Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:33:28 EST

In a message dated 1/19/2001 4:25:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
octavianuslucius@-------- writes:

<< rom Jan. 28th to Feb 12th I will be absent because I will be
travelling by sea to the southern tip of the continent and the
disputed Malvinas/Falklands Islands .
So I won´t find any Internet connection at sea. LOL

Valete bene et habete fortunam bonam

Lucius Pompeius Octvianus
Propraetor Provinciae Argentinae >>
Salve, Lucius Pompeius
Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now recognize the
Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you still have the
Quintqureme base there?
(We have to have a little levity on this list otherwise we will all go
bonkers!)
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

Subject:	[novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
From:	"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <octavianuslucius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:23:59 -0000

Salvete quirites omnes

>From Jan. 28th to Feb 12th I will be absent because I will be
travelling by sea to the southern tip of the continent and the
disputed Malvinas/Falklands Islands .
So I won´t find any Internet connection at sea. LOL

Valete bene et habete fortunam bonam

Lucius Pompeius Octvianus
Propraetor Provinciae Argentinae

Subject:	[novaroma] Consular Request to Postpone The Current Plebiscita
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:58:08 EST

Salvete Omnes,

It has become obvious that numerous problems exist within the various
plebiscita as presented,  most notably including questions of their legality
and Constitutionality.  

The radical changes they would make in our social and political organization
are as yet completely undiscussed. They were drawn up without public input
and presented so close to the vote that little or no debate can be possible.
These issues should be discussed by all Citizens since they will affect all
Citizens.  

The Consuls hereby formally request the Tribuni Plebis to cancel the
scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa. There are simply too many
questions regarding these proposals, and no particular need for haste. We ask
that the Tribunes reply formally and publicly on this matter.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Consul

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:02:15 EST

EX DOMO PROCURATORIS BRITANNIAE

> Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now recognize the
> Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you still have the
> Quintqureme base there?
>

What you trying to do to me, QFM? Propraetor Vado is already planning to send
me to Thule Ultima to pick up bird crap and seaweed for his palace vegetable
garden. I can see another trip to count penguins looming before my eyes.

Have you ever seen a quinquerieme in South Atlantic storm? Exactly. The
blasted things sink like a brick.

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
Procurator Britanniae


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:16:41 -0800

Ave, are you saying you dont want to go on a fully expense payed expedition to the
Falklands!?! :)

Sulla Felix

BICURRATUS@-------- wrote:

> EX DOMO PROCURATORIS BRITANNIAE
>
> > Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now recognize the
> > Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you still have the
> > Quintqureme base there?
> >
>
> What you trying to do to me, QFM? Propraetor Vado is already planning to send
> me to Thule Ultima to pick up bird crap and seaweed for his palace vegetable
> garden. I can see another trip to count penguins looming before my eyes.
>
> Have you ever seen a quinquerieme in South Atlantic storm? Exactly. The
> blasted things sink like a brick.
>
> Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
> Procurator Britanniae
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
From:	Christer Edling <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:17:34 +0100

Salvete Omnes!

I question the proposed leges of the Tribunes. The changes to the
Constitution are to big, maybe illegal and difficult to assess.Therefor I
will join those who formally ask the Tribunes to cancel the scheduled vote
of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

Vale

Christer Edling
alias
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor; Nova Roma
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:24:33 -0600 (CST)

Salvete Quirites,

> I question the proposed leges of the Tribunes. The changes to the
> Constitution are to big, maybe illegal and difficult to assess.Therefor I
> will join those who formally ask the Tribunes to cancel the scheduled vote
> of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

I agree. While some of these changes may be beneficial, this is too
much, too fast, and there was insufficient public discussion beforehand
for changes of this magnitude.

Please, tribunes, put a stop to this.

Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:22:24 -0800

Ave,

I also voice my agreement of our Consuls Fl. Vedius Germancius and M. Cassius
Iulianus and Quaestor Caeso Fabius Quintilianus. Cancel the Comitia Plebis!

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Christer Edling wrote:

> Salvete Omnes!
>
> I question the proposed leges of the Tribunes. The changes to the
> Constitution are to big, maybe illegal and difficult to assess.Therefor I
> will join those who formally ask the Tribunes to cancel the scheduled vote
> of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
>
> Vale
>
> Christer Edling
> alias
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Quaestor; Nova Roma
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> "Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
> ************************************************
> SHAMALI SALUKIS
> ************************************************
> CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
> Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
> ************************************************
> IF GAMES - If reality was different!
> Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
> ************************************************
> MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
> ************************************************
> PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
> DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
> MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

Subject:	[novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
From:	"Robert W" <robert@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:31:36 -0500

Salvete, omnes; I, Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato hereby announce my decision to run for the office of Quaestor. This decision has been made because of a desire on my part to contribute more to our beloved Nova Roma. Although in the past I have had little time to get involved to the extent I would like, due to many activities and responsibilities in my life, I have decided that this will change. I promise to the Gods and Goddesses of Nova Roma, and to my fellow citizens of Nova Roma, that if elected, I will fulfill the duties and responsibilities of Quaestor to the best of my ability. Ave Nova Roma! Valete, ... A.T.M.Cato


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:32:30 -0800

Ave!!

I must say...I saw that post..and I thought it was from me! LOL Since my real name is Robert Woolwine!!! Whew..

Good luck on your candidacy....if there is anything you need please let me know! :)

L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Robert W wrote:

> Salvete, omnes; I, Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato hereby announce my decision to run for the office of Quaestor. This decision has been made because of a desire on my part to contribute more to our beloved Nova Roma. Although in the past I have had little time to get involved to the extent I would like, due to many activities and responsibilities in my life, I have decided that this will change. I promise to the Gods and Goddesses of Nova Roma, and to my fellow citizens of Nova Roma, that if elected, I will fulfill the duties and responsibilities of Quaestor to the best of my ability. Ave Nova Roma! Valete, ... A.T.M.Cato
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:35:50 -0800

Sorry that was supposed to be sent privately.....Oops! :)

Sulla Felix

"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:

> Ave!!
>
> I must say...I saw that post..and I thought it was from me! LOL Since my real name is Robert Woolwine!!! Whew..
>
> Good luck on your candidacy....if there is anything you need please let me know! :)
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> Robert W wrote:
>
> > Salvete, omnes; I, Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato hereby announce my decision to run for the office of Quaestor. This decision has been made because of a desire on my part to contribute more to our beloved Nova Roma. Although in the past I have had little time to get involved to the extent I would like, due to many activities and responsibilities in my life, I have decided that this will change. I promise to the Gods and Goddesses of Nova Roma, and to my fellow citizens of Nova Roma, that if elected, I will fulfill the duties and responsibilities of Quaestor to the best of my ability. Ave Nova Roma! Valete, ... A.T.M.Cato
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:00:57 -0500

Salvete, Quirites

I only wish to make a couple of comments on this proposal.

Message: 18
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:00:37 -0800
From: Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Subject: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia

EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS

Salvete Quirites

The following Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia
is hereby placed before the Comitia Plebis Tributa for consideration on a
pass/fail basis.

Valete

Cn. Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


******************************


Plebiscitum de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Canuleia de Conuptia

In accordance with Section II, Parts A.3, B, C and D of the Constitution
of Nova Roma, under the authority of Sections I.B and III.C.1, the
following plebiscitum is made as a reaffirmation of the Lex Canuleia, 308
AUC.

1) No provisions shall be included in any leges, plebiscita, edicta,
decreta, rescripta, or responsa to be issued by any magistrate or
official of Nova Roma, or put before a comitia for a vote, which shall be
held to prohibit conuptia among Plebeians, among Patricians, or between
Patricians and Plebeians; nor shall provisions likewise prohibit,
nullify, or disallow a confarreatio between a patrician and a plebeian.

