| Subject: |
[novaroma] Oath of Office by Marius Cornelius Scipio |
| From: |
nramos@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:44:11 -0000 |
|
I, Marius Cornelius Scipio (Nick R. Ramos Jr.),do hereby solemnly
swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.
As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Marius Cornelius Scipio (Nick
R. Ramos Jr.), swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my
public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and
private life.
I, Marius Cornelius Scipio (Nick R. Ramos Jr.), swear to uphold
and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and
swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the
State Religion.
I, Marius Cornelius Scipio (Nick R. Ramos Jr.), swear to protect
and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.
I, Marius Cornelius Scipio (Nick R. Ramos Jr.),further swear to
fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Curule
Aedile to the best of my abilities.
On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of
the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and
favor,do I accept the position of Curule Aedile and all the rights,
privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.
Marius Cornelius Scipio
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Message board issues |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:56:12 -0800 |
|
Ave!
Is anyone else having problems accessing messages from the NR Message Board (http://venus.beseen.com/boardroom/j/17263). When I click on a message I get this error:
the message you requested could not be found
(,02639a02765a02955)
Keys:
What can we do to repair this problem?
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Hello |
| From: |
allan001@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:36:36 -0200 |
|
"J. T. Sibley" wrote:
> Salve Marcus Drusillus! Welcome to Nova Roma! We're spread out all over
> the globe, but our Imperium enjoys all the latest and best in communication
> technology...and even I, a wandering Romano-British soothsayer, can hear
> the learned words of our elected officials and the Pontifex Maximus, and
> vote in elections! Ave Roma!
> Vale,
> S. Ambrosia Fulvia
A soothsayer you say? do tell. anything that you would like to share of teh
future?
Marcus Drusillus Scaevola
--
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defence.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Message board issues |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:01:58 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave!
>
> Is anyone else having problems accessing messages from the NR
Message Board (http://venus.beseen.com/boardroom/j/17263). When I
click on a message I get this error:
>
>
> the message you requested could not be found
>
> (,02639a02765a02955)
> Keys:
>
> What can we do to repair this problem?
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Salve, Lucius Cornelius,
I had no problem accessing the board. Perhaps it was just a momentary
glitch in the software.
Valve,
L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Message board issues |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:45:12 -0800 |
|
Ave,
Nope I just checked it again...6 messages...I still have that same issue!
:( wierd....
Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 5:01 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Message board issues
> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave!
> >
> > Is anyone else having problems accessing messages from the NR
> Message Board (http://venus.beseen.com/boardroom/j/17263). When I
> click on a message I get this error:
> >
> >
> > the message you requested could not be found
> >
> > (,02639a02765a02955)
> > Keys:
> >
> > What can we do to repair this problem?
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Salve, Lucius Cornelius,
>
> I had no problem accessing the board. Perhaps it was just a momentary
> glitch in the software.
>
> Valve,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Amer. Austroccidentalis Summer Roman Retreat |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:48:17 -0600 |
|
Yes; and I've also put together a small gathering of ate least 4-5 cives
in America Boreoccidentalis! Congratulations to us all! :-)
Vale bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 3:49 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Amer. Austroccidentalis Summer Roman Retreat
Salvete;
I just wanted to congratulate Livia Cornelia, Iulia Cornelia, and all the
Cives of America Austroccidentalis provincia on this wonderful news. The
more such real-world events we have, I'm convinced the stronger and better
off we'll be. Well done!
Now... how about you other governors??? ;-)
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
eGroups Sponsor
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Message board issues |
| From: |
tekwkp@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:58:11 EST |
|
Ave,
Perhaps its' the server? Well, there is some electronic problem. I just
retired from the Federal government and we were forever witnessing Server
Down problems. My messages seem to be delivered fine. However, I have not
tried to transmit a message to NovaRoma.
Lentulus Cornelius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] The New Guy... |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:01:40 -0600 |
|
Salve Publius Gramatinicus Albinus! A warm and hearty welcome
to Nova Roma!
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Syphax the venaliccii [mailto:syphax_venaliccii@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:24 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] The New Guy...
Salve fellow New Romans! I am Publius Gramatinicus
Albinus! I wish the best of everything for everyone,
and hope you all well.
pax et lux,
Publius Gramatinicus Albinus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
eGroups Sponsor
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Greetings! |
| From: |
tekwkp@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:07:38 EST |
|
I feel priveleged to have just received word of being admitted as a Citizen
of New Rome. Further, it is meaningful in all ways to have been adopted by
the Illustrious
Gens Cornelia. I believe it will be an aupbeat affiliation in all ways.
Ave!
Lentulus Cornelius Brutus
aka Tom Kasinger
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Plebis and the People and AD |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:35:01 -0600 |
|
Salve M Octavi
I snipped M Octavi's admirable response to an unfortunate snide
comment. I've had a very bad day, and I succumbed to the temptation.
> Interesting, I had never noticed that! Still, it's only a slight
> advantage... class V has 22 centuries and class IV has 30 centuries.
> So new patrician citizens, during their first six months, will have
> a slight advantage in the centuries... a poor substitute for being
> unable to vote for the Tribunes.
I never said that it was a large advantage. And, I'd say that the
important thing is not voting upon tribuni, but rather voting upon the
plebiscita those tribuni promulgate. Currently, there's nothing
stopping a pair of tribuni from putting forth a plebiscitum that, say,
forbids patricians from standing for consul. (I would hope, of course,
that such an injustice would fail to pass.)
> As time goes by, the patrician bonus points become a relatively
> insignificant part of a citizen's total points, but plebeians still
> have the advantage of being able to vote for Tribune.
Agreed entirely.
> (It reminds me of playing "Dungeons & Dragons"... wizards in that
> game, prohibited from wearing armor, have a high mortality rate
> at the low levels... but if they survive they become much more
> powerful than the other types of character).
Actually, the whole century point system reminds me a bit of a
role-playing game. However, I don't have a better idea to replace it,
and I do prefer the idea of a class system based upon merit rather than
birth.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Amer. Austroccidentalis Summer Roman Retreat |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:54:33 -0600 |
|
Salve Aurelia! Yup, gens Flacca is still most interested
in tracking the details. Please let us know what you
decide.
Vale bene,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 3:37 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Amer. Austroccidentalis Summer Roman Retreat
Salvete, Quirities!
This is to announce that Provincia America Austroccidentalis
is currently planning a Roman Retreat for the summer of
2001, targeted for mid-July.
In keeping with the tradition of the Romans to retire to the
countryside in order to escape the heat of summer, we will
be retreating to the mountains for a weekend getaway.
Included in the festivities will be a Roman cooking
experiment and feast (better bonding through cookery), hikes
in the woods, a tour of the Colorado backcountry, and
....R&R time to chat and relax.
It will also be the pleasure of the governor to preceed the
retreat with a hosted dinner and historical tour of downtown
Denver.
Any and all Nova Romans are welcome to attend this event!!
We are still working out the details, but if you're
interested please contact me ASAP.
This event is sponsored by the Propraetrix Livia Cornelia
Aurelia, and is the brainchild of it's co-coordinator, Iulia
Cornelia Gaia.
