Salvete Quirites, et salve Deci Iuni,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in Nova
> Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
> Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
> always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.)

Thank you Palladi. For your good wishes and for your service to the
Corps we both know and love so well.

I was privileged to spend a few hours yesterday evening in the company
of a group of Marines of all ages. It was a fine evening.

> Semper Fi,

Semper Fidelis Marine. And best wishes to all Veterans on this
Veterans' Day. That wish goes out to all veterans, of whatever nation,
represented here in Nova Roma.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve Lyana,

Welcome to Nova Roma and greetings from Provincia California. Let
us know if there is anything we can do to further you knowledge of
the great classical world. Many of our Senators, Magistrates, and
officials are knowledgable beyond compare, as are many members.
Enjoy and have fun.


Pontius Sejanus Marius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
<bcatfd@t...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in

Nova

> Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
> Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
> always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.) I'm sure
> there are others here besides the two of us. Happy birthday to you

all

> and join me in a toast to the Corps! (and esp to those in action

as we

> speak)
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Palladius

Semper Fidelis!

USMC - Parris Island, 1979 boot
Camp Legeune
Okinawa

Drusilla Metella Germanica

Salve Omnes,

I would like to recall the citizens of my Gens as with all which we
are the 11 November, tomorrow will have to take place the handing-
over of the prices for the ludi scaenici... Reflect well for the
profitable week which you had, with all its talented artists... 1
only gaining. Then go tomorrow, I still wish you marvellous stage
businesses this evening.

Vale,

Caius Minius Messala Bellator
Pater Familias Gentis Minia
Legate Galliae
Regionis Aquitania Narbonensis
Pagus Septimania Narbonensis
Dioecesis Atax Tectosagiae
Civis Galliae Provinciae
Civis Plebiae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

A. Apollónius Cordus Flávió Vedió Germánicó p.p. Q.
Caecilió Metelló amícó omnibusque sal.

I don't know whether you have both simply failed to
read what I've written on this subject, or have read
it but not understood it, or have read and understood
it but for some reason decline to respond. If anything
is unclear, I shall be quite happy to try to explain
further, but it is rather difficult to engage you in
reasonable and constructive discussion - which, please
be assured, is what I would like to do - when you
appear simply to ignore my arguments.

If I have ever ventured an opinion which seemed to you
well-founded, or constructed an argument which seemed
to you logical, or shown a knowledge of Roman law
which seemed to you worth tuppence, I beg you to
consider at least the possibility that what I am
saying may be correct, despite being somewhat
counter-intuitive on its surface. If you think it's
not correct, then say where you think it goes wrong
and let's talk about it point by point: but ignoring
it altogether simply suggests that you either cannot
understand it or cannot be bothered to engage in
rational argument, and I find it hard to believe that
of either of you.

Let me summarize the argument again, to save you going
back in the archives.

1. The constitution says that the comitia tribúta
cannot alter the procedures of the concilium plébis.

2. The constitution says that anything which
contradicts the constitution may (n.b. may, not must)
be vetoed by the tribúní.

3. The constitution says that the use of tribunician
veto may be further defined by law.

4. The law says that the tribúní may not veto a thing
more than 72 hours after that thing occurs.

5. The constitution gives no other person or body the
power to prevent a tribúnus from proposing a léx to
the comitia tribúta to alter the procedures of the
concilium plébis.

6. Point 1 implies that an attempt to use the comitia
tribúta to alter the procedures of the concilium
plébis must be somehow rendered invalid or prevented.

7. Point 2 means that the tribúní have the power to
prevent it, but may choose not to do so at their
discretion.

8. Points 2 to 5 imply that if the tribúní choose
note to prevent it, or fail to prevent it within 72
hours, nothing more can be done to prevent it.

9. Points 7 and 8 are in contradiction of point 6: it
seems that on the one hand this thing ought to be
prevented, and that on the other hand there is nobody
who has both the obligation and the power to prevent
it.


So the constitution appears to contradict itself.
There are two ways we can respond to this:

A. The constitution must know what it's doing, so the
contradiction must be an illusion and there must be
some way to resolve it.

OR

B. The constitution is clearly flawed and
self-contradictory, and we must therefore simply
choose one or other or the contradictory lines of
thinking it contains.


So let's try A first. The constitution implies that it
cannot be overruled, but it also provides no mechanism
which could protect it from being overruled. So to
resolve the contradiction we must either imagine that
there is some such mechanism which is not mentioned in
the constitution, or we must assume that in fact the
constitution does intend itself to be overruled if the
tribúní are content for it to be.

What could the mechanism be which is not mentioned in
the constitution? Well, possibly we could say that the
tribúní are in fact legally obliged to veto things
which contradict the constitution. But this would
hardly solve the problem, because the tribúní can
still be caught napping, or simply too inexperienced
in legal matters to see that such-and-such-a-thing
contradicts the constitution, and in such cases the
problem would remain. We could go further and suggest
that the 72-hour time-limit must itself be
unconstitutional, and that a thing can be vetoed
months, years, decades after it first occurred. But
even this would not be an adequate safeguard against
an endless succession of tribúní who simply fail to
see that there's something unconstitutional going on.
Moreover, the tribunate is clearly not designed to do
this job of constitutional court: the tribúní are
minor magistrates who do not have to have any
political or legal experience, and are in many other
ways completely unsuitable for the job. So the idea
that the tribunate is the mechanism we're looking for
is impossible to sustain.

What other mechanism could there be? No person or body
in the republic had the power to strike down
legislation or the act of a tribúnus, and no
unhistorical institution such as a constitutional
court - which is the sort of thing we're looking for -
exists in Nova Róma. I cannot find any mechanism.

This leaves the other option: the constitution,
despite what it seems to imply, is in fact designed to
be overruled if the tribúní choose not to veto the
attempt. This is in accord with historical practice,
which the constitution itself names as its own
principal source. So it seems to be the only way to
resolve the issue if we take approach A.


What about approach B? The constitution is
self-contradictory, so we simply have to choose which
of the two contradictory ideas to follow. The two
ideas, to recap, are that the constitution cannot be
overruled at all and that it can so long as the
tribúní don't object. There are three strategies I can
see by which we can choose between them. First, what
would be most historical? Second, what would be most
in accord with the spirit of the constitution? Third,
what would be best?

The first strategy leads us directly and easily to
believe that the constitution can indeed be overruled.
It could be overruled in antiquity, and this fact is
not only mentioned but praised by Roman writers.

The second strategy leads to stalemate. On the one
hand, the constitution cites historical practice as
its inspiration, which would lead us to the same
conclusion as strategy one. On the other hand, the
constitution seems to assume that it cannot be
overruled, for otherwise it would not provide a
complex method by which it may be amended, which leads
us to the other conclusion. Stalemate.

The third strategy is, of course, highly subjective.
Many would no doubt consider a rigid constitution
best, while others would think it worst. Others again
would regard as best whatever is most historical,
which would bring us back to the first strategy. We
are unlikely to make any headway using this third
strategy at all.

So the only one which gets us anywhere is the first,
which leads us to the same conclusion as approach A
did. Thus, whichever way we approach the problem, the
natural answer seems to be that in fact, and despite
what one would imagine from a very superficial look at
the issue, Faustus tribúnus is in fact perfectly
entitled to do what he is doing.


I realize that this is all slightly academic, since
the 72 hours have passed and no one can now do
anything about it (you can, of course, prosecute
Faustus next year and test the issue in court, but
frankly that would be rather pointless since under
Roman law the outcome of a vote of the comitia is
valid even if the comitia itself was convened
incorrectly); but these issues come up again and
again, and I think it's important to sort out exactly
what the position is - whether the constitution can or
cannot be overruled. I'm sure you'll agree that's
something worth getting clear.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

Today is the second day of Ludi Plebeii Quiz! Don't wait, spend a
pleasurable moment answering 5 fun questions of Quiz 2 and the best
score of the day can be yours! You can still answer to Quiz 1, too!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 8
-Ludi Plebeii Quiz 2

Subscribe to the events of the festival:
-Ludi Circenses *SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH! SUBSCRIBE
NOW!*

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI PLEBEII QUIZ
November 10th - 14th
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL

-------------

Quiz 2 - November 11th

1. In the Roman Republic, the term 'noblis' was used to refer to
a. A person who was a curule magistrate
b. A person who was a plebeian magistrate
c. A patrician
d. A person whose ancestors included one or more consuls

2. If a Roman couple were married by 'usus', that meant
a. They had lived together for at least a year
b. They had been been through the ceremony of confarreatio
c. They had been been through the ceremony of diffarreatio
d. They had been been through the ceremony of coemptio

3. According to Ulpian, the essence of Roman marriage was
a. Sexual union
b. The production of children
c. Consent and conjugal affection of both parties to the marriage
d. Connubium

4. Under Augustine law (the laws of the Gaius Octavius Caesar), the
youngest age at which a girl might legaly be betrothed was
a. 6
b. 10
c. 12
d. 14

5. According to the mos maiorum, what two months out of the year were
considered inauspicious for marriage?
a. January and February
b. November and December
c. July and August
d. February and May

-------------

Still some time to participate to the Quiz 1 (in the previous email)!
Review the questions here:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

-------------

How to participate:

Answers to the quiz questions must be posted by e-mail to Arnamentia
Moravia Aurelia to arnamentia_aurelia@... with the following
information:

-header "Ludi Plebeii Quiz"

facts about the participant(s):
-Nova Roman name
-real name
-Nova Roman Province
-age
-e-mail address.