Lucius Equitius: The very definition of "Confarreatio" is a sacred marriage between Patricians. Therefore any marriage between a Patrician and a Plebian would by definition not be "Confarreatio".
At any rate I do think that Patricians should have some say in a rite that is by definition theirs. Also, these have religious significance and should properly be under the authority of the College Pontificium. The Flamen Dialis (priest of Iupiter) and the Rex et Regina Sacrorum had to be married in this manner. These in turn had to witness rites of Confarreatio. The Flamen Martialis et Flamen Quirinalis also would be married this way if they were married, except that these two need not necessarily be married.

"Confarreatio was an elaborate ceremony open only to patricians and included a joint sacral meal of prescribed foods. Divorce was not possible from this form of marriage, which became very rare." p 73

"-the special meal eaten by the rare people who married by 'confarreatio' and the ritual sale, 'coemptio', which marked one type of transference of the bride to the "manus" of her husband-" p 135

"Details of the ceremony are given in Gai. 1.112. It had almost disappeared by the early Empire, which was inconvenient because certain patrician priesthoods could be filled only by couples (or men) married by this method, and usually on the understanding that their parents had also been married by this method. p.207 note 57

The Roman Family, Suzanne Dixion John Hopkins University Press 1992 ISBN 0-8018-4200-X

As for the other forms of 'marriage', I have no opinion.

2) No pater or mater familias shall have the authority to prohibit
conuptia of gens members, nor may they coerce by any means any member of
their respective gentes into conuptia.

3.a) The individuals who enter into conuptia with one another are
solely authorized for detailing the arrangements of their relationship.
They may enter into any and all gentes that will accept them, or remain
in their respective gentes, or they may form their own gens without
interference or inhibiting effect allowed to be made by any magistrate.
A new gens thus created out of a conuptia shall be entered by the Censors
into the Album Gentes, subject only to Sectiom II.D.2.

3.b) Each individual citizen may belong to only one gens. Individuals
joined in a conuptia are not required to change their gens affiliation,
and thus members to a conuptia agreement may belong to different gentes.

Lucius Equitius: Would this not depend on the specific situation? Sine Manu, Manus, etc. I say let the families do what they deem best.

4) Children born to parents of differing orders may be placed in the
gens of either parent, provided the pater or mater familias of the
designated gens approves. Otherwise the children shall be considered to
belong to the gens and the order of the natural mother.

Lucius Equitius: This discriminates against the natural father. Also, I might add goes against ancient Roman tradition.

This proposal flies in the face of the very documents that brought Nova Roma into being. If we are not here to bring to life the noble traditions of ancient Rome, then what is the exercise?

I would like to state that even though some Patricians have reacted negatively to the proposals, it must be remembered that many of them were once Plebeians. Pontifex A Gryllus Graecus once Tribune Plebis. BOTH Consules last year and this year's Praetor Q Fabius et Quaestor Marcus Minucius Audens were originally Plebians.

Di Deaeque cives Novae Romae protegas.
Bene omnibus nobis
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Plebian Representation-Who's interests are being served?
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:23:00 +1030

Ave Flaccus,

Don't you think you're going a bit overboard with this? The tribunes have done
nothing that has not been brought to the attention of the plebeians, and even
the whole of the people, as all can view the Comitia Plebis Tributa listings. If
the people are being used, then surely they can use the intelligence they were
all presumably born with, and make their own decision.

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Oppius Flaccus wrote:

> Salvete Quirites and fellow Plebeians,
>
> After having read the posted legislation from our Tribunes,
> I have to honestly say that I am OUTRAGED! I share many
> many of the concerns so elegantly stated in Aeternia's
> mail, but intend to be a bit more vocal. It's *imperative,*
> that all Plebeians, new and old have a full understanding
> of the legislation that is now before us.
>
> Why the outrage? The Tribunes are looking to promulgate
> a series of sweeping Leges that subvert Nova Roma's
> Constitution to their own ends. As I shall further question below,
> this proposed legislation is a *blatant* attempt at amalgamating
> all central power around the Tribunal office. It is resentful
> that such an important and supposedly 'representative' office
> of the people would think so little of its constituents
> as to use them as pawns in their power struggles against
> the "Establishment." (i.e., the Consuls, Senate, non-AD affiliated
> Plebeians, those with a difference of opinion, the Censors, the
> Constitution, etc., etc.)
>
> For starters, in agreement with Aeternia; I fully fail
> to realize how ANY of the legislation put before us benefits
> any of us Plebeians, aside from the Tribunes and certain members of the
> Amici Dignitas. Below the issues will be enumerated more
> fully. It is my sincere hope that anyone sharing these
> same concerns will be every bit as vocal or more so in
> spreading the word to the people the true danger and
> unrepresentative nature of the proposed Plebiscites.
>
> 1-I contend that the only *legitimate* and *representative* item up for vote
> in the assembly is for the Plebian Aedile. This does indeed
> affect us all. I openly question how any other of the other
> items are going to be beneficial to Plebeians as a class.
>
> 2-I would like to know who among the Plebian class was truly
> consulted in the promulgation of *any* of the proposed
> Plebiscites. No members of my gens were; and it's hard to
> imagine any situation in which any of the proposed changes
> to the constitution will benefit anyone but the Tribunes
> *directly*, and to a lesser extent, current members of the Amici
> Dignitas. So Tribunes, may we have a list of Plebian cives
> that actually helped propose and suggest the sweeping
> changes to the Constitution that you propose? Would such
> a list include *anyone* but yourselves and some fellow
> Amici members?
>
> 3-Obviously, you have spent a significant amount of time and research
> in crafting these sweeping proposed changes to the Constitution.
> Apparently, the "Official Voter's Guide" in this election seems
> to be Livy. Though I commend your research efforts and knowledge
> of ancient texts and obscure Leges, I request that you demonstrate
> specifically how any of these Leges are even remotely pertinent
> to Nova Roman life as it now exists; or even feasibly *would*
> exist into the future. We obviously have a composite Constitution.
> We obviously know that it is a solid mix of the old and new.
> If not to gather pure unadulterated power around the office
> of Tribune of the Plebs, then to what end?
>
> 4-Some clauses of the proposed Leges are strictly revolutionary
> as they exist. What is more disturbing to me personally, is the
> crafty way in which you conveniently mixed your language between
> perfect colloquial English and obscure ancient Latin. You have
> purposely put obfuscated Leges in front of the Committee at the
> last possible minute. I will address additional comments to the
> specific areas in the proposed Leges that fall under that
> category.
>
> 5-As has been mentioned (so it will not be belabored here,) there
> has been NO time prior to the official start of the voting
> period in which to discuss these Leges. In fact, depending on
> where one lives in the world, they weren't even posted 24 HOURS
> prior to execution. My copies arrived at 8pm CST. Many parts
> of the world and zones within provinces would have in effect
> received these the 'day of,' so to speak.
>
> 6-I would like further clarification on why you Piscinus, the Flamen
> Cerealis are proposing that you the Plebiscites are not bound by
> the auspices? It seems to fly in the face of your always (perhaps
> extreme) defense of the religio at all costs. It also smacks of special
> interest and could be assumed to be quite hypocritical coming from
> you. Furthermore, why do we as the Plebian people, need to support
> 10 lictors for the Tribunes? Please explain why this is necessary.
> Especially in our growing Respublica where the already Constitutionally
> sanctioned offices go unfulfilled. Do the Patricians really
> threaten you THAT MUCH?
>
> 7-Tell us truthfully:
> Are we REALLY encountering issues of confarreatio marriage? Are we
> REALLY dealing issues of cross-order marriages? Are we REALLY dealing
> with issues of children of intra-marriages between Patricians and
> Plebeians? Where did this come from? Should we not wait until some of
> your supposed erroneous areas of Constitutional law come to the test
> before throwing 2500 year old laws at it?
>
> You complain much about the clarification and detail of our Constitution.
> Did you not take an oath to uphold the Constitution? How about the
> Religio?
> Are your sacred concepts of the Religio now null and void as a Tribune?
> Perhaps you switch hats between the two whenever the mood suits you.
> You can not seriously intend to mix concepts and language in a manner
> likely only understood by yourself in some elements of your proposed
> Leges, shove it very quickly under the noses of the people and not giving
> them time AND reason to sniff it? And then hoping to ram it through in
> Committee?
>
> So, my humble Tribunes, as supposed representatives of the two Plebeian
> members of
> gens Flacca, This is ALL I would ask of you for now:
>
> 1-Call the vote as already scheduled for Plebian Aedile. We have two good
> candidates for the position who are each well qualified in their
> respective
> ways. Let's complete that vote now.
>
> 2-Let's take ALL your other proposed legislation back to the drawing board
> and call off the rest of the election.
>
> Show us WHY we need it. Simply quoting textual references to our
> Constitution
> and inserting arcane 2500 year old ancient law in its place, and mixing
> the linguistic
> definitions to your own ends is simply NOT sufficient. To quote a phrase:
> "Show us the money." Let's have specific examples. Let's hammer each new
> proposed Lex out in the main list. Yes, the scary Patricians might
> actually
> be able to read and participate in the discussion, but still they could
> not vote on the results. So my humble Tribunes, you are protected. Call
> off
> the vote on all the other issues.
>
> Now, as proud Plebeian whom sees things to be quite fine with his situation,
> thank you very much...explain why we don't actually need protection from
> you!
>
> Valete!
> -Oppius Flaccus Severus,
> Plebian, Tribe: IXX, Votinia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
From:	willspina18@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:05:15 EST