Valete,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Propraetrix, America Austroccidentalis
eGroups Sponsor
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Message board issues |
| From: |
tekwkp@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:16:11 EST |
|
Ave,
Sorry, I just got into the system, and was able to pull messages, new and
old.Were you subjected to the the rolling blackouts in this province/ They
were widespread, or so the televisionus broadcastems [well, I'm trying] were
teh culprits.
Salve,
L. Cornelius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:08:35 -0000 |
|
The Gens Sicinia takes special intrest in the powers of the Tribunes
of the Plebes. It was L. Sicinius Velutrus who led the secessio of the
Plebes that led to the establishment of the office of Tribune of the
Plebes. It was Lucius Sicinius who started the campaign to restore the
powers that the Dictator Sulla striped from the Tribunes. The Gens
Sicinia applauds the tribunes for thier efforts to protect the Powers
of the Tribunes of the Plebes.
Some have argued that in the intrest of fairness laws should be bought
before the People rather than the Plebes. I concur that it would be
fair to have all the people vote on laws, however the Tribunes of the
Plebes lack the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to meet. They
are limited to working with the Comita Plebis Tributa. If we accept
the view that all laws should be passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa,
then we have greatly weakened the powers of the Tribunes. They would
be limited to going hat in hand begging for the Comitia Populi to be
called on, rather than summoning the the Comitia Plebis. While I have
no doubt that our present Consuls and Praetors would not hesitate to
honor such a request from the Tribunes, the day could come when we
have Consuls and Praetors with less intregity, who might refuse the
request. It's better to firmly establish the precedents now. If the
Patricians wish to vote on laws the Tribunes want enacted, Then I
sugest that rather than making sugestions that have the effect of
limiting the powers of the Tribunes, they use thier influance in the
Comitia Centuria and the Senate to amend the Constitution so that the
Tribunes would have the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to
meet.
Part of the problem here is how the Ordo Patricius has been handled in
Nova Roma. The Patricians form a far greater percentage of the
population in Nova Roma than they ever did in Roma Antiquita. In the
old Republic Patricians were a tiny minority, and barring them from
the Comitia Plebis didn't result in a major portion of the population
being barred from voting on leges. The few additional votes the
patricians would have been able to cast would have rarely made a
difference in the outcome of a vote. During most of the history of
Respublica Roma there were only two ways to become a Patrician. To be
born a Patrician, or to adopted as the son of a Patrician. New
Citizens NEVER were accepted into the Ordo Patricius. For example if a
member of the Patrician Gens Cornelia freed a slave, this freeman
would become a citizen, and a client of his former master. He would be
a member of his Patron's Gens, but despite the fact that he was a
member of Gens Cornelia, he WOULDN"T be a patrician. He would be a
Plebian member of the Gens. The same applies to a freeman who became a
citizen through the actions of a member of a Patrician Gens. By
allowing new citizens to become members of the Ordo Patricius Nova
Roma has created a population with a far higher percentage of
Patricians than Historical Rome ever had.
I would also like to commit on the 5 extra points that seems to
concern so many Plebians. When I decided to apply for citizenship I
looked at those points and compared to being ineligible to vote in one
of the comitia, and being unable to vote for or run for the Tribune.
Those 5 points are nothing compared to the penalities that patricians
operate under. There is a far worse problem with the Comitia Centuria
than those 5 points. It's the points for time as a citizen. I have no
problem with active citizens recieving these points, however I'm sure
that there are some people who became citizens during the early days
of Nova Roma, and are no longer taking part in Nova Roma. 3 years mean
30 points while 2 years mean 20 points. These citizens who no longer
take an active role in Nova Roma will wind up being in the first or
second classes, forcing newer citizens who are active into the lower
classes. According to Livy one of the Centuries was for the head
count. If we applied the same princeples to the Centuries as we do to
the tribes, we could assign all citizens who fail to vote to the Capti
Censi as well as to the Urban tribes. This would't have any effect on
thier points, and they could regain thier place in the classes by
voting this December. It would open up places in the higher classes
for those who are active though.
Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Comitia Plebis and the People and AD |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:04:51 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:35 PM
>
> > (It reminds me of playing "Dungeons & Dragons"... wizards in that
> > game, prohibited from wearing armor, have a high mortality rate
> > at the low levels... but if they survive they become much more
> > powerful than the other types of character).
>
> Actually, the whole century point system reminds me a bit of a
> role-playing game. However, I don't have a better idea to replace it,
> and I do prefer the idea of a class system based upon merit rather than
> birth.
Actually, if we were going to be strictly historical, placement in the
various classes would be based on wealth (and property ownership), not
birth. Our current system was enacted as a completely modern compromise, and
I fully acknowledge and endorse it as such. A means to encourage, with a
slight (and slight it is) advantage in political leverage, participation in
the political process. None of us (I hope!) thinks that relative wealth
should be the basis on which the classes should be based.
I take exception, though, to the comparison with role-playing games. Our
century point system is in place to reward real-life public service. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with fantasy, or make-believe, or any such thing.
You denegrate all magistrates and all others who devote their time and
energy to our Republic by such a comparison. These are rewards based on real
devotion, longevity, and service. They are by no means "made up".
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Plebis and the People and AD |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:33:50 EST |
|
Salve,
Well, I've snipped a Tribune's post to one unfortunate silly remark.
On 1/17/01 8:35 PM Fortunatus (labienus@--------) wrote:
[snip]
>...................................... Currently, there's nothing
>stopping a pair of tribuni from putting forth a plebiscitum that, say,
>forbids patricians from standing for consul. (I would hope, of course,
>that such an injustice would fail to pass.)
>
It wouldn't matter if it did pass - it would have no force. Currently
there is nothing to stop a pair of clowning Tribuni from putting forth a
plebiscitum that would dictate that the sun rise in the West and set in
the East. If you want to look truly silly, why don't you go all the way?
It doesn't fall within the purview of the CPT to set qualifications for
national offices.
I sincerely hope that you and your colleague are not planning to spend
the next 11.5 months clowning like this. Are there no more serious
matters for you to attend to?
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!
(May barbarians invade your personal space!)
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Basilica |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:28:33 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Salve Luci Sicini,
(snip)
> I'm making use of some of Mozilla's features to create what will be in
> effect a branded version of Mozilla. The Netscape 6 Browser that was
> released in November is the first Branded version of the Mozilla
> Browser, though IMHO it was released too early, and it still contains
> too many bugs for a final software release.
Thatīs right. I installed the Netscape 6 and had some ugly difficulties :-).
> The first feature of Mozilla that I'm taking advantage of is its
> ability to use custom themes. The shot I posted is a Mozilla theme set
> up for Basilica. Creating the Theme is the hardest part, because
> Mozilla themes consist of hundreds of images controlled by style
> sheets. This theme will be in the program in the form of a .jar file
> so unzipping the .jar will give you the "source code" for the UI which
> consists of the .css files. Limiting the changes to what can be
> handled in a theme will insure that Basilica will remain compatible
> with themes designed for Mozilla. You'll be able to download new
> themes and change the look of the browser.
I think thatīs not the most important feature for me personally. I would be
happy to have your roman theme.