-number of the quiz
-answer to at least one question of the day�s quiz.

For more detailed information see for the RULES:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI CIRCENSES
November 15th - 17th
SUBSCRIPTIONS ACCEPTED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH! SUBSCRIBE NOW!

An entrant who wishes to participate in the Ludi Circenses must send a
subscription to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus at
jonlr@.... Each subscription must bear the subject header
"Ludi Circenses" and include the following information:

A. His/her name in Nova Roma;
B. The name of his/her driver;
C. The name of his/her chariot;
D. His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;
E. His/her tactics for the Finals;
F. The name of his/her "factio" or team (Albata, Praesina, Russata, or
Veneta);
G. Dirty actions against another factio in a specific round
(quarter-final, semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in
support of it (an entrant does not have to pay sesterces to commission
a dirty action, but doing so increases the chances of success);
H. Defence against dirty actions in a specific round (quarter-final,
semi-final, or final) and amount of sesterces paid in support of it (an
entrant does not have to pay sesterces to defend against a dirty
action, but doing so decreases the chances of success of the dirty
action);
I. If sesterces from multiple entrants are pooled to take a dirty
action or defend against a dirty action, the subscription of each
entrant of the pool must so indicate.

For more specific information about dirty actions and tactics, have a
look at the RULES at:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_circenses.html

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

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

Q. Caecilius Metellus A. Apollonio Cordo amico salutem dicit.

Salve, Aule Apolloni,

As it were, I hadn't ignored you. I was just simply running low on time,
and so only responded to those posts for which I could make a quick
response. But anyhow, I should certainly like to give you a reasoned
response.

> Let me summarize the argument again, to save you going back
> in the archives.
>
> 1. The constitution says that the comitia tribúta cannot
> alter the procedures of the concilium plébis.
>
> 2. The constitution says that anything which contradicts the
> constitution may (n.b. may, not must) be vetoed by the tribúní.
>
> 3. The constitution says that the use of tribunician veto
> may be further defined by law.
>
> 4. The law says that the tribúní may not veto a thing more
> than 72 hours after that thing occurs.
>
> 5. The constitution gives no other person or body the power
> to prevent a tribúnus from proposing a léx to the comitia
> tribúta to alter the procedures of the concilium plébis.
>
> 6. Point 1 implies that an attempt to use the comitia
> tribúta to alter the procedures of the concilium plébis must
> be somehow rendered invalid or prevented.
>
> 7. Point 2 means that the tribúní have the power to prevent
> it, but may choose not to do so at their discretion.
>
> 8. Points 2 to 5 imply that if the tribúní choose note to
> prevent it, or fail to prevent it within 72 hours, nothing
> more can be done to prevent it.
>
> 9. Points 7 and 8 are in contradiction of point 6: it seems
> that on the one hand this thing ought to be prevented, and
> that on the other hand there is nobody who has both the
> obligation and the power to prevent it.

On all points, I agree.

> So the constitution appears to contradict itself.
> There are two ways we can respond to this:
>
> A. The constitution must know what it's doing, so the
> contradiction must be an illusion and there must be some way
> to resolve it.
>
> OR
>
> B. The constitution is clearly flawed and
> self-contradictory, and we must therefore simply choose one
> or other or the contradictory lines of thinking it contains.
>
>
> So let's try A first. The constitution implies that it cannot
> be overruled, but it also provides no mechanism which could
> protect it from being overruled. So to resolve the
> contradiction we must either imagine that there is some such
> mechanism which is not mentioned in the constitution, or we
> must assume that in fact the constitution does intend itself
> to be overruled if the tribúní are content for it to be.
>
> What could the mechanism be which is not mentioned in the
> constitution? Well, possibly we could say that the tribúní
> are in fact legally obliged to veto things which contradict
> the constitution. But this would hardly solve the problem,
> because the tribúní can still be caught napping, or simply
> too inexperienced in legal matters to see that
> such-and-such-a-thing contradicts the constitution, and in
> such cases the problem would remain. We could go further and
> suggest that the 72-hour time-limit must itself be
> unconstitutional, and that a thing can be vetoed months,
> years, decades after it first occurred. But even this would
> not be an adequate safeguard against an endless succession of
> tribúní who simply fail to see that there's something
> unconstitutional going on.
> Moreover, the tribunate is clearly not designed to do this
> job of constitutional court: the tribúní are minor
> magistrates who do not have to have any political or legal
> experience, and are in many other ways completely unsuitable
> for the job. So the idea that the tribunate is the mechanism
> we're looking for is impossible to sustain.
>
> What other mechanism could there be? No person or body in the
> republic had the power to strike down legislation or the act
> of a tribúnus, and no unhistorical institution such as a
> constitutional court - which is the sort of thing we're
> looking for - exists in Nova Róma. I cannot find any mechanism.
>
> This leaves the other option: the constitution, despite what
> it seems to imply, is in fact designed to be overruled if the
> tribúní choose not to veto the attempt. This is in accord
> with historical practice, which the constitution itself names
> as its own principal source. So it seems to be the only way
> to resolve the issue if we take approach A.

Let's expand on this a bit. I agree that this approach would appear to be
the only way to resolve this issue. But, then, we come to this question,
which is a point which I believe I made at the outset of this ordeal. Is
the Constitution, then, allowing itself to be overruled only in one case
(i.e., in the case of whatever action), or is the Constitution allowing its
overruling to be established precedent, and to become law in itself?

I would argue, naturally, that the former is the case, but the Constitution
has no language to show such. Certainly it would be less reasonable for an
unconstitutional practice to become constitutional because it went without
intercessio on its first try, than for one specific instance (or multiple,
if the case may be) of an unconstitutional action to be constitutional
because it too went without intercessio.

If we take up this last argument, then, it would allow that the Leges
Saliciae and Arminia are all constitutional in that they were without
tribunician intercessio. It would also allow that they do not set
Constitutional practice in their own right of not being revoked by
intercessio, rather than them setting the dangerous precedent of allowing
one comitia to determine the internal workings of another. In the name of
Ceres, surely this is more preferable than allowing dangerous precedents to
be set so easily.

> So the only one which gets us anywhere is the first, which
> leads us to the same conclusion as approach A did. Thus,
> whichever way we approach the problem, the natural answer
> seems to be that in fact, and despite what one would imagine
> from a very superficial look at the issue, Faustus tribúnus
> is in fact perfectly entitled to do what he is doing.

And I entirely agree here. I have not, to my knowledge, stated that
Tribunus Faustus hasn't the right to call the Comitia Plebis or the Comitia
Populi, nor will I. And, in fact, I have not tried to obstruct his call of
the Comitia Populi Tributa. However, I am trying to obstruct this proposal
from becoming law. The provisions of the proposal are unconstitutional, in
that one Comitia would be setting the rules for another, and that is what I
am trying to demonstrate. If Faustus were to separate his proposal into two
proposals, one each for the Comitia Populi and the Comitia Plebis, I would
not have said a word aside from my support of his proposals. This is not
the case, and this is where my argument lies.

> I realize that this is all slightly academic, since the 72
> hours have passed and no one can now do anything about it
> (you can, of course, prosecute Faustus next year and test the
> issue in court, but frankly that would be rather pointless
> since under Roman law the outcome of a vote of the comitia is
> valid even if the comitia itself was convened incorrectly);
> but these issues come up again and again, and I think it's
> important to sort out exactly what the position is - whether
> the constitution can or cannot be overruled. I'm sure you'll
> agree that's something worth getting clear.

I realize that I am likely just refreshing your memory, Corde, but there has
been nothing against which anyone could pronounce intercessio to this point
on the matter. The Tribunus is certainly within the Constitution in
bringing any proposal to either of the two Comitia about which we have been
talking, so to attempt to pronounce intercessio would be unuseful and would
have no grounds for standing. As regards getting these issues clear
(whether or not the Constitution can be overruled, as you say), this is
certainly something worth the time and effort, and even the intense scrutiny
it deserves.

Optime Vale, Amice!

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

M. Arminia Maior Fabiana Quiritibus spd;
Gloriosa est Verecunda! Victrix et Gladiatrix Optima!

Great is Verecunda, the best gladiatrix and victorious in battle!
No one can defeat the Cherusci, remember Arminius, hero to all
Germani.
Though Uranicus from Hispania is my good friend, and I learned a
lot about the ludi from him, I do not think his dog Diogones can beat
my wolf from the forests.
bene valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
propraetrix Hiberniae
caput OfficinaIuriis et
Investigatio CFQ

Salve,

>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:52:08 +0000 (GMT)
>From: "A. Apollonius Cordus" <a_apollonius_cordus@...>
>Subject: Re: Re: THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA IS CALLED
>
>A. Apollónius Cordus Flávió Vedió Germánicó p.p. Q.
>Caecilió Metelló amícó omnibusque sal.
>
>I don't know whether you have both simply failed to
>read what I've written on this subject, or have read
>it but not understood it, or have read and understood
>it but for some reason decline to respond. If anything
>is unclear, I shall be quite happy to try to explain
>further, but it is rather difficult to engage you in
>reasonable and constructive discussion - which, please
>be assured, is what I would like to do - when you
>appear simply to ignore my arguments.
>
>

I have indeed read what you have written on the subject at hand, and
found it lacking. I wonder, though, whether you have read what I (and
others) have had to say, since you have done nothing in this
conversation save repeat your own argument, rather than responding to
mine. I do appreciate your posting such a clear and concise version of
your argument, all in one place, that I might respond to it in detail here.