Salvete Omnes!
I am a new citizen of Nova Roma and I'm greatful to have been afforded the
oppurtunity to join. It has taken me a bit of time to review the notions
currently proposed by the Tribunes of the People and to review the
constitution and leges, and I must say I am in agreement with the opposition.
I am responding to the call of the consuls and urge all other Novi Romani.
Valere et Anima!
G. Fidelis Paulus Christianus.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Plebian Representation-Who's interests are being served?
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:08:23 -0800

Ave,

Are you saying, C. Sentius that a Plebian who disagrees with the Tribunes does not
have a right to voice his concern about the election?

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Craig Stevenson wrote:

> Ave Flaccus,
>
> Don't you think you're going a bit overboard with this? The tribunes have done
> nothing that has not been brought to the attention of the plebeians, and even
> the whole of the people, as all can view the Comitia Plebis Tributa listings. If
> the people are being used, then surely they can use the intelligence they were
> all presumably born with, and make their own decision.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
>
> Oppius Flaccus wrote:
>
> > Salvete Quirites and fellow Plebeians,
> >
> > After having read the posted legislation from our Tribunes,
> > I have to honestly say that I am OUTRAGED! I share many
> > many of the concerns so elegantly stated in Aeternia's
> > mail, but intend to be a bit more vocal. It's *imperative,*
> > that all Plebeians, new and old have a full understanding
> > of the legislation that is now before us.
> >
> > Why the outrage? The Tribunes are looking to promulgate
> > a series of sweeping Leges that subvert Nova Roma's
> > Constitution to their own ends. As I shall further question below,
> > this proposed legislation is a *blatant* attempt at amalgamating
> > all central power around the Tribunal office. It is resentful
> > that such an important and supposedly 'representative' office
> > of the people would think so little of its constituents
> > as to use them as pawns in their power struggles against
> > the "Establishment." (i.e., the Consuls, Senate, non-AD affiliated
> > Plebeians, those with a difference of opinion, the Censors, the
> > Constitution, etc., etc.)
> >
> > For starters, in agreement with Aeternia; I fully fail
> > to realize how ANY of the legislation put before us benefits
> > any of us Plebeians, aside from the Tribunes and certain members of the
> > Amici Dignitas. Below the issues will be enumerated more
> > fully. It is my sincere hope that anyone sharing these
> > same concerns will be every bit as vocal or more so in
> > spreading the word to the people the true danger and
> > unrepresentative nature of the proposed Plebiscites.
> >
> > 1-I contend that the only *legitimate* and *representative* item up for vote
> > in the assembly is for the Plebian Aedile. This does indeed
> > affect us all. I openly question how any other of the other
> > items are going to be beneficial to Plebeians as a class.
> >
> > 2-I would like to know who among the Plebian class was truly
> > consulted in the promulgation of *any* of the proposed
> > Plebiscites. No members of my gens were; and it's hard to
> > imagine any situation in which any of the proposed changes
> > to the constitution will benefit anyone but the Tribunes
> > *directly*, and to a lesser extent, current members of the Amici
> > Dignitas. So Tribunes, may we have a list of Plebian cives
> > that actually helped propose and suggest the sweeping
> > changes to the Constitution that you propose? Would such
> > a list include *anyone* but yourselves and some fellow
> > Amici members?
> >
> > 3-Obviously, you have spent a significant amount of time and research
> > in crafting these sweeping proposed changes to the Constitution.
> > Apparently, the "Official Voter's Guide" in this election seems
> > to be Livy. Though I commend your research efforts and knowledge
> > of ancient texts and obscure Leges, I request that you demonstrate
> > specifically how any of these Leges are even remotely pertinent
> > to Nova Roman life as it now exists; or even feasibly *would*
> > exist into the future. We obviously have a composite Constitution.
> > We obviously know that it is a solid mix of the old and new.
> > If not to gather pure unadulterated power around the office
> > of Tribune of the Plebs, then to what end?
> >
> > 4-Some clauses of the proposed Leges are strictly revolutionary
> > as they exist. What is more disturbing to me personally, is the
> > crafty way in which you conveniently mixed your language between
> > perfect colloquial English and obscure ancient Latin. You have
> > purposely put obfuscated Leges in front of the Committee at the
> > last possible minute. I will address additional comments to the
> > specific areas in the proposed Leges that fall under that
> > category.
> >
> > 5-As has been mentioned (so it will not be belabored here,) there
> > has been NO time prior to the official start of the voting
> > period in which to discuss these Leges. In fact, depending on
> > where one lives in the world, they weren't even posted 24 HOURS
> > prior to execution. My copies arrived at 8pm CST. Many parts
> > of the world and zones within provinces would have in effect
> > received these the 'day of,' so to speak.
> >
> > 6-I would like further clarification on why you Piscinus, the Flamen
> > Cerealis are proposing that you the Plebiscites are not bound by
> > the auspices? It seems to fly in the face of your always (perhaps
> > extreme) defense of the religio at all costs. It also smacks of special
> > interest and could be assumed to be quite hypocritical coming from
> > you. Furthermore, why do we as the Plebian people, need to support
> > 10 lictors for the Tribunes? Please explain why this is necessary.
> > Especially in our growing Respublica where the already Constitutionally
> > sanctioned offices go unfulfilled. Do the Patricians really
> > threaten you THAT MUCH?
> >
> > 7-Tell us truthfully:
> > Are we REALLY encountering issues of confarreatio marriage? Are we
> > REALLY dealing issues of cross-order marriages? Are we REALLY dealing
> > with issues of children of intra-marriages between Patricians and
> > Plebeians? Where did this come from? Should we not wait until some of
> > your supposed erroneous areas of Constitutional law come to the test
> > before throwing 2500 year old laws at it?
> >
> > You complain much about the clarification and detail of our Constitution.
> > Did you not take an oath to uphold the Constitution? How about the
> > Religio?
> > Are your sacred concepts of the Religio now null and void as a Tribune?
> > Perhaps you switch hats between the two whenever the mood suits you.
> > You can not seriously intend to mix concepts and language in a manner
> > likely only understood by yourself in some elements of your proposed
> > Leges, shove it very quickly under the noses of the people and not giving
> > them time AND reason to sniff it? And then hoping to ram it through in
> > Committee?
> >
> > So, my humble Tribunes, as supposed representatives of the two Plebeian
> > members of
> > gens Flacca, This is ALL I would ask of you for now:
> >
> > 1-Call the vote as already scheduled for Plebian Aedile. We have two good
> > candidates for the position who are each well qualified in their
> > respective
> > ways. Let's complete that vote now.
> >
> > 2-Let's take ALL your other proposed legislation back to the drawing board
> > and call off the rest of the election.
> >
> > Show us WHY we need it. Simply quoting textual references to our
> > Constitution
> > and inserting arcane 2500 year old ancient law in its place, and mixing
> > the linguistic
> > definitions to your own ends is simply NOT sufficient. To quote a phrase:
> > "Show us the money." Let's have specific examples. Let's hammer each new
> > proposed Lex out in the main list. Yes, the scary Patricians might
> > actually
> > be able to read and participate in the discussion, but still they could
> > not vote on the results. So my humble Tribunes, you are protected. Call
> > off
> > the vote on all the other issues.
> >
> > Now, as proud Plebeian whom sees things to be quite fine with his situation,
> > thank you very much...explain why we don't actually need protection from
> > you!
> >
> > Valete!
> > -Oppius Flaccus Severus,
> > Plebian, Tribe: IXX, Votinia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Cancel the scheduled vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:00:16 -0600