> The second feature is Mozilla's ability to be localized for different
> markets. This is done with language packs which contain all the words
> and phrases that make up the labels, tooltips, menus, etc. The
> language pack also has the built in links and default bookmarks the
> browser uses. Mozilla is set up with US English as the default
> language pack. All I'll need to change in this pack is the default
> links and bookmarks. (Few Romans will be interrested in accessing the
> built in mozilla development links). Optional language packs are being
> developed by outside developers and range from Cherokee (A Native
> American Language) to Chinese, so I'll be needing links to non-english
> roman sites to set up language packs for Basilica in other languages.
> There is one language that is NOT being developed however, Latin. I'll
> definitally need help from some Romans who speak Latin so this will be
> an optional language for Basilica.
Perhaps you may contact Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, since heīs an expert
in Latin. Only a suggestion.
Quirites, you see that our esteemed Lucius Sicinius prepares a real gift for
us and he invests a huge amount of work. We should really think about an
award for him when he completed his work.
Bene Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Sodalitas Militarium Newsletter |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:52:28 +0100 |
|
Salvete, Quirites.
I published the newsletter on the Sodalitas Militarium Website. You find the newsletter archive by calling the URL
www.diocletian.de/sodmil/ ( go to the main page and select "newsletter").
To call the newsletter archive out of the frame structure please use the URL
www.diocletian.de/sodmil/news/
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor
Adiutoris Retarius Praefectus, Sodalitas Militarium
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Return to action |
| From: |
Craig Stevenson <dougies@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:35:29 +1030 |
|
Ave all,
I'm back again! I've just received a fairly clean bill of health (even
though that bill was extremely large:-) ), and have been told that I
will now be able to go on with my duties as per normal, though it may
take a while for me to catch up on things as they occur, as well as the
backlog of e-mails Lucius Sentius wouldn't read to me.
Anyway, it's great to be back!
Valete bene all,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Comitia Plebis and the People and AD |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:20:19 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Flavi Vedi,
> I take exception, though, to the comparison with role-playing games. Our
> century point system is in place to reward real-life public service. It has
> nothing whatsoever to do with fantasy, or make-believe, or any such thing.
That reference was mine, not Labienus', and I apologize for the
frivolity.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Plebis and the People and AD |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:27:03 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Luci Sergi,
> It wouldn't matter if it did pass - it would have no force. Currently
> there is nothing to stop a pair of clowning Tribuni from putting forth a
> plebiscitum that would dictate that the sun rise in the West and set in
> the East. If you want to look truly silly, why don't you go all the way?
>
> I sincerely hope that you and your colleague are not planning to spend
> the next 11.5 months clowning like this. Are there no more serious
> matters for you to attend to?
They *are* attending to serious matters... no one was seriously proposing
the above, the current senior tribune was merely giving an example of
an extremely unconstitutional plebiscite that one of his successors might
someday attempt.
I think that if such a proposal ever was put before the Comitia, the
Senate would appoint a Dictator who would quickly expel the traitor(s)
and issue edicts forbidding such things from ever happening again.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] re: Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:57:28 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:09 PM
>
> Some have argued that in the intrest of fairness laws should be bought
> before the People rather than the Plebes. I concur that it would be
> fair to have all the people vote on laws, however the Tribunes of the
> Plebes lack the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to meet. They
> are limited to working with the Comita Plebis Tributa. If we accept
> the view that all laws should be passed by the Comitia Populi Tributa,
> then we have greatly weakened the powers of the Tribunes.
Bear in mind, the powers of the Tribunes are already weakened in our modern
reconstruction because the group which the Tribunes were historically
developed to counterbalance-- the Patricians-- is nearly emasculated (as our
good Tribune reminded us yesterday). The question before us now is, are the
Tribunes weakened _enough_ to make up for the complete lack of
counterbalancing power of the Patricians?
> They would
> be limited to going hat in hand begging for the Comitia Populi to be
> called on, rather than summoning the the Comitia Plebis. While I have
> no doubt that our present Consuls and Praetors would not hesitate to
> honor such a request from the Tribunes, the day could come when we
> have Consuls and Praetors with less intregity, who might refuse the
> request. It's better to firmly establish the precedents now.
I completely agree; let us establish the precedents now. Let the precident
be that _all_ the people are allowed to discuss, debate, and finally vote on
issues which pertain to them. Let the precedent be that only in the face of
the most recalcitrant and obstructionist Consul that the Comitia Plebis
Tributa needs to be called to pass necessary and vital legislation. But let
us _not_ establish the precident that a fraction of the population
steamrolls over the rest, merely because the Tribunes are wanting for
something to do. That would be a most unfortunate precident to set.
Remember, in a perfect world, the Tribunes would be idle 99% of the time;
they should (indeed, must) act when injustices are being perpetrated, and
rights abused. If the other magistrates are doing their jobs, the Tribunes
should let them do so.
> If the
> Patricians wish to vote on laws the Tribunes want enacted, Then I
> sugest that rather than making sugestions that have the effect of
> limiting the powers of the Tribunes, they use thier influance in the
> Comitia Centuria and the Senate to amend the Constitution so that the
> Tribunes would have the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to
> meet.
I am forced to ask why you feel it is so important that the Tribunes be the
magistrates who lead initiatives in legislation, rather than the Consuls. Do
you feel that somehow the Tribunes would be inherently more fair than the
Consuls in bringing legislation? If so, I would be eager to hear your
reasoning. If anything, it seems to me that the Consuls, who represent _all_
of Nova Roma, would be better suited to taking the lead on legislation which
impacts both Patricians and Plebeians alike. Certainly, the Tribunes need
the power to do so in extremis, but on day-to-day matters the Consuls should
carry the legislative ball, and do so in the Comitia Populi Tributa.
> During most of the history of
> Respublica Roma there were only two ways to become a Patrician. To be
> born a Patrician, or to adopted as the son of a Patrician. New
> Citizens NEVER were accepted into the Ordo Patricius.
I think your argument is a good one on its face, but suffers from a
misunderstanding of just how gens membership is handled in Nova Roma. When a
new Citizen applies for membership in an already-existing gens, and is
approved, that paterfamilias is in effect adopting that new Citizen as a son
or daughter. It's not the same as a newly-freed slave joining a family; it
really is adoption. (Although if you can come up with a workable mechanism
that allows us to have gentes with both Patrician and Plebeian members, I
would be more than happy to discuss it!)
Personally, I happen to agree with you; I think that gentes (both Patrician
and Plebeian) are far too eager to adopt new Citizens. That's why gens Vedia
has never accepted new Citizens as members; there's no way I am going to
adopt someone I don't know personally. But unless you're proposing that we
somehow put curbs on the power of the Paterfamiliae to adopt new sons and
daughters, I don't see what's to be done about it.
> According to Livy one of the Centuries was for the head
> count. If we applied the same princeples to the Centuries as we do to
> the tribes, we could assign all citizens who fail to vote to the Capti
> Censi as well as to the Urban tribes. This would't have any effect on
> thier points, and they could regain thier place in the classes by
> voting this December. It would open up places in the higher classes
> for those who are active though.
Now _this_ is an interesting idea! Can you dig up an exact reference for it?