>If I have ever ventured an opinion which seemed to you
>well-founded, or constructed an argument which seemed
>to you logical, or shown a knowledge of Roman law
>which seemed to you worth tuppence, I beg you to
>consider at least the possibility that what I am
>saying may be correct, despite being somewhat
>counter-intuitive on its surface. If you think it's
>not correct, then say where you think it goes wrong
>and let's talk about it point by point: but ignoring
>it altogether simply suggests that you either cannot
>understand it or cannot be bothered to engage in
>rational argument, and I find it hard to believe that
>of either of you.
>
>Let me summarize the argument again, to save you going
>back in the archives.
>
>1. The constitution says that the comitia tribúta
>cannot alter the procedures of the concilium plébis.
>
>

Agreed.

>2. The constitution says that anything which
>contradicts the constitution may (n.b. may, not must)
>be vetoed by the tribúní.
>
>

This is incorrect. Let us look to the actual language of the
Constitution. It states, in paragraphs IV.A.7. and IV.A.7.a.:

"They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall have the following
honors, powers, and obligations: To pronounce intercessio ... against
... leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter of this
Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or
leges are being violated thereby."

(I took out some stuff that is not germane to the question at hand.)

The power to pronounce intercessio is not only an honor and a power, but
also an OBLIGATION. Thus, there is no "may". It is a "must".

Thus, the Tribunes failed in their obligation before, when the earlier
leges were passed in violation of the Constitution. But more on that later.

>3. The constitution says that the use of tribunician
>veto may be further defined by law.
>
>

Agreed.

>4. The law says that the tribúní may not veto a thing
>more than 72 hours after that thing occurs.
>
>

Agreed.

>5. The constitution gives no other person or body the
>power to prevent a tribúnus from proposing a léx to
>the comitia tribúta to alter the procedures of the
>concilium plébis.
>
>

Not exactly; another Tribune could do so. So, too, could an Augur issue
an obnuntiatio against such a vote, should the Gods see fit to make
Their will known.

Now that the facts are in play, I'm afraid it's the implications that
you read into them where we venture into real trouble.

>6. Point 1 implies that an attempt to use the comitia
>tribúta to alter the procedures of the concilium
>plébis must be somehow rendered invalid or prevented.
>
>

Agreed. But you are here implying a corollary which is not correct; that
a _failure_ to prevent such a thing makes that action somehow legal. It
does not; it merely implies that the proper procedures (i.e., the
prevention of the unconstitutional act) were not followed. A failure to
prevent an unconstitutional act does NOT make that act suddenly
constitutional.

>7. Point 2 means that the tribúní have the power to
>prevent it, but may choose not to do so at their
>discretion.
>
>

See above. The power to issue an intercessio against an action which
blatantly contradicts the Constitution (or for that matter, the law in
general) is not discretionary. It is an "obligation". And unfortunately,
the Tribunes had, in the past, failed to uphold that obligation in the
case of the leges Salicia et Arminia, much to their discredit and shame.

Fortunately, they now have an opportunity to right that wrong, if they
will only avail themselves thereof. And it is such a simple thing, one
wonders at their recalcitrance.

>8. Points 2 to 5 imply that if the tribúní choose
>note to prevent it, or fail to prevent it within 72
>hours, nothing more can be done to prevent it.
>
>

That is not true at all. It is true that the intercessio cannot be
issued against the _passage_ of a particular unconstitutional law after
72 hours. However, should a law somehow slip in under the radar (as has
been the case this year), there are still ways to redress the error.
Remember that the intercessio can be applied not only to the passage of
a lex in a comitia, but also "the actions of any other magistrate ...,
Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta". (Constitution
paragraph IV.A.7.a.) "Actions" here covers a wide swath, which
conscientious Tribunes could apply to redress their error.

Another lex could be passed invalidating the offending law (indeed, this
would be the case, if the Tribunes would only take the very minimal step
of offering the lex at hand to both comitiae). The magistrates involved
could simply not enforce the lex, citing the greater precedence of the
Constitution (such refusal would, in and of itself, be subject to
Tribunicial intercessio). Or, an intercessio could be issued at the time
the unconstitutional law was enforced, citing the greater precedence of
the Constitution. The latter two options are, of course, inferior to the
first (which is itself inferior to the intercessio being correctly
applied at the time the unconstitutional lex was mistakenly enacted),
but they remain as viable options.

>9. Points 7 and 8 are in contradiction of point 6: it
>seems that on the one hand this thing ought to be
>prevented, and that on the other hand there is nobody
>who has both the obligation and the power to prevent
>it.
>
>
>So the constitution appears to contradict itself.
>
>

I think the "obligation" point is pretty well covered; the Constitution
in fact uses that precise word to describe the power of intercessio.
Now, the Constitution may well contradict itself in other areas (I wrote
it, and I'm hardly infallible, despite the fact that I had a lot of
input from a lot of people), but if it does, the solution is to amend
the Constitution through those procedures which it allows. The solution
is most definitely NOT to simply ignore the parts one doesn't agree with.

Since your narrative summary below is pretty well covered in the points
outlined above, I'll skip down to your conculsion to offer one of my own.

>There are two ways we can respond to this:
>
>A. The constitution must know what it's doing, so the
>contradiction must be an illusion and there must be
>some way to resolve it.
>
>OR
>
>B. The constitution is clearly flawed and
>self-contradictory, and we must therefore simply
>choose one or other or the contradictory lines of
>thinking it contains.
>
>
>So let's try A first. The constitution implies that it
>cannot be overruled, but it also provides no mechanism
>which could protect it from being overruled. So to
>resolve the contradiction we must either imagine that
>there is some such mechanism which is not mentioned in
>the constitution, or we must assume that in fact the
>constitution does intend itself to be overruled if the
>tribúní are content for it to be.
>
>What could the mechanism be which is not mentioned in
>the constitution? Well, possibly we could say that the
>tribúní are in fact legally obliged to veto things
>which contradict the constitution. But this would
>hardly solve the problem, because the tribúní can
>still be caught napping, or simply too inexperienced
>in legal matters to see that such-and-such-a-thing
>contradicts the constitution, and in such cases the
>problem would remain. We could go further and suggest
>that the 72-hour time-limit must itself be
>unconstitutional, and that a thing can be vetoed
>months, years, decades after it first occurred. But
>even this would not be an adequate safeguard against
>an endless succession of tribúní who simply fail to
>see that there's something unconstitutional going on.
>Moreover, the tribunate is clearly not designed to do
>this job of constitutional court: the tribúní are
>minor magistrates who do not have to have any
>political or legal experience, and are in many other
>ways completely unsuitable for the job. So the idea
>that the tribunate is the mechanism we're looking for
>is impossible to sustain.
>
>What other mechanism could there be? No person or body
>in the republic had the power to strike down
>legislation or the act of a tribúnus, and no
>unhistorical institution such as a constitutional
>court - which is the sort of thing we're looking for -
>exists in Nova Róma. I cannot find any mechanism.
>
>This leaves the other option: the constitution,
>despite what it seems to imply, is in fact designed to
>be overruled if the tribúní choose not to veto the
>attempt. This is in accord with historical practice,
>which the constitution itself names as its own
>principal source. So it seems to be the only way to
>resolve the issue if we take approach A.
>
>
>What about approach B? The constitution is
>self-contradictory, so we simply have to choose which
>of the two contradictory ideas to follow. The two
>ideas, to recap, are that the constitution cannot be
>overruled at all and that it can so long as the
>tribúní don't object. There are three strategies I can
>see by which we can choose between them. First, what
>would be most historical? Second, what would be most
>in accord with the spirit of the constitution? Third,
>what would be best?
>
>The first strategy leads us directly and easily to
>believe that the constitution can indeed be overruled.
>It could be overruled in antiquity, and this fact is
>not only mentioned but praised by Roman writers.
>
>The second strategy leads to stalemate. On the one
>hand, the constitution cites historical practice as
>its inspiration, which would lead us to the same
>conclusion as strategy one. On the other hand, the
>constitution seems to assume that it cannot be
>overruled, for otherwise it would not provide a
>complex method by which it may be amended, which leads
>us to the other conclusion. Stalemate.
>
>The third strategy is, of course, highly subjective.
>Many would no doubt consider a rigid constitution
>best, while others would think it worst. Others again
>would regard as best whatever is most historical,
>which would bring us back to the first strategy. We
>are unlikely to make any headway using this third
>strategy at all.
>
>So the only one which gets us anywhere is the first,
>which leads us to the same conclusion as approach A
>did. Thus, whichever way we approach the problem, the
>natural answer seems to be that in fact, and despite
>what one would imagine from a very superficial look at
>the issue, Faustus tribúnus is in fact perfectly
>entitled to do what he is doing.
>
>
>I realize that this is all slightly academic, since
>the 72 hours have passed and no one can now do
>anything about it (you can, of course, prosecute
>Faustus next year and test the issue in court, but
>frankly that would be rather pointless since under
>Roman law the outcome of a vote of the comitia is
>valid even if the comitia itself was convened
>incorrectly); but these issues come up again and
>again, and I think it's important to sort out exactly
>what the position is - whether the constitution can or
>cannot be overruled. I'm sure you'll agree that's
>something worth getting clear.
>

It is not "academic" in the slightest (more especially since I never
asked for a Tribunicial intercessio on this subject; all I've EVER asked
is that the lex be presented to the Comitia Plebis as well as the
Comitia Populi-- no one has ever told me why this is so intolerable).
Any of the Tribunes could present the EXACT same language to the Comitia
Plebis as a plebiscitum, and as far as I'm concerned the Constitutional
requirements would be met, and the damage done by the Tribunes' failure
to intervene when the earlier leges Salicia et Arminia were passed would
be repaired. The stain of their inaction would remain, but at least the
damage on a practical level would be made right.