19 jan 2001

salve All

I too, would like to see a delay, as I feel there has been no public
consultation or input. I want to see our assemblies finally working as much
as anyone else, but never in Old Roma has there ever been such a
introduction of Laws! In fact, the Tribunes of Old would plan a strategy,
then try to pass their Laws throughout their year in office. I can only say
that I hope this is not the start of such a plan, as it will surly end in
Monarchy! Remember Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus!

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

Subject:	[novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:23:03 -0600

19 Jan 2001

Salve All

I, Quintus Sertorius, now announce my intentions to run for the office of Quaestor for Nova Roma. I feel my time has come to start my climb through the offices of Nova Roma, and give back to my Republic some of what it has given me! My desire to serve is beyond explanation, as I feel my life's duty is with our Micro-nation. My family has agreed that this is the best thing for me to do, as so much of my life is now with our Republic. I ask that all citizens to exercise their rights, and vote for Quintus Sertorius for Quaestor!!

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] 2nd Call for Candidates
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:37:25 EST

Salve Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Let me tread lightly here, because although I do not mean to offend, in
Nova Roma *someone* is bound to take offense at this and claim that I'm
calling them stupid. Perhaps I'm the only "stupid" one here.

My responsibilities in the offline world are such that I am usually
reading and responding to my email in either a pre-dawn stupor or a
post-sunset, post-work daze. Hence I am rarely at my sharpest here in the
Forum. The first time I read your earlier post about convening the
Comitia Populi Tributa, I confused it with the Comitia Plebis Tributa and
wondered what on earth you were up to!

Since both of these Comitiae are being convened in about the same time
frame and their names are so similar, and on the assumption that I may
not be the only person who tends to get them confused, might it not be
helpful (for newcomers and early/late readers) when making these
announcements to include a non-Latin description so as to reduce
confusion?

For example, you might include an explanation that the assembly you are
calling is the Assembly of All of the People by Tribes and not the
Assembly of the Plebians by Tribes.

And as a side benefit, given the multitude of brazen falsehoods being
purveyed these days about the three Comitiae and the Patricians
oppressing the Plebians, etc., such clarification might lead people to
realize that while we Plebian citizens have our very own law-making
assembly in which no-one else may participate, the Patrician citizens
have no such assembly or privilege. Imagine that! That's not anything our
Uncle Piscinus is telling us, is it?

To borrow an apt phrase - "You shall know the truth and the truth shall
make you free" - free from power-hungry demagogues claiming to be your
protectors!

Well, there I go again. I guess I may have offended someone anyway.
Sorry, I guess it's just the ex-Tribune in me. So it goes....

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus



On 1/19/01 7:34 AM Flavius Vedius Germanicus (germanicus@--------)
wrote:

>Salvete, Omnes!
>
>This is a reminder that there are two vacant positions for Quaestor that
>must be filled, as well as the open position of Curator Differum (newsletter
>editor). Anyone interested in running for these positions should get in
>contact with the Consuls (consuls@--------) as soon as possible. The
>election in the Comitia Populi Tributa will be commencing next week. (It is
>now looking more likely that the election will run from January 24th through
>the 31st.)
>
>Thusfar, only one candidate has volunteered to stand for Quaestor; I hope
>more cives will take advantage of this opportunity to participate in the
>public life of Nova Roma.
>
>Valete,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Consul
>
>email: germanicus@--------
>AIM: Flavius Vedius
>www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:34:51 -0600

Salve S. Apollonius

On 1/19/01 2:20 PM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:

>Salvete Flavi Vedi et alii,
>
>I have one question.
I count at least four questions. :-)

>Despite all the problems those plebiscita seem to
>raise, I believe they were all based on old laws in Roma Antiqua (well, all
>but one). If they worked in RA, why wouldn't they in NR? They violate the
>Constitution, you say, but I do think that installing plebiscita that have
>to do with the Tribuni is something for the plebs to vote on. I wouldn't say
>their nature is disturbing. Some of them are merely social niceties, and
>others are very important. Collegial intercessio was not necessary in
>ancient Rome, and I think that if our good Tribunes were to veto anything,
>they wouldn't get elected next year. Piscinus and Fortunatus are men I
>consider both wise and sane enough not to come playing tyrant here in this
>micronation.
Well then I guess you haven't been paying much attention to how they are
talking and what they are trying to do.
>
>Do you feel that magistrates should be allowed to disrupt meetings? Do you
>think that the Senatorial elevation process doesn't need clarification? Or
>that citizen's rights shouldn't be protected? Of course these are meant to
>be rhetorical questions, but all I want to say is that there's no real
>reason, in my opinion, to "cry murder and fire" (Dutch expression) when
>there's not much to cry about. If the Constitution is being violated,
>something must be wrong, of course. Should these plebiscita change then, or
>should the Constitution? And this is not a rhetorical question.
There are probably many things in the Constitution that need clarifying
or modifying. That is why the law provides procedures for doing just
that. Your friends are not following those procedures. Hence they are
acting unlawfully. I know it seems a hard concept for you to handle, but
the fact is that you and your friends are not "the good guys" here. They
are acting outside of and against the law.
>
>Another issue that has been raised is how these plebiscita serve the
>interests of the plebs. I think they do. If the Tribunes can regain their
>powers of old, they can do much more for the plebs than they can do now. I
>believe the role of the Tribuni is not to protect the constitution, but to
>serve the plebs. At least these Tribuni are awake, alive and well, which
>cannot be said about all Tribuni (or other magistrates) NR has had in the
>past.
But the role of the Tribuni, Draco is defined *not* by what you "believe"
but by what is stated in the Constitution. We don't have a republic
defined by "what Draco believes," but by what the Constitution states.
Tell me you recognize the difference. But if you do, then why do you say
things like this?

Not to be cruel, but it's just possible that you and some others have
joined the wrong micronation. You were looking for one that is run the
way you *believe* it should be run. This one clearly may not be it. No
harm or dishonor in that - unless you decide to stay around and force the
rest of us to accept what you "believe."