On what basis were Citizens in Roma Antiqua assigned to this "head count"
Century? Was it merely all those who didn't meet the minimum property
requirements for the rest of the Centuries, or was there some other
criterion? Was it considered part of one of the five classes, or was it some
sort of supernumerary century? How do you see this impacting the problem of
already-undersized Centuries; wouldn't it just exaccerbate it?
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Need a little help with something... |
| From: |
Publius Gramatinicus Albinus <syphax_venaliccii@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:35:10 -0800 (PST) |
|
i dont know whether this would be a gross mis-use of
this forum, but I have little choice.
In school, my latin club has officers, named so in the
way of the Romans. Consul, Praetor, Quaestor, Aedile,
Censor and a Tribunus. if there is anyone out there
that is able to give me an excellent definition of
those offices(for those who do not know about Roman
politics), I would be indebted to you.
=====
pax et lux,
Publius Gramatinicus Albinus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] FW: [ComitiaPlebisTributa] Description of Plebiscita before the CPT |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:23:05 -0500 |
|
Salvete;
Before commenting on the particular plebiscita the Tribunes intend to bring
before the Comitia Plebis Tributa this weekend, I would like to make a more
general point on procedure. Personally, I find it astonishing that the
Tribunes would craft such legislation with nary a word of input from the
People. As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion whatsoever on any
of the topics covered, either in public here on the main email list or on
the CPT list. I cannot say where the ideas for your proposed plebiscita came
from, but they sure didn't originate in free and open discussion.
As one engaged in the crafting of legislation myself, I would offer the
Tribunes a free word of advice; input from the public is invaluable _before_
drafting such proposals, while even still formulating broad principles. The
discussions I and others have initiated here have been more than worthwhile
in finding out what the will of the People is, which can then be turned into
legislative proposals. You are certainly within your legal rights to drop
such bombshells in the laps of the voters at the last minute, but I hardly
think it is a good precident to set.
Also, as an aside, my comments are necessarily based on the somewhat vague
summaries of the various plebiscita offered. When (if?) the actual drafts of
the plebiscita are made available, my commentary may be amended accordingly.
> > EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS
> >
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > The following plebiscita shall be placed before the Comitia Plebis
> > Tributa on 19 January 2754 AUC, to be voted on beginning 20 January 2754
> > AUC until Midnight Roma 30 January 2754 AUC. Below are descriptions of
> > the plebiscita, full texts will be posted to the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> > list on Friday 19 January 2754 AUC at Roma (Thursday 18 January 2754 AUC
> > US).
> >
> >
> > I. Plebiscitum Labiena Moravia de Tribunicia Potestates
> >
> > Defines the honors, responsibilities, and duties of the Tribunes of the
> > Plebeians under IV.A.7 with regard to tibunician powers of intercesso,
> > calling of the Comitia Plebis Tributa and Senate, auxilium, assertum,
and
> > coercito; authority to issue nuntio, denuntio, rescriptae and responsae;
> > and authority to appoint Plebeian scribae, curatores, and viatores.
The section of the Constitution which you reference is quite specific
regarding the "honors, powers, and responsibilities" of the Tribunes.
Nowhere in that paragraph (or any other) is listed such things as auxilium,
assertum, coercito, nuntio, denuntio, rescriptae, or responsae. Nor are the
Tribunes accorded the authority to appoint scribae (a power which is
specifically spelled out for other magistrates, and specifically _not_
listed for Tribunes).
I am all in favor of specifying how the powers of the Tribunes (as listed in
the Constitution) should be employed. Such is a necessary function of laws
and plebiscita. But it sounds here as if you are attempting to add _new_
powers to the office of Tribune beyond those stipulated by the Constitution.
That is something that you cannot do; only the Comitia Centuriata (with the
later consent of the Senate) may alter the Constitution. I am more than a
little troubled that those magistrates charged with maintaining the
integrity of our Constitution are seemingly willing to play so "fast and
loose" when it comes to their _own_ powers.
> > II. Plebiscitum Labiena Moravia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis
> Tributorum,
> > Pass/Fail
> >
> > Replaces the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitia Plebis Tributa and
establishes
> > new procedures for the comitia to follow in regard to voting on
> > candidates for Plebeian offices and plebiscita. Reference to III.C.1 and
> > 2.
No problem. The Comitia Plebis Tributa should of course define its own
internal voting procedures and mechanisms. I am glad the Tribunes have ideas
on how this should be done (although I am once again curious as to why these
ideas are being imposed from on high, rather than having input sought from
the People in fair and open fora).
> > III. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia, Pass/Fail
> >
> > Reaffirmation of the Lex Publilia of 414 AUC (339 c.e.) that a call for
> > assembly of the Comitia Plebis Tributa may be made without prior patrum
> > auctoris or auspicia. Reference to III.C and IV.A.7.
As long as exception is made for the Constitutionally-mandated right of
nuntiatio, and in the absence of any specifics, this seems a
not-unreasonable matter.
> > IV. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia, Pass/Fail
> >
> > Reaffirms the Lex Icilia of 259 AUC (471 c.e.) prohibiting any
> > magistrate from interferring or disrupting the calling forth or
> > procedures taken within the Comitia Plebis Tributa. Reference toII.B.3,
> > and III.C.1 and 2. .
Without seeing the specifics, it is impossible to tell if this proposal
would trample the Constitutional rights of magistrates. Would it, for
example, include a Dictator? Would a Praetor pointing out a procedural flaw
that invalidated a vote come under its provisions and thus be silenced or
censured? If the curator araneum cannot accomodate a particular voting
schedule for technical reasons, would he be disciplined? What exact sorts of
interference or disruption would fall under its auspices?
> > V. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia, Pass/Fail
> >
> > Reaffirms the Lex Caecilia Didia of 655 AUC (98 c.e.) prohibitng any
> > disparate provisions made between Nova Roma cives in any leges,
> > plebiscita, edicta, making exceptions for decreta of the Collegium
> > Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum, and the incorporating regula of
> > sodalitates. With reference to Section II.A.3; and II.B
What, precisely, is meant by "disparate provisions"? Between Patricians and
Plebeians? Magistrates and non-Magistrates? Men and women? Experienced and
inexperienced? Young and old? This is, unfortunately, too vague to
definitively comment on.
> > VI. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Ovinia de Senatoria, Pass/Fail
> >
> > Reaffirms Lev Ovinia of 414 AUC (339 c.e.) clarifying and defining
terms
> > used for the procedures in the provisions of the Lex Vedia Senatoria
> > with regard to IV.A.1d, IV.A.2.c and V.A on the elevation of "all the
> > best men and women of all ranks and orders" to the Senate as "the
> > repository of experience and wisdom."
It sounds as if you are trying to redefine the qualifications for Senate
membership. Surely this is an issue that all of the People-- Patrician and
Plebeian alike-- should not only vote on, but discuss beforehand? Perhaps
the Senate itself should be consulted? I must say this smacks of an attempt
to "stack" the Senate, and the fact that it is being done in such a
back-room manner should raise apprehensions from all of our Citizens.
> > VII. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia,
> > Pass/Fail
> >
> > Reaffirms the Lex Canuleia of 308 AUC (445 c.e.) establishing rights of
> > all cives, regardless of their orders, to engage in conuptia and
> > confarreatio. Ensuring civil rights of Section II.B. 1 and 6.