As far as your last point, I don't think there is any clarification
necessary. The Constitution is the ultimate authority, which cannot be
overruled in any sense. If it is unintentionally violated (as seems to
have been the case), such violation must be corrected as soon as
possible, and I'd probably recommend a piaculum to the Gods by both the
offender and the Tribunes to make up for the omission.

Bottom line; the Tribunes failed in their obligation to protect the
Constitution before. That must not be taken as license to violate it
again. The opportunity to make things right is here, and it's so very
very simple to do.

Please, do it. Don't let pride and stubbornness blind our Tribunes to
the right and proper course. There are five of you. Surely ONE of you
will step up and offer the lex to the Comitia Plebis.

I ask you; what harm would it cause?

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

Salve,

> <>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:03:57 -0300 (ART)
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@...>
> Subject: The Comitia Populi Tributa text revised
>
> I just make a warning: One thing is not agreeing, other thing is
> accusing lack of constitutionally. I urge responsability of the
> citizens on the using of their right of expression.

This is indeed a black day for Nova Roma.

If a Tribune-- who is supposed to be one of the defenders of the law and
the Constitution-- can issue veiled threats against speaking out against
his own wrong-doing, we have hit rock-bottom. The lines I quoted above
should chill everyone here to their very marrow.

I most certainly do not agree with your actions, Lucius Arminius
Faustus. And I say this to your eyes; you are acting contrary to the
Constitution, which you had sworn to protect. You failed to uphold your
obligation to do so in the past, when you (and your fellow Tribunes)
failed to issue an intercessio against the Lex Arminia de Potestate
Tribunicia ad Comitia Convocanda, and you are doing so now by putting
forth a lex which blatantly contradicts a perfectly plain and
easy-to-read line in our Constitution, when you could choose to act
within the letter of the Constitution with a minimum of trouble, and yet
choose not to. Indeed, by just putting the current lex to both the
Comitia Plebis and the Comitia Populi, you could undo the damage from
before! But you choose not to do so.

To my mind, you are bringing shame and dishonor on the office you bear,
and you are compounding your error by failing to enact a solution for no
visible reason other than maintaining your pride when someone else
offers a perfectly viable and simple solution. There is a term for that
here in America; NIH Syndrome. (NIH standing for "Not Invented Here")

My right of expression is most certainly invoked. Unpleasant truths may
still be expressed orderly and civilly-- yet forcefully-- as I have done
here.

I urge _you_ to issue your warnings more responsibly, Tribune, lest they
be seen as an attempt to quash dissent.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

PS: For the record, I happen to support what the lex says. I only object
to the fact that it is not being presented in both Comitiae. To date, no
one has given me a reason why we cannot do this.

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve Caecilius Metellus
>
> HERE HERE!!!
>
> Unconstitutional is still unconstitutional no matter how many people

miss or ignore it.

>
> I also missed the part in the Nova Roma constitution that says the

Tribunes, individually or as a group are infallible.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Hear, hear, indeed!

And since you, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, are a Tribune yourself, you
can correct this current matter with the simplest of actions. Undo the
failure of the Tribunes to act in the past with an action here and now.

Submit the lex (or --preferably-- a version thereof tailored to the
Comitia Plebis) to the Comitia Plebis for a vote. Let the Comitia
Plebis vote on its own procedures, and let the Comitia Populi vote on
_its_ own procedures.

The tribunes are not, as you sagely say, infallible. But once an error
has been detected, let it be swiftly corrected.

Set things to rights, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

---Salvete Flavius Vedius Germanicus et Omnes Novae Romae:

I hope in this post I am not stumbling on something that was already
covered by other posters. If so, I apologize and I realize many
things have been discussed by a few people, and I duly render credit

Believe it or not, I am not completely disagreeing with your
position or Metellus Postuminius' position on the language of the
constitution.. yes, it is there, but my breach in understanding is
the manner in which it is being applied, interpreted, etc. I hope
to elaborate a bit in subsequent responses to your points below. I
know that from the get-go this was in the hands of the Tribunes, but
I am keenly interested in these sorts of matters, and I like to
discuss them even academically.

I think the bottom-line source if any disagreement, atleast as I see
it, is how we are assigning the term 'operate internally'
or 'internal operation' inversely, in defining constitutional
language to comitial procedures.


(snip)

You wrote:

>
> Here's what the Constitution says on the particular point of who

gets to

> make its rules:
>
> "...only the comitia plebis tributa shall pass laws governing the

rules

> by which it shall operate internally." (paragraph III.C.)
>
> That seems pretty clear-cut to me; how do you interpret it

differently,

> to say that the Comitia Populi can pass laws governing how the

Comitia

> Plebis operates? Interpretation is one thing; you're completely
> inverting its meaning.

Pompeia: This is where, with respect I am having some difficulties
reconciling this in terms of the constitutional clause 'governing
the rules by which it shall operate internally. "Internal" to me is
something which strictly affects the Plebs. I've read everyone's
posts on the issue...the technical positions vs the
technical+jurisprudent positions.

We have an elected official, to wit the Tribune, who happens to be
a Plebian, who is an official who can pronounce intercessios which
affect 'all' citizens, who is supposed to defend the constitutional
dynamics in appeals of 'all' citizens. He can call the Senate into
session on behalf of 'all' citizens, no? And we are restricting the
procedure by which he is voted in to the Comitia Plebis, deeming it
an 'internal operation'? I am having difficulty in the
broadspectrum reconciling election of Tribune, or Plebian Aedile for
that matter, as being a Comitia Plebis "internal operation", as
strictly and fundamentally defined by the Constitution. An Internal
operation does not (should not) affect anyone else outside the
Plebian order in my view. It is soley within the scope of the
plebs. And the Tribune veto and appeals certainly does affect all
of us. I know this gets tricky because, well, it is easy to say the
the Comitia Centuriata and the Comitia Popli Tributa govern their
own internal procedures. Why? Because although these comitiae in the
strict sense govern their own internal procedures, this is no big
consideration, because the members of these two comitia affect all
of us, regardless of what order. But the Comitia Plebis is exclusive
to Plebians, so I think this is where the 'gray area' lies. I am
satisfied that there are points on both sides, but this is where my
thoughts have swayed.

You wrote:

>
> To say "that's the way we've done it all year" is simply

inadequate;

> just because something has been done incorrectly in the past, does

not

> mean that one cannot set things to rights _now_.

Pompeia: The first law to address the calling of the CPT by a
Tribune based on a prescribed ration of Plebs to Pats was in late
2002 by Tribune Gn. Salix Astur, now Consul. So it isn't just this
year, really.

You wrote:

>
> Besides, what's the big deal about calling the Comitia Plebis at

the

> same time as the Comitia Populi? Why are the Tribunes getting so
> defensive? It seems a very simple and eloquent solution to a very

simple

> problem.

Pompeia: Although it 'could' be done, and to some it 'should' be
done, I wonder what would be the point in opening two separate
voting venues for the plebs, and I think this has been pointed out
by someone else. So the rogatores would have to deduct those votes
from the CPT cast by plebs, where they will be voting in the CP on
the same proposal, only listed separately, for the Plebs. I, in
addition, worry about margin for error. It seems alot of
mechanical'fiddle-faddle' for a technical satisfaction of the
constitution in my view. It amounts to the same electorial outcome,
no?
Now I am going on the premise here, based on reading your posts,
Flavius Vedius,that you essentially like the proposal, but you just
don't like the manner in which it is being presented for vote to
comitia (comitiae), for reasons you believe to be unconstitutional.

You wrote:

>
> As far as _why_ each Comitia isn't free to alter the rules by

which the

> others meet, this was not exactly done out of caprice. It was done

to

> prevent a subset of the population (for example, the Plebeians)

from

> usurping power. To take a somewhat over-the-top example, if those
> restrictions were removed, it would be possible for the Comitia

Plebis

> to enact a law saying that the other Comitiae could only vote on

items

> that it had previously approved! While such a thing would have

been

> unthinkable in Roma Antiqua, it has been pointed out time and

again that

> we modern Nova Romans are suffering from a lack of ingrained

respect for

> the Mos Maiorum. Our Constitution is our bulwark against such

abuses.