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>Valete!
>Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
>Legatus Galliae Borealis,
>Procurator Galliae,
>Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
>Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum,
> Musaeus Collegii Eratus,
> Musaeus Collegii Uraniae
>Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Absentia propraetoris Argentinae
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:34:53 -0600

Sometimes, Quintus Fabius, it appears that we have already gone bonkers!

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/19/01 6:33 PM Quintus Fabius Maximus (sfp55@--------) wrote:

>In a message dated 1/19/2001 4:25:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>octavianuslucius@-------- writes:
>
><< rom Jan. 28th to Feb 12th I will be absent because I will be
> travelling by sea to the southern tip of the continent and the
> disputed Malvinas/Falklands Islands .
> So I won´t find any Internet connection at sea. LOL
>
> Valete bene et habete fortunam bonam
>
> Lucius Pompeius Octvianus
> Propraetor Provinciae Argentinae >>
>Salve, Lucius Pompeius
>Fortuna attend your journey! Oh Moravius. Does Britannia now recognize the
>Province of Argentinae's claim on those islands? Or do you still have the
>Quintqureme base there?
>(We have to have a little levity on this list otherwise we will all go
>bonkers!)
>Valete
>Q. Fabius Maximus
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Sky is Falling! (was ATTN: The power of the Tribunes is not the power of the people)
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:34:48 -0600

Salve Titus Labienus,

Let's look, indeed:

On 1/19/01 2:07 PM labienus@-------- (labienus@--------) wrote:

>Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Quiritibus SPD
>
>Considering the rather histrionic note recently posted by Antonius Gryllus
>Graecus, along with more reasoned and reasonable concerns raised by
>others, I
>felt that I ought to address some of those concerns.
>
>We tribuni are not trying to amass great power. We are not trying to cut
>patricians off from the affairs of state. And, we most certainly are not
>trying to do any of the ridiculous things Antonius Gryllus accuses us of.
>
>Now, let's look at the "true net of laws... with the sole objective of
>usurping
>all the power in Nova Roma..."
>
>PdAL Ovinia: Expands upon Lex Vedia Senatoria and specifies more firmly how
>Senatores are enrolled into the Senate. It does allow the tribuni to
>recommend
>candidates, but nothing more.
How Senatores are enrolled into the Senate is not a matter that falls
within the purview of the Tribuni or the Comitia Plebis Tributa. That's
all that can or need be said.
>
>PdIAL Caecila Didia: Attempts to guarantee equality between the orders,
>making
>exceptions for religious considerations.
Equality between the orders is not a matter that falls within the purview
of the Tribuni or the Comitia Plebis Tributa. That's all that can or need
be said.
>
>PdIAL Publilia: Allows the CPT to meet without obtaining prior permission.
> No
>prior permission is currently required to assemble the CPT; this plebiscitum
>merely makes that lack of requirement official.
As you say, no prior permission is required as things stand - therefore
this is a useless, pointless law. It serves no purpose, by your own
admission.
>
>PdIAL Canuleia de Conuptia: Allows cives of all orders to enter into
>partnerships that are officially recognized by the state.
There is presently no act, law, or edict interfering with such
partnerships, and so this is another exercize in useless, pointless
law-making for the sake of law-making.
>
>PdIAL Icilia: Simply says that the CPT may not be stopped from assembling
>and
>voting. This is a reality as it is, since the acts of tribuni are immune
>from
>the intercessio of all magistrates (including tribuni, if this plebiscitum
>does
>not pass). It also allows tribuni to issue an intercessio against other
>tribuni who call the CPT together, which they *can't* do now, and which is a
>major hole in the checks and balances inherent in the constitution. It also
>forbids the tribuni from interfering with any of the comitia after they have
>been assembled to vote upon laws and magisterial elections.
You yourself have said it - "This is a reality as it is."
>
>PL-Md Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum: Defines procedures for the CPT,
>with the exception of legal proceedings, which will be defined either by the
>plebiscitum on tribunicia potestates or at a later date.
>
>PL-Md Tribunicia Potestates: I expect this is the one plebiscitum that has
>everyone so upset. Therefore, I will spend more time with it.
>
>In general, it defines the powers of the tribuni and how they are to be
>used.
>It also adds to the responsibilities of the tribuni.
Defining the powers of the Tribuni is not a matter which falls within the
purview of either the Tribuni or the Comitia Plebis Tributa. This is
openly and transparently a coup attempt if it were not for the fact that
it cannot work because you do not have the power to do this, and neither
do all of us together in the Assembly of Plebian Tribes. So it is either
a bad joke or an attempt to goad the Senate and Consuls into exercizing
their responsibility for the protection of the Res Publica. So come
clean, Labienus - which is it? Are the pair of you just trying to create
another crisis to see what comes out of it? I thought better of you at
least.
>
>It establishes a senior tribunus position, in order that some precedence
>may be
>made between the tribunes in issuing a veto, allowing the tribunus who
>received
>more tribes in the elections to act as a check upon the actions of other
>tribuni (we may someday have more than two).
This might or might not be a good idea, but we cannot establish any such
position in the Assembly of Plebian Tribes because it is a constitutional
change that must be put before all the people and the Senate, as it
should be. There will be no "dictatorship of the proletariat" here.
>
>It grants the tribuni the right to have viatores precede them. This is
>negligible. Nobody actually expects viatores, lictores, or even freed
>gladiators to actually beat anyone, I would hope.
This is too much, LOL! I personally consider the imaginary prancing of
all those virtually dignified virtual lictores to be one of the sillier
images in our government. Now you want to be virtually preceded by
virtual viatores - well have at it, at least "virtual viatores" is more
alliterative!
>
>It establishes the possibility of a penalty for violating a veto, but leaves
>such penalty to the courts priests to define.
How can you "establish the possibility of a penalty" when we have no
functioning justice system? In effect, you're saying "If we ever have
courts, we want a penalty exacted for this particular behavior." Should
that not be left to be part of the setting up of the court system? It
really has little meaning at this point.
>
>It demands that the tribuni should behave appropriately; merely an extension
>and reinforcement of the oath of office with the possibility of punishment.
Who is to decide what behavior is "appropriate" in a Tribune? Whoever it
would be, they would be given power over the behavior of the Tribune,
which would detract from the essential power of the Tribuni. We must rely
on electing good people to serve in the office of Tribune. There is no
way to put a guard over the conduct of tribunes without taking away from
the essential power of the office. If a Tribune goes too far, the Consuls
and Senate can use the "Ultimate Decree" to correct things, but beyond
that I am opposed to giving anyone, including another Tribune, power to
interfere with the Tribuni.
>
>It addresses intercessio and defines 'collegially' to mean 'without
>disagreement', allowing a tribunus to use this vital power when the
>other(s) is
>somehow unavailable. However, it goes on to specifically define exactly
>what
>criteria are to be used when issuing an intercessio. It also suggests that
>legal reasoning should be provided when issuing an intercessio, which is
>not a
>necessity currently, and enumerates times when such explanation must be
>given.
It was already established in the donnybrooks last year that the
requirement for collegiate intercessio means that there must be agreement
between those Tribuni who are present and able to act. If there is only
one Tribune, then he/she only has to agree with themselves, i.e., he/she
may act unilaterally. That is why Caesar had to drag himself out to the
Forum to block my intercessio - because if he had remained absent, then
my intercessio would have stood by itself.
>
>It reaffirms powers already given by the constitution, and defines the
>limits
>of the tribuni's ability to report on the Senate's business.
Ordinary logic would suggest that powers already given by the
Constitution do not require reaffirmation. The tribuni's ability to
report on the business of the Senate does not need to be defined - it is
enough that it is bounded by good judgement and discretion. It would be
good and useful to make the statement that the Tribuni do not report
Senate business as a convenience for the Senate and are not there to
serve as mouthpieces for the Senate. They are there as watchdogs serving
on behalf of the people and the Constitution.
>
>It requires tribuni to make themselves available to the people they serve.
>
>It allows tribuni to halt a legal trial and send it up to a higher
>authority,
>which is simply a slight twist upon the power of intercessio.
Again, this might be a good modification to make on the constitutionally
provided power of intercessio. The problem is that such changes may not
be made in this venue. They have to be made by *all* the people and the
Senate.
>
>It allows tribuni to issue an opinion as a friend of the court in a legal
>proceeding.
Why do we need a law to allow us to speak our minds? And before courts
that don't exist?
>
>It allows tribuni to call plebeians to stand for trial before the CPT, a
>power
>the constitution implies, and gives some procedures for doing so. It also
>explicitly defines a means for appeal to a higher court.
The Constitution doesn't "imply" this - it states this in so many words:
"3. To try legal cases solely involving members of the plebian order that
do not involve permanent removal of citizenship." This yet another act
that is simply redundant and pointless.
>
>It allows tribuni to issue several kinds of public statements so that they
>may
>perform their duties, and defines them. This is not explicitly stated
>anywhere, as the constitution does not allow them to issue edicta.
This is not an oversight. Issuing edicta is not part of the role of the
Tribuni. You could not add it to their role (which I would not agree with
anyway) without a constitutional amendment passed by the Assembly of All
the People by Tribes and by the Senate. That's the law. You cannot ignore
the law and expect to be taken seriously or to succeed.