I must say that, while this seems a good thing on the face of it, it is a
bit incongruous. Has there been a rash of wedding-banning of which I have
remained unaware? This is certainly dropping out of nowhere! I do, however,
think that this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be discussed and
voted on by _all_ the people, not merely a fraction thereof. Indeed, it
seems a good item to be included in the larger work of the civil law code
and procedure which is even now being worked on (by a group including our
Tribunes, I'll add!), rather than just plunked down on its own for seemingly
no reason.
I look forward to reading the details of the proposed plebiscita, so a
substantive and detailed discussion (which has hitherto been non-existant)
may take place. I only wish the Tribunes had seen fit to do so earlier,
rather than rushing to call a vote on these "hidden" proposals they have
concocted in an apparent vaccuum.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] re: Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:32:53 -0600 (CST) |
|
> Bear in mind, the powers of the Tribunes are already weakened in our modern
> reconstruction because the group which the Tribunes were historically
> developed to counterbalance-- the Patricians-- is nearly emasculated
Indeed... I don't think there's a single millionaire (with hundreds of
clients) among us!
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:39:27 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:09 PM
> >
> > Some have argued that in the intrest of fairness laws should be
bought
> > before the People rather than the Plebes. I concur that it would
be
> > fair to have all the people vote on laws, however the Tribunes of
the
> > Plebes lack the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to meet.
They
> > are limited to working with the Comita Plebis Tributa. If we
accept
> > the view that all laws should be passed by the Comitia Populi
Tributa,
> > then we have greatly weakened the powers of the Tribunes.
>
> Bear in mind, the powers of the Tribunes are already weakened in our
modern
> reconstruction because the group which the Tribunes were
historically
> developed to counterbalance-- the Patricians-- is nearly emasculated
(as our
> good Tribune reminded us yesterday). The question before us now is,
are the
> Tribunes weakened _enough_ to make up for the complete lack of
> counterbalancing power of the Patricians?
>
> > They would
> > be limited to going hat in hand begging for the Comitia Populi to
be
> > called on, rather than summoning the the Comitia Plebis. While I
have
> > no doubt that our present Consuls and Praetors would not hesitate
to
> > honor such a request from the Tribunes, the day could come when we
> > have Consuls and Praetors with less intregity, who might refuse
the
> > request. It's better to firmly establish the precedents now.
>
> I completely agree; let us establish the precedents now. Let the
precident
> be that _all_ the people are allowed to discuss, debate, and finally
vote on
> issues which pertain to them. Let the precedent be that only in the
face of
> the most recalcitrant and obstructionist Consul that the Comitia
Plebis
> Tributa needs to be called to pass necessary and vital legislation.
But let
> us _not_ establish the precident that a fraction of the population
> steamrolls over the rest, merely because the Tribunes are wanting
for
> something to do. That would be a most unfortunate precident to set.
>
> Remember, in a perfect world, the Tribunes would be idle 99% of the
time;
> they should (indeed, must) act when injustices are being
perpetrated, and
> rights abused. If the other magistrates are doing their jobs, the
Tribunes
> should let them do so.
>
> > If the
> > Patricians wish to vote on laws the Tribunes want enacted, Then I
> > sugest that rather than making sugestions that have the effect of
> > limiting the powers of the Tribunes, they use thier influance in
the
> > Comitia Centuria and the Senate to amend the Constitution so that
the
> > Tribunes would have the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa
to
> > meet.
>
> I am forced to ask why you feel it is so important that the Tribunes
be the
> magistrates who lead initiatives in legislation, rather than the
Consuls. Do
> you feel that somehow the Tribunes would be inherently more fair
than the
> Consuls in bringing legislation? If so, I would be eager to hear
your
> reasoning. If anything, it seems to me that the Consuls, who
represent _all_
> of Nova Roma, would be better suited to taking the lead on
legislation which
> impacts both Patricians and Plebeians alike. Certainly, the Tribunes
need
> the power to do so in extremis, but on day-to-day matters the
Consuls should
> carry the legislative ball, and do so in the Comitia Populi Tributa.
>
> > During most of the history of
> > Respublica Roma there were only two ways to become a Patrician. To
be
> > born a Patrician, or to adopted as the son of a Patrician. New
> > Citizens NEVER were accepted into the Ordo Patricius.
>
> I think your argument is a good one on its face, but suffers from a
> misunderstanding of just how gens membership is handled in Nova
Roma. When a
> new Citizen applies for membership in an already-existing gens, and
is
> approved, that paterfamilias is in effect adopting that new Citizen
as a son
> or daughter. It's not the same as a newly-freed slave joining a
family; it
> really is adoption. (Although if you can come up with a workable
mechanism
> that allows us to have gentes with both Patrician and Plebeian
members, I
> would be more than happy to discuss it!)
>
> Personally, I happen to agree with you; I think that gentes (both
Patrician
> and Plebeian) are far too eager to adopt new Citizens. That's why
gens Vedia
> has never accepted new Citizens as members; there's no way I am
going to
> adopt someone I don't know personally. But unless you're proposing
that we
> somehow put curbs on the power of the Paterfamiliae to adopt new
sons and
> daughters, I don't see what's to be done about it.
>
> > According to Livy one of the Centuries was for the head
> > count. If we applied the same princeples to the Centuries as we do
to
> > the tribes, we could assign all citizens who fail to vote to the
Capti
> > Censi as well as to the Urban tribes. This would't have any effect
on
> > thier points, and they could regain thier place in the classes by
> > voting this December. It would open up places in the higher
classes
> > for those who are active though.
>
> Now _this_ is an interesting idea! Can you dig up an exact reference
for it?
> On what basis were Citizens in Roma Antiqua assigned to this "head
count"
> Century? Was it merely all those who didn't meet the minimum
property
> requirements for the rest of the Centuries, or was there some other
> criterion? Was it considered part of one of the five classes, or was
it some
> sort of supernumerary century? How do you see this impacting the
problem of
> already-undersized Centuries; wouldn't it just exaccerbate it?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germa--------s@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
Salve, Flavius Vedius,
It's a busy day at work, so I''l have to wait to give you a full
response. I did want to send a link that discusses the classes and the
centuries as described by Livy.
http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/discussion/government/early_government.h
tm
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] FW: [ComitiaPlebisTributa] Description of Plebiscita before the CPT |
| From: |
Craig Stevenson <dougies@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:58:18 +1030 |
|
Ave Flavius Vedius,
How can you mean that this is sort of thing is not brought up for discussion by the
whole people? Maybe not at this point in time, but the current tribunes are
creating a way in which these laws can be viewed by the whole people.
Valete bene,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> Before commenting on the particular plebiscita the Tribunes intend to bring
> before the Comitia Plebis Tributa this weekend, I would like to make a more
> general point on procedure. Personally, I find it astonishing that the
> Tribunes would craft such legislation with nary a word of input from the
> People. As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion whatsoever on any
> of the topics covered, either in public here on the main email list or on
> the CPT list. I cannot say where the ideas for your proposed plebiscita came
> from, but they sure didn't originate in free and open discussion.