Pompeia: Forgive me, but I take a slightly obversive view. I could
see such an scenerio occuring if the Comitia Plebis, if the
Constitutional language, was strictly applied to define 'internal
procedure' to the literal extent where they could vote on things
which weightedly affected all the citizenry of Nova Roma through
official action of its plebian magisterial representatives.You could
have a low ratio of plebs which are protected by an 'internal
working' clause in their comitia which could vote in amuch, with
next to no say from anyone else. A carte blanc. In short, the Plebs
could potentially usurp power 'because' of a strict application
to 'by which it shall operate internally' ; I do not see this clause
as a preventative measure in this case. If I am not getting it, you
are free to enlighten me, as always.

You wrote:

> Please, oh Tribunes. You are pledged to uphold the Constitution--

not

> only those parts of it that meet with your approval.

Pompeia: Their 'approval'?..... or their interpretation of the
constitutional language, based on other factors influencing said
interpretation and application? "Operate internally' remains a
somewhat undefined and a tricky area, and one I feel uncomfortable
assigning to a comitia of one order who elects magistrates who serve
us all. No longer a 'closed door' issue. An internal operation of
the plebs would be, to me, if they choose to open a separate mailing
list for Plebs, where they could hold discussions pertinent to
Plebian affairs...that sort of thing.

You wrote:

The solution I have

> offered should be a no-brainer; this resistence to following the
> Constitution as written is frankly baffling.

Pompeia: May we agree to disagree. There are other examples in the
Constitution from which largely inappropriate results could
conceivably materialize due to a literal translation of a clause,
without any applicaton of examination of existing laws voted in by
the people, endeavoring to be pursuant to the constitution.

Here's one: II. Gentes and Families

D.5 of our constitution. "Each family will, by whatever means it
may deem appropriate,(oh really?) have a paterfamilias (fem.
materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of that family and speak
for it when necessary. The holder of this position much be
registerd as such with the Censors"

Now there are atleast four comitia-approved leges qualifying the
interpretation of this clause...'by whatever means it may deem
appropriate' would be foolish in terms of literal
interpretation,when we have a law governing gentes registration, the
Leges Equitia defining the status of one in the familia,
Patriapotestas, marriage laws, different types of marriages.....no
we can't under any circumstances just up and choose who holds the
sacred potestas 'by whatever means it may deem appropriate'. I won't
even get into macronational limitations, as defined in the same
constitution :) Just an illustration of why I think we have to
strike a balance sometimes, looking at all factors in the
distinction between what the constitution 'says' and what the
constitution 'means' as defined by the people who have approved of
legislation pursuant to same.

Valete,
Pompeia

>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
<bcatfd@t...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in Nova
> Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
> Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
> always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.) I'm sure
> there are others here besides the two of us. Happy birthday to you

all

> and join me in a toast to the Corps! (and esp to those in action as

we speak)

>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Palladius

I'm a day late here, but I most heartily wish you, Deci Palladi and
Gnaeus Equitius a very happy Marine's Birthday, but a very special
wish to my son, who looks to be good to go on his graduation from
MCRD San Diego on December 3!!

--

Julilla Sempronia Magna
Very proud mater of a soon-to-be gyrene

Salvete Omnes Novae Romae:

In keeping with the recent discussions regarding Constitutional
language interpretatons, I wondered if the following prospective
Constitutional clause might serve as a rule of thumb, atleast in
some aspects of constitutional articles, when it comes to its legal
application:

Something like this could be placed in the constitution:

"The lawful application (interpretation?) of the language of this
constitution is defined by any prevailing legislation pursuant to
same"

This, IMO would help in the dilemna of what the constitution *says*
vs. what it *means*. Particularily when it comes to magisterial
applications. I cited the language of the article of the
gentes/familiae as an example in a previous post. The constitution
says that "each family, by 'whatever means it may deem appropriate'
have a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias) who shall act as the
leader of that family and speak for it when necessary............".
This is misleading in the literal interpretive sense, in that the
qualifications for who is and isn't pater/materfamilias, and how
they can be declared as such, etc. etc. are defined 'multifold' by a
few laws pursuant to this constitutional language, which to me, by
virtue of their existance, restrict the rote and potentially
inappropriate interpretation of the constitution in this regard.

But perhaps a ground rule should be spelled out for our collective
benefit...?

I am by no means suggesting that it is a bad thing to lobby for
change of a law which you feel is misinterpreting the principles of
the constitution, major principles of antiqua, the mos maiorum, the
Religio, our well-being, etc. What I am talking about are scenerios
whereby the constitution is interpreted in conflicting ways,
presenting potential legal dilemnae. The viable interpreter is the
established laws which define its language..the laws being the
consensus of the citizenry of Nova Roma.
The people. And regardless of whether we are Senator, Priest,
Magistrate or Privatus, we are all 'the people', nonne?

I fully admit I am not the most endowed legal authority in our
republic, but would this perhaps help avoid some contentious
predicaments in the future? The constitution is the consensual
doctrine of the Senate and people, after all, and they are the ones
to best define its meaning, imo.

I welcome opinions...even if they are ones of disagreement. Perhaps
someone else has another idea?

Valete,
Pompeia

no ire towards the Corps but... SUA SPONTE! RANGERS
LEAD THE WAY!! You jarheads remember that! [the
U.S.ARMY fights, marines take the credit.]
--- curatrix@...
<curatrix@...> wrote:

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decius Iunius

Palladius Invictus

> <bcatfd@t...> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> >
> > The day is nearly over but I want to wish all

fellow Marines in Nova

> > Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday

Marinus and all other

> > Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active.

(once a Marine,

> > always a Marine. There is no such thing as an

ex-Marine.) I'm sure

> > there are others here besides the two of us. Happy

birthday to you

> all
> > and join me in a toast to the Corps! (and esp to

those in action as

> we speak)
> >
> > Semper Fi,
> >
> > Palladius
>
> I'm a day late here, but I most heartily wish you,

Deci Palladi and

> Gnaeus Equitius a very happy Marine's Birthday, but

a very special

> wish to my son, who looks to be good to go on his

graduation from

> MCRD San Diego on December 3!!
>
> --
>
> Julilla Sempronia Magna
> Very proud mater of a soon-to-be gyrene
>
>
>

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

Salvete, roman people of the Quirites,

The most basic principle of NR Constitution is follow the procedures of the Ancient.

So, the will of the People is the ultimate source of power and legislation.

If Lex Salicia was approved and unvetoed, the law IS constitutional. To magistrate can contest it... only the ruling of the Comitia.

So, I cannot violate it. - we cannot violate it. Only the Comitia can revoke.

The interpretation of the law is given by the potestas magistrates. Althought it can be contested, the way of expressing it is throught a ´NO´ on Cista, not trying to block on cries the Comitia.

The 72 time for veto have passed. We had no veto, accoridng the Constituion and Laws, (texts I always had pledged by following more than any one here). The text is absolutelly according our laws. So, the text of the Comitia Populi Tributa will go to the Comitia Populi Tributa, as I have issued before.

I thank all citizens that have participated of the Contio, and warn we are going to a Nefasti Day, so the Contio is suspended.

I want to thank Ceres and Diana, Iove Capitolinus, Iuno Regina and Minerva Sapientissima, and all gods of Rome.

Without their continous enlightnening, all these reforms couldn´t be taken.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

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

Q. Caecilió Metelló amícó omnibusque sal.

I hope you don't mind if I summarize, to save space -
correct me if I've misunderstood your half of the
argument.

I think we agree that the constitution seems to
deliberately allow itself to be overruled at the
discretion of the tribúní plébis. Your point is, I
think, that if some particular action does overrule
the constitution in this way, that action is itself
valid, but it doesn't mean that all actions of that
kind in the future must be considered constitutionally
acceptable. In other words, it doesn't set a precedent
that the same thing, or a similar thing, can be done
again and again.

If this is what you're saying, I quite agree, at least
as far as the outcome is concerned. To apply it to the
current case: we all agree that the tribúní have on
previous occasions allowed the comitia tribúta to
alter the procedures of the concilium plébis and vice
versa. You and I agree, I think, that those
alterations have been duly made and are now legal. You
argue, if I have it correctly, that it is nonetheless
still unconstitutional for this to be done, and so the
tribúní can still veto it even though they failed to
do so before.

Now, I don't agree that it is unconstitutional for
this to be done, because I think the constitution by
its own nature renders that word rather unhelpful. But
I certainly agree that the fact that it has been
allowed before does not mean that it *must* be allowed
to happen again. The tribúní of the old republic had
absolute discretion about how and whether to use their
veto, and, contrary to Vedius Germánicus'
interpretation (which I'll discuss when I reply to
him), that remains the case in Nova Róma. So of course
the tribúní may veto something now which they did not
veto before. Likewise, they don't have to. The thing
is, one might say, constitutionally neutral.

So if you have had the impression that I've been
saying that the tribúní *cannot* veto because they
didn't do so before, I'm sorry to have misled you:
certainly they may veto, or not, as they please. I
would encourage them not to, because there is no harm
in what is being done.