Personally, as Tribunus Plebis, I never noticed that anybody was able to
limit the kinds of public statements I could make in the performance of
my duties, although there were some who would have liked to have limited
them! ;-)

Go ahead and say whatever your judgement tells you you need to say - they
can't do a thing about it but fuss and bluster! You don't need a
plebiscite for that.
>
>Finally, it allows tribuni to appoint aides and whatever ancillary
>apparitores
>may be necessary to run the CPT. This is not stated as one of their
>powers in
>the constitution, but it is a rather minor thing.
I don't think it logical to require a law to allow you to hire or appoint
a helper. In this I disagree with Flavius Vedius. Now for your helper to
be recognized as a government official, you would need some official
action or authority. But if such has to be stated in the Constitution,
then you can't achieve it in this venue. I might vote for this provision.
Just don't expect them to get paid by the State!
>
>Now, would someone please tell me how any of the above is going to make me
>or
>anyone else the king of Rome? You may dislike the method in which this
>vote is
>being carried out. You may disagree with the specifics of a given
>plebiscitum.
> But, please, could we avoid crying wolf and accusing people of amassing
>power or trying to take over the state.
There is no question that you are proposing to do many things that you
and the Assembly of Plebians by Tribe lack the power or authority to do.
That means that you are unquestionably attempting to exercise power that
you do not lawfully have to exercise. I don't see how you can honestly
claim not to see how this alarms people. This is like Czar Boris
surrounding the Parliament Building with tanks while saying "Don't worry,
folks - constitutional government is going to proceed nicely."

I can see why people are upset. I cannot see why they would be worried,
simply because these things cannot be done by plebiscite, and so the
plebiscites, if passed, will simply be without force or effect.

You have the power, acting together, to block any action of any
magistrate or of the Senate or any laws made in any Comitia. Other than
your colleague, no-one can stop you without issuing the "Ultimate Decree"
and turning the whole State over to a Dictator, which hopefully will
never be done lightly. Why in the name of all the gods do you think you
need MORE power than that when you haven't yet even tried to do anything
at all??? You come out of the starting blocks yelling "We need more
power!" For what? To just run everything to suit yourselves? That is what
it looks like, Labienus.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Current Plebiscita
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:34:56 -0600

Salve Q. Fabius

I agree that the only decent way out of this mess is for the Tribuni to
withdraw their list of extralegal plebiscites. However only they can do
so. No-one else can stop the vote from occurring, pointless and
disruptive though it may be (unless, of course, the whole point is to
disrupt).

Tribuni, let's vote for a Plebian Aedile and then address your other
concerns legally through the Assembly of the whole people in Centuries,
and through the Senate.

With the two of you acting in concert, nobody is going to dare to dismiss
your issues out of hand. But even two Tribuni acting together cannot make
illegal acts legal or re-write the Constitution to suit themselves.
Certainly neither of you is a stupid man, so I know that you both know
this is true.

Now, if you really want to know what it's like to feel frustrated and
powerless, try serving a year as Tribune with a colleague who takes an
opposing view on practically every major issue. You two have it made!

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


On 1/19/01 3:07 PM Quintus Fabius Maximus (sfp55@--------) wrote:

>Salvete Sextus Apollonius Draco, and the citizens of Rome
><< Another issue that has been raised is how these plebiscita serve the
> interests of the plebs. I think they do. If the Tribunes can regain their
> powers of old, they can do much more for the plebs than they can do now. I
> believe the role of the Tribuni is not to protect the constitution, but to
> serve the plebs. At least these Tribuni are awake, alive and well, which
> cannot be said about all Tribuni (or other magistrates) NR has had in the
> past.<<
>And I agree with you. However a Plebeiscite cannot change the wording of
>the
>constitution, which these almost all do. We don't have a court system yet.
>Our basic recourse is to try a citizen before the Comitia of the Centuria.
>So where are the good Tribs going to yank the citizen to, if we don't have a
>higher court?
>Many of these are premature.
>If Moravia wants the old titles and distinctions of 466 back, that OK with
>me
>as long as it is voted for and passed in the Centuries as authorized in 1
>Section D of the Vedian Constitution. If that happens, then the
>constitution
>could legally be revised to include these. I really don't believe they are
>needed. The time was much much different then. For one thing the
>Patricians
>do not control the courts like in the 500s. We don't have any courts.
>Next, Plebeians are allowed in the Senate, (There are 7 I believe.) and we
>could have a Plebeian Consul, just not one has been elected yet. So the Lex
>of Licia/Sextia is already in-force via the Vedian Constitution.
>Finally, the Plebeians are allowed to hold priestly offices here, which was
>the last bastion of Patrician power in Rome that was maintained for over two
>centuries. But it was opened by the Lex Ogulia in 300.
>
>My point interested citizens? All this is already available to you Romans.
>You don't need the Tribunes to give it to you. And again the Patricians
>cannot take it way from you unless major revisions to the constitution are
>made, that must be approved by the Comitia Centuria. You. Otherwise no
>changes are possible.
>I think I speak for the most of the Senate when I say, compromise is
>possible
>with the Tribunes, but this vote must be halted until the unconstitutional
>items be altered or removed from the ballot. What say you, citizens?
>
>Valete!
>Q. Fabius Maximus
>Praetor Urbanus
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Tribuni Proposals
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:48:39 -0500 (EST)

Salve, Tribunes of Nova Roma;

I wish to join with the Consuls in thier appeal to postpone the vote on
the subject item. My request is not couched in "me tooism" nor is it a
result of my thinking that the Tribunes are deliberately trying to
undermine Nova Roma. I have a very great respect for Senator / Tribune
Labienus who has served with me in the past, and whose dedication to
Nova Roma in my humble opinion equals my own. I do not know Tribune
Picinisus that well, and while we have disagreed on some things, I
believe him to be a reasonable and astute Magistrate.

No, my reason is my own, based in large part on my lack of understandng
of what is happening here, and based on two very separate an opposing
views of how our Constitution reads. The lengthy explanations by both
groups contain both Ladies and Gentlemen with whom I am well aquainted
and respect highly. In both cases, thier views and declarations leave
me somewhat confused as to what the real truth of the matter is. The
purpose is clear, and that is to provide some detail to our laws and
procedures, but the extent, value, and timliness of all of the proposals
and the comments directed against them leave me undecided and confused
as to the worth of these changes to the Citizens of Nova Roma, for whose
benefit they are intended.