>
> As one engaged in the crafting of legislation myself, I would offer the
> Tribunes a free word of advice; input from the public is invaluable _before_
> drafting such proposals, while even still formulating broad principles. The
> discussions I and others have initiated here have been more than worthwhile
> in finding out what the will of the People is, which can then be turned into
> legislative proposals. You are certainly within your legal rights to drop
> such bombshells in the laps of the voters at the last minute, but I hardly
> think it is a good precident to set.
>
> Also, as an aside, my comments are necessarily based on the somewhat vague
> summaries of the various plebiscita offered. When (if?) the actual drafts of
> the plebiscita are made available, my commentary may be amended accordingly.
>
> > > EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS
> > >
> > > Salvete Quirites
> > >
> > > The following plebiscita shall be placed before the Comitia Plebis
> > > Tributa on 19 January 2754 AUC, to be voted on beginning 20 January 2754
> > > AUC until Midnight Roma 30 January 2754 AUC. Below are descriptions of
> > > the plebiscita, full texts will be posted to the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> > > list on Friday 19 January 2754 AUC at Roma (Thursday 18 January 2754 AUC
> > > US).
> > >
> > >
> > > I. Plebiscitum Labiena Moravia de Tribunicia Potestates
> > >
> > > Defines the honors, responsibilities, and duties of the Tribunes of the
> > > Plebeians under IV.A.7 with regard to tibunician powers of intercesso,
> > > calling of the Comitia Plebis Tributa and Senate, auxilium, assertum,
> and
> > > coercito; authority to issue nuntio, denuntio, rescriptae and responsae;
> > > and authority to appoint Plebeian scribae, curatores, and viatores.
>
> The section of the Constitution which you reference is quite specific
> regarding the "honors, powers, and responsibilities" of the Tribunes.
> Nowhere in that paragraph (or any other) is listed such things as auxilium,
> assertum, coercito, nuntio, denuntio, rescriptae, or responsae. Nor are the
> Tribunes accorded the authority to appoint scribae (a power which is
> specifically spelled out for other magistrates, and specifically _not_
> listed for Tribunes).
>
> I am all in favor of specifying how the powers of the Tribunes (as listed in
> the Constitution) should be employed. Such is a necessary function of laws
> and plebiscita. But it sounds here as if you are attempting to add _new_
> powers to the office of Tribune beyond those stipulated by the Constitution.
> That is something that you cannot do; only the Comitia Centuriata (with the
> later consent of the Senate) may alter the Constitution. I am more than a
> little troubled that those magistrates charged with maintaining the
> integrity of our Constitution are seemingly willing to play so "fast and
> loose" when it comes to their _own_ powers.
>
> > > II. Plebiscitum Labiena Moravia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis
> > Tributorum,
> > > Pass/Fail
> > >
> > > Replaces the Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitia Plebis Tributa and
> establishes
> > > new procedures for the comitia to follow in regard to voting on
> > > candidates for Plebeian offices and plebiscita. Reference to III.C.1 and
> > > 2.
>
> No problem. The Comitia Plebis Tributa should of course define its own
> internal voting procedures and mechanisms. I am glad the Tribunes have ideas
> on how this should be done (although I am once again curious as to why these
> ideas are being imposed from on high, rather than having input sought from
> the People in fair and open fora).
>
> > > III. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Publilia, Pass/Fail
> > >
> > > Reaffirmation of the Lex Publilia of 414 AUC (339 c.e.) that a call for
> > > assembly of the Comitia Plebis Tributa may be made without prior patrum
> > > auctoris or auspicia. Reference to III.C and IV.A.7.
>
> As long as exception is made for the Constitutionally-mandated right of
> nuntiatio, and in the absence of any specifics, this seems a
> not-unreasonable matter.
>
> > > IV. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Icilia, Pass/Fail
> > >
> > > Reaffirms the Lex Icilia of 259 AUC (471 c.e.) prohibiting any
> > > magistrate from interferring or disrupting the calling forth or
> > > procedures taken within the Comitia Plebis Tributa. Reference toII.B.3,
> > > and III.C.1 and 2. .
>
> Without seeing the specifics, it is impossible to tell if this proposal
> would trample the Constitutional rights of magistrates. Would it, for
> example, include a Dictator? Would a Praetor pointing out a procedural flaw
> that invalidated a vote come under its provisions and thus be silenced or
> censured? If the curator araneum cannot accomodate a particular voting
> schedule for technical reasons, would he be disciplined? What exact sorts of
> interference or disruption would fall under its auspices?
>
> > > V. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia, Pass/Fail
> > >
> > > Reaffirms the Lex Caecilia Didia of 655 AUC (98 c.e.) prohibitng any
> > > disparate provisions made between Nova Roma cives in any leges,
> > > plebiscita, edicta, making exceptions for decreta of the Collegium
> > > Pontificum and the Collegium Augurum, and the incorporating regula of
> > > sodalitates. With reference to Section II.A.3; and II.B
>
> What, precisely, is meant by "disparate provisions"? Between Patricians and
> Plebeians? Magistrates and non-Magistrates? Men and women? Experienced and
> inexperienced? Young and old? This is, unfortunately, too vague to
> definitively comment on.
>
> > > VI. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Ovinia de Senatoria, Pass/Fail
> > >
> > > Reaffirms Lev Ovinia of 414 AUC (339 c.e.) clarifying and defining
> terms
> > > used for the procedures in the provisions of the Lex Vedia Senatoria
> > > with regard to IV.A.1d, IV.A.2.c and V.A on the elevation of "all the
> > > best men and women of all ranks and orders" to the Senate as "the
> > > repository of experience and wisdom."
>
> It sounds as if you are trying to redefine the qualifications for Senate
> membership. Surely this is an issue that all of the People-- Patrician and
> Plebeian alike-- should not only vote on, but discuss beforehand? Perhaps
> the Senate itself should be consulted? I must say this smacks of an attempt
> to "stack" the Senate, and the fact that it is being done in such a
> back-room manner should raise apprehensions from all of our Citizens.
>
> > > VII. Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia,
> > > Pass/Fail
> > >
> > > Reaffirms the Lex Canuleia of 308 AUC (445 c.e.) establishing rights of
> > > all cives, regardless of their orders, to engage in conuptia and
> > > confarreatio. Ensuring civil rights of Section II.B. 1 and 6.
>
> I must say that, while this seems a good thing on the face of it, it is a
> bit incongruous. Has there been a rash of wedding-banning of which I have
> remained unaware? This is certainly dropping out of nowhere! I do, however,
> think that this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be discussed and
> voted on by _all_ the people, not merely a fraction thereof. Indeed, it
> seems a good item to be included in the larger work of the civil law code
> and procedure which is even now being worked on (by a group including our
> Tribunes, I'll add!), rather than just plunked down on its own for seemingly
> no reason.
>
> I look forward to reading the details of the proposed plebiscita, so a
> substantive and detailed discussion (which has hitherto been non-existant)
> may take place. I only wish the Tribunes had seen fit to do so earlier,
> rather than rushing to call a vote on these "hidden" proposals they have
> concocted in an apparent vaccuum.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:13:22 -0800 |
|
Ave
That link doesn't work! Do you have another or is it typed correctly?
