sure that the concessions wrung out of the Patricians stayed in
place.
This never worked perfectly, and in the end was coöpted by the
Establishment, but it worked for a while to secure dignity and liberty
for the common people in a political sense. In Nova Roma we now see the
Plebs ready to stand up on their own two feet and organise itself to be
something more than a passive mass waiting for Establishment
initiatives.
I think this is a good thing. It is true that the real
socio-political division between the Patricians and Plebeians is not
exactly the more significant distinction between Establishment and
non-Establishment, but it is the one we have in the instituions of the
Constitution, and the one we must and can work with. The point of
breathing life into the plebeian institutions is to give the vast
majority of us in the non-Establishment a means of negotiating on a more
equal footing with the Establishment - just as in Roma Antiqua.
It is easy to talk about "divisiveness" whenever one's possible
rivals or opponents wants to organise. Employers are not enthusiastic
about seeing labour unions they cannot dominate being formed, and
party-less or one-party regimes are not fond of seeing independent
parties established... But in all such cases there is a group that feels
that it has certain interests that those in effective power do not truly
represent. In such cases there are only two things to be done:
suppression or recognition that new partners in dialogue have been
created and must be treated seriously and with respect.
Our esteemed Consul Germanicus, whom I personally respect and feel
warm feelings towards, has been fond of saying that the senate advises
and the People rule. Now that the People are really getting ready to
rule, I do not think that he should be in opposition. If we had a modern
variety of egalitarian democracy, this might not be necessary. But we
have chosen a Roman model, which is built on a distinction between the
mostly patrician/senatorial Establishment and the common Plebs, so we
have to let it be properly and fully organised on *each* side of that
divide.
Piscinus has done a great deal of research into the traditions of
the tribunate and the movements of the Roman Plebs, and we are fortunate
that he is establishing at last the institutions to represent the common
man and woman. The Plebs are simply going to play a greater rôle here in
Nova Roma from now on, as it was in the best times of Rome.
I am fond of saying that the dignitas of every civis is to be
respected. The plebeian organisation is the way in which Romans
traditionally permitted the common Roman-in-the-Street to have his
dignitas too, and not just the Great Roman in the Senate. This is a
natural development of historical precedent and of the Vedian
Constitution. I urge the curule magistrates, senate and Patricians to
accept this fact and to amicably accept the existence of a Plebs that
can speak and act. It is something good for all of us, and should be the
realisation of any wholesome Roman dream. If the Establishment were to
be dramatically hostile to these developments, *that* would be something
that would really be divisive. Let it not be so.
Let us have Concordia - and a well-organised and active Plebs!
Dii nos omnes bene ament!
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:15:57 -0800
From: Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Subject: Reply to Vedius on CPT
Salvete consul Vedi et omnes Quirites:
Vedius scripsit:
"I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing.
Are
there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
necessary?"
Respondeo:
And I must say I find your reaction rather amusing, considering
that as
Dictator you wrote the Vedian Constitution by which these divisions were
established. You who are so quick then to accuse others of
divisiveness,
perhaps you should explain why you felt the need to institutionalize a
division between Plebeians and Patricians in the first place; a division
I may point out that is totally artificial, and totally your
responsibility in the creating.
Tell me, Vedi, how does being a Patrician warrant an extra 10
participation points? What great service does one do for our res
publica
by simply being a member of a Patrician gens? Why should that be
construed as participation beyond being a member of a Plebeian gens?
How
is it that in your electorial system so many Patricians have the "One
Man
One Vote" principle apply, while the Plebeians are disproportionately
placed in large centuries where their votes are diluted? I must wonder,
had the election been conducted under the strict guidance for
apportionment procedures as delineated under the Lex Iunia Centuriata,
would you have been elected consul?
The CPT list was established by our previous tribune, Tarquinius
Caesar.
Did our consul see CPT list as being divisive then? Is it not the
same
way with the Senate established by the Vedian Constitution, the
Collegium
Pontificum, the Collegium Augurum, and the Comitia Curitata? Each has
their own private list. Did our consul so bemoan our Pontifex Maximus'
recent effort of calling the attention of all the lictores to the
separate email list established for the Comitia Curiata? Does our good
consul now ask that all Senate proceedings be conducted on the main list
as well?
The Comitia Plebis Tributa was established under the Vedian
Constitution
also as a court . Consul Vedius wrote that into our Constitution.
Does the consul propose that court proceedings be conducted on our main
list? Should then all court proceedings, all tribunals, even Senate
hearings on reprimands now be conducted on the main list too? Where was
our good consul a couple months ago?
In public consul Vedius asks for unity, asks that we all come
together.
What he is realing doing is only posturing in the same manner he did
during th |