We have survived for three years to this point, surely an additional few
days cannot make a great deal of difference, where a significantly
greater degree of concurrence about these proposals may well be the
difference between a smoother road to the real purposes of the
Micronation--All aspects of the Ancient Roman Culture, and a rough road
leading to even greater misunderstanding.

I do not raise my voice against any man or woman in this institution,
but rather I raise my voice in hopes of clearing some of the questions
that currently confront us, and the possible aspects and impacts of them
in Nova Roma's future.

Citizens of Nova Roma, most of you know me well. I am my own person, I
make my own decisions, and I stand behind my actions and words--further
in the position of a Magistrate, I believe I have shown that I serve the
Citizens of Nova Roma and the Roman Virtues. If you agree with my words
here, in any part of what I have said, I urge you to make your will
known on this net, as soon as possible, so that the ladies and gentlemen
who serve you will know of your desires in this matter.

Valete, Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Proconsul, Senator, and Quaestor

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tribuni Proposals
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:06:41 -0500

I concur with Senator Audens...

I feel this can be put off for a few days to allow any and all interested
parties to delve into the subject a bit more.

As always, in the service of Rome...

ATR

Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus
Praefectus Legionis & Tribuni Militum Legio VI
General of the Northern Army of the SCA Household of Rome
& Cornicularius,Sodalitas Militarium et Nova Roma

"Nos Sumus Romae milites, parati stamus ad potestatem et gloriam eius. Roma
est Lux."
"we are soldiers of Rome, for her might and glory we stand ready... She is
the Light"


www.geocities.com/legio_vi


>From: jmath669642reng@--------
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Tribuni Proposals
>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:48:39 -0500 (EST)
>
>Salve, Tribunes of Nova Roma;
>
>I wish to join with the Consuls in thier appeal to postpone the vote on
>the subject item. My request is not couched in "me tooism" nor is it a
>result of my thinking that the Tribunes are deliberately trying to
>undermine Nova Roma. I have a very great respect for Senator / Tribune
>Labienus who has served with me in the past, and whose dedication to
>Nova Roma in my humble opinion equals my own. I do not know Tribune
>Picinisus that well, and while we have disagreed on some things, I
>believe him to be a reasonable and astute Magistrate.
>
>No, my reason is my own, based in large part on my lack of understandng
>of what is happening here, and based on two very separate an opposing
>views of how our Constitution reads. The lengthy explanations by both
>groups contain both Ladies and Gentlemen with whom I am well aquainted
>and respect highly. In both cases, thier views and declarations leave
>me somewhat confused as to what the real truth of the matter is. The
>purpose is clear, and that is to provide some detail to our laws and
>procedures, but the extent, value, and timliness of all of the proposals
>and the comments directed against them leave me undecided and confused
>as to the worth of these changes to the Citizens of Nova Roma, for whose
>benefit they are intended.
>
>We have survived for three years to this point, surely an additional few
>days cannot make a great deal of difference, where a significantly
>greater degree of concurrence about these proposals may well be the
>difference between a smoother road to the real purposes of the
>Micronation--All aspects of the Ancient Roman Culture, and a rough road
>leading to even greater misunderstanding.
>
>I do not raise my voice against any man or woman in this institution,
>but rather I raise my voice in hopes of clearing some of the questions
>that currently confront us, and the possible aspects and impacts of them
>in Nova Roma's future.
>
>Citizens of Nova Roma, most of you know me well. I am my own person, I
>make my own decisions, and I stand behind my actions and words--further
>in the position of a Magistrate, I believe I have shown that I serve the
>Citizens of Nova Roma and the Roman Virtues. If you agree with my words
>here, in any part of what I have said, I urge you to make your will
>known on this net, as soon as possible, so that the ladies and gentlemen
>who serve you will know of your desires in this matter.
>
>Valete, Very Respectfully;
>Marcus Minucius Audens
>Proconsul, Senator, and Quaestor
>
>Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>
>http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
>



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Subject:	Re: [ComitiaPlebisTributa] Re: [novaroma] The Sky is Falling! (was ATTN: The power of the
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:05:00 -0600

On 1/19/01 9:52 PM Ira Adams (iadams@--------) wrote:

[SNIP]
>>
>>It allows tribuni to issue several kinds of public statements so that they
>>may
>>perform their duties, and defines them. This is not explicitly stated
>>anywhere, as the constitution does not allow them to issue edicta.
>This is not an oversight. Issuing edicta is not part of the role of the
>Tribuni. You could not add it to their role (which I would not agree with
>anyway) without a constitutional amendment passed by the Assembly of All
>the People by Tribes and by the Senate. That's the law. You cannot ignore
>the law and expect to be taken seriously or to succeed.
>
Okay, in all these words I'm bound to trip myself up. Onviously that was
meant to read
"... by the Assembly of All the People by Centuries and by the Senate."

LSAO

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:09:57 -0700

Good grief!!!!! Being Propraetor of roughly 1/4 of the North American continent, preparing to affect the annexation of Alaska and gain a foothold to leap across the Bering Straight, and slavering with glee at the apparent leaderlessness to his immediate south isn't enough........now the man wants to stake out the Treasury!!!!

All this is in good humor, quirities! May Fortuna be with you in your bid for the Quaestorship, Quintus Sertorius!

Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia

P.S. - Quintus, I think the moon is still looking for a Praetor.....



Quintus Sertorius wrote:

> 19 Jan 2001
>
> Salve All
>
> I, Quintus Sertorius, now announce my intentions to run for the office of Quaestor for Nova Roma. I feel my time has come to start my climb through the offices of Nova Roma, and give back to my Republic some of what it has given me! My desire to serve is beyond explanation, as I feel my life's duty is with our Micro-nation. My family has agreed that this is the best thing for me to do, as so much of my life is now with our Republic. I ask that all citizens to exercise their rights, and vote for Quintus Sertorius for Quaestor!!
>
> Vale
>
> Quintus Sertorius
> Propraetor
> Canada Occidentalis
> quintus-sertorius@--------
>
> Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] Halting the vote in the CPT
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:05:51 -0800

EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS

Salvete Quirites

Both Tribunes have agreed to honor the request made by Consuls M.
Cassius Julianus and F. Vedius Germanicus, as well as by our Proconsul M.
Minucius Audens, to delay voting in the Comitia Plebis Tributa on
plebiscita placed before it. Election of the Aedilis Plebis shall
continue as previously scheduled.

The Rogatores shall be instructed to disregard votes they receive on the
plebiscita. They shall be responsible for the tally of the final vote on
the Aedilis Plebis. Voting shall continue until Midnight 30 January in
Rome (11:00 PM GMT). The Rogatores shall have until Midnight 1 February
(11:00 PM GMT) to relate the results of the election to the Tribuni
Plebis. Final results of the election shall be posted to the Comitia
Plebis Tributa and to the Nova Roma main list no later than Midnight 2
February in Rome (11:00 PM GMT).

Discussion of the plebiscita shall continue before the Comitia Plebis
Tributa. An announcement for a call for a vote on the plebiscita shall
be made later in February.