L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
> <germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete;
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@--------]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:09 PM
> > >
> > > Some have argued that in the intrest of fairness laws should be
> bought
> > > before the People rather than the Plebes. I concur that it would
> be
> > > fair to have all the people vote on laws, however the Tribunes of
> the
> > > Plebes lack the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to meet.
> They
> > > are limited to working with the Comita Plebis Tributa. If we
> accept
> > > the view that all laws should be passed by the Comitia Populi
> Tributa,
> > > then we have greatly weakened the powers of the Tribunes.
> >
> > Bear in mind, the powers of the Tribunes are already weakened in our
> modern
> > reconstruction because the group which the Tribunes were
> historically
> > developed to counterbalance-- the Patricians-- is nearly emasculated
> (as our
> > good Tribune reminded us yesterday). The question before us now is,
> are the
> > Tribunes weakened _enough_ to make up for the complete lack of
> > counterbalancing power of the Patricians?
> >
> > > They would
> > > be limited to going hat in hand begging for the Comitia Populi to
> be
> > > called on, rather than summoning the the Comitia Plebis. While I
> have
> > > no doubt that our present Consuls and Praetors would not hesitate
> to
> > > honor such a request from the Tribunes, the day could come when we
> > > have Consuls and Praetors with less intregity, who might refuse
> the
> > > request. It's better to firmly establish the precedents now.
> >
> > I completely agree; let us establish the precedents now. Let the
> precident
> > be that _all_ the people are allowed to discuss, debate, and finally
> vote on
> > issues which pertain to them. Let the precedent be that only in the
> face of
> > the most recalcitrant and obstructionist Consul that the Comitia
> Plebis
> > Tributa needs to be called to pass necessary and vital legislation.
> But let
> > us _not_ establish the precident that a fraction of the population
> > steamrolls over the rest, merely because the Tribunes are wanting
> for
> > something to do. That would be a most unfortunate precident to set.
> >
> > Remember, in a perfect world, the Tribunes would be idle 99% of the
> time;
> > they should (indeed, must) act when injustices are being
> perpetrated, and
> > rights abused. If the other magistrates are doing their jobs, the
> Tribunes
> > should let them do so.
> >
> > > If the
> > > Patricians wish to vote on laws the Tribunes want enacted, Then I
> > > sugest that rather than making sugestions that have the effect of
> > > limiting the powers of the Tribunes, they use thier influance in
> the
> > > Comitia Centuria and the Senate to amend the Constitution so that
> the
> > > Tribunes would have the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa
> to
> > > meet.
> >
> > I am forced to ask why you feel it is so important that the Tribunes
> be the
> > magistrates who lead initiatives in legislation, rather than the
> Consuls. Do
> > you feel that somehow the Tribunes would be inherently more fair
> than the
> > Consuls in bringing legislation? If so, I would be eager to hear
> your
> > reasoning. If anything, it seems to me that the Consuls, who
> represent _all_
> > of Nova Roma, would be better suited to taking the lead on
> legislation which
> > impacts both Patricians and Plebeians alike. Certainly, the Tribunes
> need
> > the power to do so in extremis, but on day-to-day matters the
> Consuls should
> > carry the legislative ball, and do so in the Comitia Populi Tributa.
> >
> > > During most of the history of
> > > Respublica Roma there were only two ways to become a Patrician. To
> be
> > > born a Patrician, or to adopted as the son of a Patrician. New
> > > Citizens NEVER were accepted into the Ordo Patricius.
> >
> > I think your argument is a good one on its face, but suffers from a
> > misunderstanding of just how gens membership is handled in Nova
> Roma. When a
> > new Citizen applies for membership in an already-existing gens, and
> is
> > approved, that paterfamilias is in effect adopting that new Citizen
> as a son
> > or daughter. It's not the same as a newly-freed slave joining a
> family; it
> > really is adoption. (Although if you can come up with a workable
> mechanism
> > that allows us to have gentes with both Patrician and Plebeian
> members, I
> > would be more than happy to discuss it!)
> >
> > Personally, I happen to agree with you; I think that gentes (both
> Patrician
> > and Plebeian) are far too eager to adopt new Citizens. That's why
> gens Vedia
> > has never accepted new Citizens as members; there's no way I am
> going to
> > adopt someone I don't know personally. But unless you're proposing
> that we
> > somehow put curbs on the power of the Paterfamiliae to adopt new
> sons and
> > daughters, I don't see what's to be done about it.
> >
> > > According to Livy one of the Centuries was for the head
> > > count. If we applied the same princeples to the Centuries as we do
> to
> > > the tribes, we could assign all citizens who fail to vote to the
> Capti
> > > Censi as well as to the Urban tribes. This would't have any effect
> on
> > > thier points, and they could regain thier place in the classes by
> > > voting this December. It would open up places in the higher
> classes
> > > for those who are active though.
> >
> > Now _this_ is an interesting idea! Can you dig up an exact reference
> for it?
> > On what basis were Citizens in Roma Antiqua assigned to this "head
> count"
> > Century? Was it merely all those who didn't meet the minimum
> property
> > requirements for the rest of the Centuries, or was there some other
> > criterion? Was it considered part of one of the five classes, or was
> it some
> > sort of supernumerary century? How do you see this impacting the
> problem of
> > already-undersized Centuries; wouldn't it just exaccerbate it?
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Consul
> >
> > email: germa--------s@--------
> > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> > www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
> Salve, Flavius Vedius,
>
> It's a busy day at work, so I''l have to wait to give you a full
> response. I did want to send a link that discusses the classes and the
> centuries as described by Livy.
>
> http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/discussion/government/early_government.h
> tm
>
> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] FW: [ComitiaPlebisTributa] Description of Plebiscita before the CPT |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:00:21 -0500 |
|
Salve;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Stevenson [mailto:dougies@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:28
>
> How can you mean that this is sort of thing is not brought up for
discussion by the
> whole people? Maybe not at this point in time, but the current tribunes
are
> creating a way in which these laws can be viewed by the whole people.
I mean the general concepts have not even been broached either here or on
the CBT list, and yet the Tribunes are proposing plebiscita. Has there been
a discussion anywhere about the means and methods by which the Comitia
Plebis Tributa should meet and vote? Has there been a discussion anywhere
about expanding the powers of the Tribunes? Has there been a discussion
anywhere about the need to spell out that Plebeians and Patricians can
marry?
No. The Tribunes have seemingly decided everything on their own, and have
dropped it in the laps of the voters fully formed. (Not even; we STILL don't
know the exact wording of any of the proposed plebiscita!) I say this is not
a good way to conduct business, and that getting input and ideas from the
People is far preferable.
And, if I may, there already exists a "way in which these laws can be viewed
by the whole people". It's called the main email list. There is no need for
the Tribunes to create a new vehicle for such (not that they bothered to
_ask_ anyone else-- even the Plebeians themselves-- if they should create
it!).
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Plebis and the People and AD |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:03:11 US/Central |
|
Salve L Sergi
> It wouldn't matter if it did pass - it would have no force. Currently
> there is nothing to stop a pair of clowning Tribuni from putting forth a
> plebiscitum that would dictate that the sun rise in the West and set in
> the East. If you want to look truly silly, why don't you go all the way?