This, it seems, is where we disagree, so let's talk a
bit about that:

You talk about "the dangerous precedent of allowing
one comitia to determine the internal workings of
another". I can't really see why this is a dangerous
thing. It is perfectly historical, as you must surely
know, and caused no problems in the old republic, so
there's no empirical evidence for any danger. It's
true that in principle it would allow, say, the
concilium plébis to interfere with the procedures of
the comitia centuriáta with the result of making the
latter assembly powerless. But one can equally say
that the comitia centuriáta, if acting in concert with
the senátus, could amend the constitution so as to
abolish the concilium plébis altogether. These things
are possible in theory, as are many other things. In
theory the comitia centuriáta, together with the
senátus, could amend the constitution to turn Nova
Róma into Nova Carthágó. It's possible in theory, but
it's simply not going to happen, and if it did then
Nova Róma would be so far gone to the dogs that no
amount of separation of powers could save it.
Similarly, the concilium plébis emasculating the other
assemblies is simply not going to happen. No one would
vote for it because it's not historical or reasonable.
If there were enough citizens prepared to vote for it,
Nova Róma would be a lost cause. The niceties of the
constitution would be the least of our worries then.

You also say:

> And I entirely agree here. I have not, to my
> knowledge, stated that
> Tribunus Faustus hasn't the right to call the
> Comitia Plebis or the Comitia
> Populi, nor will I. And, in fact, I have not tried
> to obstruct his call of
> the Comitia Populi Tributa. However, I am trying to
> obstruct this proposal
> from becoming law. The provisions of the proposal
> are unconstitutional, in
> that one Comitia would be setting the rules for
> another, and that is what I
> am trying to demonstrate.

I'm not sure I've understood this part of your
argument. Surely it is not the content of the bill
which you object to, but the fact that it is being put
to the comitia tribúta but not to the concilium
plébis? The 'dangerous precedent' that you're
objecting to is not contained in the proposal itself,
so what do you mean when you say that "the provisions
of the proposal are unconstitutional"?

Let me use an analogy to try to clarify the way I'm
approaching this. Imagine a tribúnus writing the
following proposal:

---
Léx tribúnicia dé patriciís in concilió plébis

I. No patrician may vote in the concilium plébis.
---

Now, the provisions - well, provision - of that
proposal is entirely unobjectionable, surely? There is
nothing wrong with what it actually says. If, however,
the tribúnus then proposes that law to the comitia
tribúta, you would presumably object, because by doing
so he would be asking the comitia tribúta to amend the
procedures of the concilium plébis. Correct so far?

The case before us is surely the same thing. The text
of the law itself does not say anything about one
assembly interfering in the procedures of another. If
the proposal were put before each assembly separately,
there would be no technical problem - this, indeed, is
what Vedius Germánicus has been suggesting. The only
problem, if one considers it a problem, arises when
the proposal is put to the 'wrong' assembly. So why,
then, do you say that you have no problem with the
fact that this proposal is being putbefore the comitia
tribúta, merely with the provisions of the law itself?
Surely it is quite the opposite - you don't object to
the provisions, just to the method by which it is
being proposed? Have I gone wrong somewhere?

Finally, on the question whether the matter is now
academic or not:

> I realize that I am likely just refreshing your
> memory, Corde, but there has
> been nothing against which anyone could pronounce
> intercessio to this point
> on the matter.

The comitia were called by an édictum, and an édictum
is susceptible to veto, so that is what I would have
expected the tribúní to veto if anything.

> ... The Tribunus is certainly within the
> Constitution in
> bringing any proposal to either of the two Comitia
> about which we have been
> talking, so to attempt to pronounce intercessio
> would be unuseful and would
> have no grounds for standing.

Yet I can't see what else can possibly be vetoed
hereafter. Do you propose that the tribúní ought to
allow the matter to be voted into law and then veto
the implementation of the law in the concilium plébis?
Surely you can't mean that - it would be utterly
monstrous! Never in the history of the republic has a
tribúnus plébis or any other magistrate been allowed
to obstruct the will of the populus as expressed by a
legal vote of the comitia. It would be totally
contrary to every principle on which the Roman
constitution is built, and would in the old republic
undoubtedly have resulted in the magistrate concerned
being lynched. A tribúnus can veto more or less
anything except a léx. A tribúnus gains his power to
veto from the fact that the populus has elected him
and has given him the power to veto things on its
behalf; so obviously a tribúnus cannot veto the
populus itself. A léx cannot be vetoed.

Quite apart from that, how would it actually be done?
When I come to count the votes in the concilium plébis
at the next elections, will the tribúní use their veto
to forbid me to count them using the method described
in the léx Arminia? I suppose they could do that, but
then there would be no elections. As you and I both
know, a veto can only negate an action, it can't bring
about an action. They can forbid the rogátórés to
count the votes using the Arminian method, but they
can't force us to count the votes using the Morávian
or any other system. There would simply be no count,
and no election, and no new magistrátús. It would be
absurd.

No, if there's to be any veto at all it must be of the
édictum convening the comitia in the first place, and
the time for that veto has passed. The comitia will
meet and vote, and if the proposal is approved then it
will be law and no one will have any power to stop its
implementation. The alternative is inconceivable.



___________________________________________________________
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win 10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus Flávió Vedió Germánicó p.p.
omnibusque sal.

> I have indeed read what you have written on the
> subject at hand, and
> found it lacking. I wonder, though, whether you have
> read what I (and
> others) have had to say, since you have done nothing
> in this
> conversation save repeat your own argument, rather
> than responding to
> mine.

I'm sorry to have given you that impression. The fact
is that the argument is set out in the message you're
replying to is my response to your argument. It
responds, I believe, to every point you have made to
anyone else about the matter except ones with which I
agree and to which I have no objection. If it's your
view that, even if everything I've said were true,
there would still be an argument of yours which would
prove your point, then I'm afraid I have missed it;
I'd be grateful if you could tell me where to look it
up, and of course I shall consider it carefully.

> >2. The constitution says that anything which
> >contradicts the constitution may (n.b. may, not
> must)
> >be vetoed by the tribúní.
>
> This is incorrect. Let us look to the actual
> language of the
> Constitution. It states, in paragraphs IV.A.7. and
> IV.A.7.a.:
>
> "They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall
> have the following
> honors, powers, and obligations: To pronounce
> intercessio ... against
> ... leges passed by the comitia when the spirit
> and/or letter of this
> Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta,
> Senatus Consulta or
> leges are being violated thereby."

Yes, let's look at the words themselves. They say that
the tribúní "shall have the following honors, powers,
and obligations". There are two possible ways to
interpret that (if we assume that it's written in
correct English). Either

1. "Everything on the following list is an honour and
a power and an obligation"

or

2. "Some of the things on the following list are
honours, some are powers, and some are obligations"

At a stretch, we could read it in a third way:

3. "Any given thing on the following list is an honour
and / or a power and / or an obligation".

You're clearly using interpretation number 1, but I
don't think that can possibly be correct. Is it really
an honour to pronounce intercessió? Well, maybe it is.
But are the tribúní obliged "to pronounce
intercessio... against another Tribune" (7.b)? Are
they obliged "to be privy to the debates of the
Senate" (7.d) and "to call the Senate to order"
(7.d.i) and "to call the comitia plebis tributa to
order" (7.b.iii) and "to appoint scribae" (7.d.iv)? If
so, we must expect a flurry of lawsuits next year,
because I'm sure every tribúnus we've ever had must be
guilty of failing to do at least one of those things.

No, the correct interpretation must be either 2 or 3.
If it's 2, then 7.a must be a power and therefore not
an obligation or an honour. If interpretation 3 is
correct, then it may be an obligation, but it may not
be - we can't tell from the constitution itself.

But in any case, I think you've perhaps overlooked the
bit of my previous message in which I addressed the
idea that the tribúní might be obliged to veto things.
The fact is that even if they were, it would not lead
us to the conclusion you're proposing. It's the ninth
paragraph up from the bottom if you want to go back
and look at it.

> Thus, the Tribunes failed in their obligation
> before, when the earlier
> leges were passed in violation of the Constitution.

Well, if you think so then of course you're free to
prosecute them for it next year. But according to the
principles of Roman law it makes no difference to the
validity of the légés which were passed.

> >6. Point 1 implies that an attempt to use the
> comitia
> >tribúta to alter the procedures of the concilium
> >plébis must be somehow rendered invalid or
> prevented.
>
> Agreed. But you are here implying a corollary which
> is not correct; that
> a _failure_ to prevent such a thing makes that
> action somehow legal. It
> does not; it merely implies that the proper
> procedures (i.e., the
> prevention of the unconstitutional act) were not
> followed. A failure to
> prevent an unconstitutional act does NOT make that
> act suddenly
> constitutional.

I don't imply the corollary, Germánice, I state it and
support it with arguments in the umpteen paragraphs
which constitute the rest of my argument. You have
simply stated, in your paragraph quoted above, that
the whole of the rest of my argument is wrong, but you
haven't given any actual reasoning for that
conclusion. I spent a good deal of time writing those
umpteen paragraphs when I could much more usefully
have been working on other things, and it would be
only polite to give reasons for your conclusion that
I'm wrong. But, politeness aside, consider, if I say:

Z is true because A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H

... and you say:

Z is NOT true - it just isn't.

... to which of us are people likely to give most
credence? My umpteen paragraphs of logical reasoning
may have been rather dull and tedious, but I venture
to hope that they will be more persuasive to an
intelligent audience than your use of capital letters.