Valete

T. Labienus Fortunatus et Cn. Moravius Piscinus
Tribuni Plebis

Subject:	[novaroma] SERTORIUS FOR QUAESTOR ONE
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:03:15 -0600

Sertorius for Quaestor ONE
19 Jan 2001

Salve All

Good day citizens, I would like to take this time to introduce myself. My real name is Nathan Guiboche (but, I assume the name of the great Roman, Quintus Sertorius). I am 38 years old, and have, so far, lived a very eventful life. I spent my first sixteen years, very much in the bush, 250 miles north of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. As a child, I grew very close to the wilds around my remote home. It was here that I started to learn the greatest lesson in life.that I have a lot to learn. I left home when I was sixteen, that was 22 years ago, and the world has turned over many times since, but that lesson has always remained true.. I have a lot to learn. After 22 years of adult experience, which includes occupations and experiences in being an, aboriginal politician, carpenter, commercial fishermen, trapper, lumberjack, pioneer, member of a track-crew, ranch-hand, explorer, tracker, guide, hunter, grave-digger, pal-bearer, steelworker, high-school drop-out, post-secondary graduate of Business Administration (with grade nine education), instructor, lover of history, avid reader, some-one how has felt hunger and hard labour, unemployment, crime, death, rebirth, fatherhood, two years as a single parent, time on welfare, supporter of the poor in my clan, solider, leader, mentor, and follower. I am all these things, and much more. I also understand enough about our Republic to know that I have a lot to offer. So, I ask that you consider voting for Quintus Sertorius as Quaestor for Nova Roma!

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:16:12 -0600

19 Jan 2001

Salve Livia

Thank you for your vote of confidence, I suppose I can count on your arm
twisting for me?!? I am sure I will be needing all the help I can get. I do
not share Caesar's megalomania, but, did not the Quintus Sertorius of Old
enjoy a political career of his own? I only hope to fill the shoes of my
Pater of Old.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

----- Original Message -----
From: <gmvick32@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Candidate for Quaestor


> Good grief!!!!! Being Propraetor of roughly 1/4 of the North American
continent, preparing to affect the annexation of Alaska and gain a foothold
to leap across the Bering Straight, and slavering with glee at the apparent
leaderlessness to his immediate south isn't enough........now the man wants
to stake out the Treasury!!!!
>
> All this is in good humor, quirities! May Fortuna be with you in your bid
for the Quaestorship, Quintus Sertorius!
>
> Vale,
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
> P.S. - Quintus, I think the moon is still looking for a Praetor.....
>
>
>
> Quintus Sertorius wrote:
>
> > 19 Jan 2001
> >
> > Salve All
> >
> > I, Quintus Sertorius, now announce my intentions to run for the office
of Quaestor for Nova Roma. I feel my time has come to start my climb through
the offices of Nova Roma, and give back to my Republic some of what it has
given me! My desire to serve is beyond explanation, as I feel my life's duty
is with our Micro-nation. My family has agreed that this is the best thing
for me to do, as so much of my life is now with our Republic. I ask that all
citizens to exercise their rights, and vote for Quintus Sertorius for
Quaestor!!
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Quintus Sertorius
> > Propraetor
> > Canada Occidentalis
> > quintus-sertorius@--------
> >
> > Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:54:32 -0000

Salvete Quirites

There is an important element of the Lex Caecilia Didia missing from
this Pleblicita. The LCD required that a lex be promulgated "trinis
nundinis" before it was voted on. This insured that the citizens had
ample time to discus the lex/plebicita prior to voting on it.

See
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/s
econdary/SMIGRA*/Leges.html#Caecilia_Didia

IMHO this waiting period was the most important element of the LCD,
and I can NOT vote for the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia
without this provision.

Our Senior Consul has made the following objection to the LCD as
promulgated.
> 1) No measures shall be passed, no leges placed before a
comitia, no
> plebescita placed before the Comitia Plebis Tributa,
nor edicta issued by
> any magistrate or any provincial praetor or any
subordinate acting in
> their name, which includes disparate measures and/or
disparate provisions
> of any nature among the citizens of Nova Roma in the
exercise of their
> rights, as outlined in Section II.B and elsewhere.

This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of
the
Constitution. The
Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that
effects the internal
workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia
Populi Tributa. By
preventing "disparate measures and/or disparate
provisions" in leges
presented to the other Comitiae, this provision has the
effect of setting
rules by which the other Comitiae must operate. Doing so
vastly increases
the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa beyond the
boundaries of the
Constitution.

I concur that the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia would
NOT
be binding on any Comitia other than the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
However I like to mention that it is sometimes desirible that all
three Comitiae operate under the same rules, as to avoid confusion
among the People. IMHO the proper thing to do in a matter like this
is
to allow a lex/pleblicita to be passed by one of the Comitia that
contains this kind of language, with the understanding that the lex
will NOT be binding on the other Comitiae UNTIL they affirm it by
passing it. This will allow for all three Comitiae to operate under
uniform leges IF THEY SO DESIRE, and would cut down on the number of
leges that citizens would have to keep up with.

I would sugest that the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia be
rewritten, retaining only section 1 as it now stands, and that a new
section 2 be added adfirming the "trinis nundinis" period. After
these
modifications I would endorse the passage of the P. de Iterum
Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia by the Comitia Plebis Tributa, and
would
also urge that the other Comitiae reafirm the Lex Caecilia Didia,
placing all the Comitiae under a uniform restriction against
disparate
measures, and insuring that the citizrns will have a period of three
nundinis to consider and discuss any future leges/plebicitae

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Some personal comments, was Re: The Current Plebiscita
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:06:21 -0600

Avete Omnes,

Venator the Rostrum ascends:

Just several personal comments.

I've been with Nova Roma since 4 months after the Founding. I was (IIRC) citizen number 73.
I stayed with Nova Roma through a personal crisis of, well, figuring out why a Germanic Heathen
would want to stay among and help a bunch of Romans, given the antagonism of our respective cultural
ancestors. In doing so, I gained a measure of inner peace between those two halves of mine own
family heritage.

For Nova Roma is a good idea.

I founded the Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus, and continue to do what little running thereof is
needed.
I stayed with Nova Roma through the crisis which resulted in the Dictatorship of F. Vedius, despite
many people in whom I invested feelings of friendship resigning for their own, sometimes extremely
good, reasons.

For Nova Roma is a good idea.

I have spent most of my time here as a Pleb, and can say that I never felt down trodden as such.
I was elected Quæstor twice as a Pleb.
I have made, for me, quite a large donation of monies which could have increased the comfort margin
of my savings.

For Nova Roma is a good idea.

I was "elevated" to Patrician status late last year (AD calendar).
I suppose this was in light of my small sum of effort to help this Nation get going.
I stood for election again, and stand yet again, ready to help when and where I can.

For Nova Roma is a good idea.

This micro-nation is in its infancy, and has barely progressed from creeping to crawling.
An infant can be overwhelmed by too many changes, too fast, no matter how well thought out, no
matter how well intentioned.

I ask that the Tribunes reconsider the Plebiscita, are they needed to repair something in this New
Rome?
Is it absolutely necessary to have a vote on these issues at this time?

Might not the Republic be better served by canceling the vote, save on filling the Aedileship?

The issues raised in the Plebiscita, and discussed in detail by others with a better grasp on the
arcane details, would, in my opinion, be best presented to a vote by the Plebian Assembly after
discussion in the most open Fora of the Republic. I claim no great grasp of the legalities raised,
but I will raise the issue of my discomfort at these Plebiscita being offered for a vote, before
full debate has been accomplished.

I speak out.

For Nova Roma is a good idea.

Venator the Rostrum descends.

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Plebian Representation-Who's interests are being served?
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:38:13 +1030

Ave Sulla,

No, that's not what I said. I said that they had the chance to dissapprove the
plebiscites if they wanted to, and if they felt there hadn't been enough discussion or
it wasn't the right time for it. If they are against there being an election, then so
be it. And if there is a problem with the elections (if the tribunes go ahead), then
the people are perfectly able to show their disapproval by voting against it.

My comment was meant in the case that we DID have an election.

Vale,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Ave,
>
> Are you saying, C. Sentius that a Plebian who disagrees with the Tribunes does not
> have a right to voice his concern about the election?
>
> Lucius Cornelius Su