Sigh. My example was deliberately extreme and absurd, purely in order to
illustrate the point. It's a common ploy when making an argument, and I rather
expect that you have used it in the past yourself.
> It doesn't fall within the purview of the CPT to set qualifications for
> national offices.
Actually, it does, both historically and in Nova Roma.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:29:34 -0800 |
|
scratch that...I got it working.. ;)
Sulla Felix
Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> Ave
>
> That link doesn't work! Do you have another or is it typed correctly?
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> "L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
>
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
> > <germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> > > Salvete;
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@--------]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:09 PM
> > > >
> > > > Some have argued that in the intrest of fairness laws should be
> > bought
> > > > before the People rather than the Plebes. I concur that it would
> > be
> > > > fair to have all the people vote on laws, however the Tribunes of
> > the
> > > > Plebes lack the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa to meet.
> > They
> > > > are limited to working with the Comita Plebis Tributa. If we
> > accept
> > > > the view that all laws should be passed by the Comitia Populi
> > Tributa,
> > > > then we have greatly weakened the powers of the Tribunes.
> > >
> > > Bear in mind, the powers of the Tribunes are already weakened in our
> > modern
> > > reconstruction because the group which the Tribunes were
> > historically
> > > developed to counterbalance-- the Patricians-- is nearly emasculated
> > (as our
> > > good Tribune reminded us yesterday). The question before us now is,
> > are the
> > > Tribunes weakened _enough_ to make up for the complete lack of
> > > counterbalancing power of the Patricians?
> > >
> > > > They would
> > > > be limited to going hat in hand begging for the Comitia Populi to
> > be
> > > > called on, rather than summoning the the Comitia Plebis. While I
> > have
> > > > no doubt that our present Consuls and Praetors would not hesitate
> > to
> > > > honor such a request from the Tribunes, the day could come when we
> > > > have Consuls and Praetors with less intregity, who might refuse
> > the
> > > > request. It's better to firmly establish the precedents now.
> > >
> > > I completely agree; let us establish the precedents now. Let the
> > precident
> > > be that _all_ the people are allowed to discuss, debate, and finally
> > vote on
> > > issues which pertain to them. Let the precedent be that only in the
> > face of
> > > the most recalcitrant and obstructionist Consul that the Comitia
> > Plebis
> > > Tributa needs to be called to pass necessary and vital legislation.
> > But let
> > > us _not_ establish the precident that a fraction of the population
> > > steamrolls over the rest, merely because the Tribunes are wanting
> > for
> > > something to do. That would be a most unfortunate precident to set.
> > >
> > > Remember, in a perfect world, the Tribunes would be idle 99% of the
> > time;
> > > they should (indeed, must) act when injustices are being
> > perpetrated, and
> > > rights abused. If the other magistrates are doing their jobs, the
> > Tribunes
> > > should let them do so.
> > >
> > > > If the
> > > > Patricians wish to vote on laws the Tribunes want enacted, Then I
> > > > sugest that rather than making sugestions that have the effect of
> > > > limiting the powers of the Tribunes, they use thier influance in
> > the
> > > > Comitia Centuria and the Senate to amend the Constitution so that
> > the
> > > > Tribunes would have the power to call the Comitia Populi Tributa
> > to
> > > > meet.
> > >
> > > I am forced to ask why you feel it is so important that the Tribunes
> > be the
> > > magistrates who lead initiatives in legislation, rather than the
> > Consuls. Do
> > > you feel that somehow the Tribunes would be inherently more fair
> > than the
> > > Consuls in bringing legislation? If so, I would be eager to hear
> > your
> > > reasoning. If anything, it seems to me that the Consuls, who
> > represent _all_
> > > of Nova Roma, would be better suited to taking the lead on
> > legislation which
> > > impacts both Patricians and Plebeians alike. Certainly, the Tribunes
> > need
> > > the power to do so in extremis, but on day-to-day matters the
> > Consuls should
> > > carry the legislative ball, and do so in the Comitia Populi Tributa.
> > >
> > > > During most of the history of
> > > > Respublica Roma there were only two ways to become a Patrician. To
> > be
> > > > born a Patrician, or to adopted as the son of a Patrician. New
> > > > Citizens NEVER were accepted into the Ordo Patricius.
> > >
> > > I think your argument is a good one on its face, but suffers from a
> > > misunderstanding of just how gens membership is handled in Nova
> > Roma. When a
> > > new Citizen applies for membership in an already-existing gens, and
> > is
> > > approved, that paterfamilias is in effect adopting that new Citizen
> > as a son
> > > or daughter. It's not the same as a newly-freed slave joining a
> > family; it
> > > really is adoption. (Although if you can come up with a workable
> > mechanism
> > > that allows us to have gentes with both Patrician and Plebeian
> > members, I
> > > would be more than happy to discuss it!)
> > >
> > > Personally, I happen to agree with you; I think that gentes (both
> > Patrician
> > > and Plebeian) are far too eager to adopt new Citizens. That's why
> > gens Vedia
> > > has never accepted new Citizens as members; there's no way I am
> > going to
> > > adopt someone I don't know personally. But unless you're proposing
> > that we
> > > somehow put curbs on the power of the Paterfamiliae to adopt new
> > sons and
> > > daughters, I don't see what's to be done about it.
> > >
> > > > According to Livy one of the Centuries was for the head
> > > > count. If we applied the same princeples to the Centuries as we do
> > to
> > > > the tribes, we could assign all citizens who fail to vote to the
> > Capti
> > > > Censi as well as to the Urban tribes. This would't have any effect
> > on
> > > > thier points, and they could regain thier place in the classes by
> > > > voting this December. It would open up places in the higher
> > classes
> > > > for those who are active though.
> > >
> > > Now _this_ is an interesting idea! Can you dig up an exact reference
> > for it?
> > > On what basis were Citizens in Roma Antiqua assigned to this "head
> > count"
> > > Century? Was it merely all those who didn't meet the minimum
> > property
> > > requirements for the rest of the Centuries, or was there some other
> > > criterion? Was it considered part of one of the five classes, or was
> > it some
> > > sort of supernumerary century? How do you see this impacting the
> > problem of
> > > already-undersized Centuries; wouldn't it just exaccerbate it?
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > > Consul
> > >
> > > email: germa--------s@--------
> > > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> > > www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> >
> > Salve, Flavius Vedius,
> >
> > It's a busy day at work, so I''l have to wait to give you a full
> > response. I did want to send a link that discusses the classes and the
> > centuries as described by Livy.
> >
> > http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/discussion/government/early_government.h
> > tm
> >
> > Vale,
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Powers of the Tribunes |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:10:50 -0500 |
|
Salve;
It worked for me; remember, it's wrapping around, so you'll have to type in
the last few letters after it fails to load the first time.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 09:13
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Powers of the Tribunes
>
>
> Ave
>
> That link doesn't work! Do you have another or is it typed correctly?
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> "L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
>
> >
> > Salve, Flavius Vedius,
> >
> > It's a busy day at work, so I''l have to wait to give you a full
> > response. I |