But let's put even that on one side, and let me ask
you a short-term and a long-term question:

1. If something illegal is happening or has happened
here, who ought to do what about it?

2. Isn't it about time for us to accept that the
tribúní are completely unsuited to the job of
preventing each and every contravention of the
constitution and to either put in place a proper
constitutional court or, better yet, to get rid of the
unhistorical idea of a rigid constitution?

> >8. Points 2 to 5 imply that if the tribúní choose
> >note to prevent it, or fail to prevent it within 72
> >hours, nothing more can be done to prevent it.
>
> That is not true at all. It is true that the
> intercessio cannot be
> issued against the _passage_ of a particular
> unconstitutional law after
> 72 hours. However, should a law somehow slip in
> under the radar (as has
> been the case this year), there are still ways to
> redress the error.
> Remember that the intercessio can be applied not
> only to the passage of
> a lex in a comitia, but also "the actions of any
> other magistrate ...,
> Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious
> decreta". (Constitution
> paragraph IV.A.7.a.) "Actions" here covers a wide
> swath, which
> conscientious Tribunes could apply to redress their
> error.
>
> Another lex could be passed invalidating the
> offending law (indeed, this
> would be the case, if the Tribunes would only take
> the very minimal step
> of offering the lex at hand to both comitiae).

That is, of course, always possible, and would be the
case even for laws whose constitutionality is
unimpeachable.

> ... The
> magistrates involved
> could simply not enforce the lex, citing the greater
> precedence of the
> Constitution (such refusal would, in and of itself,
> be subject to
> Tribunicial intercessio).

Have you made a typing error, Germánice? Of course a
refusal to act cannot be vetoed. Remember what a veto
is - it is the tribúnus forbidding another person to
do something. You can't forbid someone to do nothing.
What are the tribúní going to - go to the house of the
cónsul and physically force his fingers to press the
keys on his keyboard? A refusal to act cannot be
vetoed.

The magistrátús could, indeed, refuse to enforce the
léx. But the concilium plébis must have some internal
procedures. What would the magistrátús do? Would they
follow the previously existing legislation, which, if
the léx Arminia passes, will have been proven to be
contrary to the will of the populus? We rogátórés must
count the votes one way or another. I don't know about
my colleagues, but I can tell you now that if the léx
Arminia passes I shall be counting the votes using the
system described in the léx Arminia.

> ... Or, an intercessio could
> be issued at the time
> the unconstitutional law was enforced, citing the
> greater precedence of
> the Constitution. The latter two options are, of
> course, inferior to the
> first (which is itself inferior to the intercessio
> being correctly
> applied at the time the unconstitutional lex was
> mistakenly enacted),
> but they remain as viable options.

As I said to Metellus, if the rogátórés try to count
the votes using the Arminian system and the tribúní
forbid us to do so, then what? No magistrátús next
year? Not a very helpful way to go about things.

> I think the "obligation" point is pretty well
> covered; the Constitution
> in fact uses that precise word to describe the power
> of intercessio.
> Now, the Constitution may well contradict itself in
> other areas (I wrote
> it, and I'm hardly infallible, despite the fact that
> I had a lot of
> input from a lot of people), but if it does, the
> solution is to amend
> the Constitution through those procedures which it
> allows. The solution
> is most definitely NOT to simply ignore the parts
> one doesn't agree with.

I agree that by far the best solution to a
self-contradictory constitution (which, even if you
are correct about obligations, is still what we are
dealing with here, as I showed in the parts of my
previous message which you've passed over in silence)
is to amend it so that it stops being contradictory.
I've been urging all and sundry to do that for almost
the whole year. But until it's amended, we have to
live with its contradiction. As in this case: one part
of the constitution implies that X cannot be done and
another part implies that X can be done, what are we
supposed to do when someone tries to do X? As far as I
can see we just have to choose one way or the other.

> It is not "academic" in the slightest (more
> especially since I never
> asked for a Tribunicial intercessio on this subject;
> all I've EVER asked
> is that the lex be presented to the Comitia Plebis
> as well as the
> Comitia Populi-- no one has ever told me why this is
> so intolerable).

I would have thought it obvious. This is a law which
proposes to unify the procedures of the two
assemblies. If it is passed in one but rejected in the
other, it will have completely failed in its
objective. It must amend the procedures either of both
or of neither. Putting it separately to each assembly
would risk it amending one set of procedures and not
the other, which would render the whole exercise
nonsensical.

> As far as your last point, I don't think there is
> any clarification
> necessary. The Constitution is the ultimate
> authority, which cannot be
> overruled in any sense.

If that is so, then it really ought to be equipped as
quickly as possible with some person or institution
which is capable of actually stopping people
contravening it. I cannot think of any hypothetical
example which would prove more clearly and undeniably
than the actual situation we are now in that the
tribúní are completely unsuited to doing this job.
It's no reflection on their personal abilities. They
are junior magistrátús with no grounding in legal or
constitutional theory and without adequate powers to
do what you are expecting them to do. Every other
country in the world which has a rigid constitution
has a panel of extremely experienced professional
judges with the power to strike down legislation even
decades after its enactment. We are trying to give the
same task to complete amateurs, and, not only that, we
are expecting them to make the right decision every
time within 72 hours of starting to think about it.
It's sheer madness. We must have either a
constitutional court or a historical constitution.
Inaction will only lead to endless repetitions of the
current situation, with people's confidence in the
resilience of the constitution and the validity of the
laws taking a serious knock every time.

> ... If it is unintentionally
> violated (as seems to
> have been the case), such violation must be
> corrected as soon as
> possible, and I'd probably recommend a piaculum to
> the Gods by both the
> offender and the Tribunes to make up for the
> omission.

Germánice, I can understand that you want to preserve
the constitution, both because you are personally fond
of it (a very natural and admirable feeling which is
obvious to everyone and which I hope you won't try to
deny) and because you believe in the principle of the
supremacy of the constitution. But a piáculum? Have
you gone mad? Did the gods personally dictate the
constitution to you as you sat in the shade of a tree?
Is it a sacred document against which we must not
offend at the risk of angering the gods? This is
simply too absurd for words.

I quite agree with what Faustus tribúnus has said:
this rogátió is going before the comitia tribúta, the
comitia tribúta is going to vote on it, they will
approve it or not. The rest is academic. Let's have a
rest tomorrow for the diés nefástus públicus, when
there will be no contió, and then on Sunday let's
start talking about the merits of the proposal itself.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus Pompeiae Minuciae Strabóní
omnibusque sal.

> "The lawful application (interpretation?) of the
> language of this
> constitution is defined by any prevailing
> legislation pursuant to
> same"

I think this would help in some cases, like the thing
about patrésfamiliás which you mentioned. But I'm not
sure it would solve every problem, because it itself
would then be subject to interpretation.

One way to interpret it would be this:

- The lawful application of the language of the
constitution is defined by any prevailing legislation
pursuant to same.
- Therefore if there is any prevailing legislation, it
tells us how to apply the constitution.
- Therefore if the constitution says that X should not
be done but there is a léx which says that X may be
done, then X may be done.
- Therefore légés can overrule the constitution.

An alternative interpretation would be:

- The lawful application of the language of the
constitution is defined by any prevailing legislation
pursuant to same.
- But if the constitution says that X should not be
done but there is a léx which says the X may be done,
the constitution itself is the prevailing legislation,
since it prevails over légés.
- Therefore the constitution can overrule légés.

So we end up with the same problem as we had before:
it all comes down to how we interpret the
constitution.

I really think we are going to keep getting these
problems as long as we have a rigid constitution which
is superior in precedence to other légés. The Roman
political system is simply not designed to cope with
that idea. It's an idea which completely contradicts
the basic assumptions on which all the institutions of
the republic were built. If we keep trying to have the
institutions while simultaneously trying to reject the
assumptions which they're based on, we mustn't be
surprised when we get into a mess. We need either to
go back to a historically accurate political system or
else have a root-and-branch overhaul of the whole
thing to make it much more like a modern
constitutional democracy. The former seems like a
better idea to me.

Say, does anyone remember the time when anyone who
said "let's do it the historical way" on the main list
got at least five messages saying "yeah, let's do
that"? Funny how one can drum huge support up by
saying "let's change our voting system to make it a
little bit more historical", but when you say "let's
change our whole political system so it's more
historical" there's a deafening silence. Maybe it's
just because it's me saying it. Do I smell or
something? :)



___________________________________________________________
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win 10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

Salvete Omnes!

An endangered owl has just been found shot by poachers, and is now
recovering from surgery at the Green Balkans wildlife center in
southern Bulgaria.

This bird, sacred to Athena and Minerva was so severely injured that
it will require lifetime care at the the wildlife rehabilitation
center.

While the yahoo group aquilheliaca is dedicated to preserving and
honoring the Roman Imperial Eagle, we are also taking on the project
of finding a sponsor for this ruthlessly damaged sacred owl.

Sponsorship, which would include all veterinary care, food and
housing, for this owl would cost only ten dollars per month in US
currency.

It is our hope that a citizen of Nova Roma will step forward to
sponsor this wonderful creature. You may find out the details from
the group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquilaheliaca/?yguid=164345709

or email me personally. The group archives are open, and all Nova
Romans are sincerely invited to join the group or merely visit.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

i will sponser the owl, please send me details,10
dollars I can handle, I spend more than that a day on
beer.
--- doris-butler@...
<doris-butler@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete Omnes!
>
> An endangered owl has just been found shot by

poachers, and is now

> recovering from surgery at the Green Balkans

wildlife center in

> southern Bulgaria.
>
> This bird, sacred to Athena and Minerva was so

severely injured that

> it will require lifetime care at the the wildlife

rehabilitation

> center.
>
> While the yahoo group aquilheliaca is dedicated to

preserving and

> honoring the Roman Imperial Eagle, we are also

taking on the project

> of finding a sponsor for this ruthlessly damaged

sacred owl.

>
> Sponsorship, which would include all veterinary

care, food and

> housing, for this owl would cost only ten dollars

per month in US

> currency.
>
> It is our hope that a citizen of Nova Roma will step

forward to

> sponsor this wonderful creature. You may find out

the details from

> the group
>
>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquilaheliaca/?yguid=164345709

>
> or email me personally. The group archives are

open, and all Nova

> Romans are sincerely invited to join the group or

merely visit.

>
> --Sabina Equitia Doris
>
>
>

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

Salvete Quirites, et salve Julilla,

Julilla Sempronia Magna wrote:

> I'm a day late here, but I most heartily wish you, Deci Palladi and
> Gnaeus Equitius a very happy Marine's Birthday, but a very special
> wish to my son, who looks to be good to go on his graduation from
> MCRD San Diego on December 3!!

I wish him well in the Corps. The most mentally stressful part of
recruit training is over for him now, though it will continue to be
physically demanding.

> Julilla Sempronia Magna
> Very proud mater of a soon-to-be gyrene

I'm sure you provided the Drill Instructors some pretty fine material to
work with.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Amice!

A true Roman worth his salt steps forth as duty calls, and I am
sending details regarding the sponsorhip of the owl off this main
list.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes
<praefectus2324@y...> wrote:

> i will sponser the owl, please send me details,10
> dollars I can handle, I spend more than that a day on
> beer.
> --- doris-butler@s...
> <doris-butler@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes!
> >
> > An endangered owl has just been found shot by
> poachers, and is now
> > recovering from surgery at the Green Balkans
> wildlife center in
> > southern Bulgaria.
> >
> > This bird, sacred to Athena and Minerva was so
> severely injured that
> > it will require lifetime care at the the wildlife
> rehabilitation
> > center.
> >
> > While the yahoo group aquilheliaca is dedicated to
> preserving and
> > honoring the Roman Imperial Eagle, we are also
> taking on the project
> > of finding a sponsor for this ruthlessly damaged
> sacred owl.
> >
> > Sponsorship, which would include all veterinary
> care, food and
> > housing, for this owl would cost only ten dollars
> per month in US
> > currency.
> >
> > It is our hope that a citizen of Nova Roma will step
> forward to
> > sponsor this wonderful creature. You may find out
> the details from
> > the group
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquilaheliaca/?yguid=164345709
> >
> > or email me personally. The group archives are
> open, and all Nova
> > Romans are sincerely invited to join the group or
> merely visit.
> >
> > --Sabina Equitia Doris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> S P Q R
>
> Fidelis Ad Mortem.
>
> Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> Roman Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com

The Platform of the Libra Alliance

The Libra Alliance is a group of earnest and experienced citizens,
including current and past magistrates. Our interest in the growth
and success of Nova Roma has motivated us to gather and share ideas
which we feel will benefit our micronation. In keeping with the
chosen name "Libra", meaning Scales or Balance, our common platform
is rooted in a commitment to promote Roman political equilibrium
described by Polybios. This, as we feel the religious, political and
cultural heritage will provide a balance of opportunities for growth
of our res Publica.


1. The Religio Statement.
Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and cultus
privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.

2. The Real-life statement.
Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings (e.g.
Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).

3. Cooperation.
The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public and
private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
Project, and actively search for public and private funding.

4. Traditionalism:
Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in the
modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and apply
the Mos Maiorum in every activity.

5. Equilibrium.
The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history, we
have to protect the rights of the populus.

6. Education.
The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people interested in
Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not limited to,
Religio, military, art and daily life.


signed by

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
Gnaeus Salix Astur
Lucius Arminius Faustus
Lucius Iulius Sulla
Gallus Minicius Iovinius
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Marcus Iulius Perusianus
Titus Octavius Pius
Caius Curius Saturninus
Emilia Curia Finnica
Manius Constantinus Serapio
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Marcus Octavius Germanicus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Ex Officio

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Tribunus Plebs

Salve Romans

In the interest of keeping our laws within the legal scope of our constitution I respectfully ask ALL citizens to vote AGAINST the proposed Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum until it can be rewritten and presented to the two Comitia in a legal and constitutional manner.

After working to make changes to the the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum that would in my opinion make it legal and constitutional I have been met with total opposition from Tribune L. Arminius Faustus.

He has made it clear that he feels that it is somehow forbidden to change a proposed text of another Tribune and and impious as well. So be it.

Contrary to what Tribune L. Arminius Faustus says or believes the two Comitia in question are not the same assembly. The Nova Roma Constitution is very clear in that each Comitia is made up of different voters, one for all citizens and one for Plebeians only. It is also CLEAR that each Comitia and only that comitia can pass laws governing the rules by which it operates internally. That is exactly what his proposed Lex does.

Section III of the Constitutional says:

1.. The Comitia Plebis Tributa (Assembly of the Plebeians) shall be made up of all non-patrician citizens, grouped into their respective tribes. While it shall be called to order by a tribune of the plebs, only the comitia plebis tributa shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally. It shall have the following powers: .....
Having completely failed to convince my fellow Tribune of the error of his ways and to have a version of his Lex introduced in the Comitia Plebis Tributa for an up and down vote, I must respectfully ask that ALL voters vote against his current illegal and unconstitutional version which allows the Comitia Populi Tributa to vote on the rules for Comitia Plebis Tributa

I respectfully ask ALL citizens to vote AGAINST this proposed Lex until it can be rewritten and presented to the two Comitia in a legal and constitutional manner.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs






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

Salvete Omnes!

I would like to respectfully ask our Religio practitioners to seek a
special blessing for the injured sacred owl.

While he is recieving excellent veterinary care, his life is still in
the balance, as he has shotgun pellets in several places of his body,
as well as a totally fractured wing.

The owl's picture may be viewed at:



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquilaheliaca/?yguid=164345709

This one owl is making news in the Italian press, at least, and other
articles relating to cruelties inflicted upon the raptors sacred to
the Gods of the Rome may be read in the archives of the group
aquilaheliaca.

Thank you all for the positive responses to help this one owl. So
many others like him need help as well.

If we do not take action to preserve the wildlife sacred to the
Romans we shall see several species extinct within our lifetimes.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

Salve Romans

Does today mark the moment in Nova Roman history that we see the start of a two or multi party system?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:17 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Announcement of the Libra Alliance


The Platform of the Libra Alliance

The Libra Alliance is a group of earnest and experienced citizens,
including current and past magistrates. Our interest in the growth
and success of Nova Roma has motivated us to gather and share ideas
which we feel will benefit our micronation. In keeping with the
chosen name "Libra", meaning Scales or Balance, our common platform
is rooted in a commitment to promote Roman political equilibrium
described by Polybios. This, as we feel the religious, political and
cultural heritage will provide a balance of opportunities for growth
of our res Publica.


1. The Religio Statement.
Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and cultus
privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.

2. The Real-life statement.
Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings (e.g.
Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).

3. Cooperation.
The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public and
private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
Project, and actively search for public and private funding.

4. Traditionalism:
Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in the
modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and apply
the Mos Maiorum in every activity.

5. Equilibrium.
The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history, we
have to protect the rights of the populus.

6. Education.
The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people interested in
Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not limited to,
Religio, military, art and daily life.


signed by

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
Gnaeus Salix Astur
Lucius Arminius Faustus
Lucius Iulius Sulla
Gallus Minicius Iovinius
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Marcus Iulius Perusianus
Titus Octavius Pius
Caius Curius Saturninus
Emilia Curia Finnica
Manius Constantinus Serapio
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Marcus Octavius Germanicus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Salve Censor Caeso Fabi Quintiliane,

Certainly this alliance should benifit all citizens in Nova Roma.
Those who have signed their names here have all certainly
contributed the time, talents and effort to Nova Roma and whether or
not citizens have agreed or disagreed with them before, their
dedication to Res Republica is unquestionable.

Often many organizations hit brick walls and doldrums and it is
sometimes necessary to step back, access the situation, regroup and
take on the challenges with renewed vigour as they are doing. I wish
this new group all the best and will be more than happy to cooporate
with it when requested.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus










--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

> The Platform of the Libra Alliance
>
> The Libra Alliance is a group of earnest and experienced citizens,
> including current and past magistrates. Our interest in the growth
> and success of Nova Roma has motivated us to gather and share

ideas

> which we feel will benefit our micronation. In keeping with the
> chosen name "Libra", meaning Scales or Balance, our common

platform

> is rooted in a commitment to promote Roman political equilibrium
> described by Polybios. This, as we feel the religious, political

and

> cultural heritage will provide a balance of opportunities for

growth

> of our res Publica.
>
>
> 1. The Religio Statement.
> Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and

cultus

> privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.
>
> 2. The Real-life statement.
> Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
> civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings

(e.g.

> Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
> Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).
>
> 3. Cooperation.
> The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public

and

> private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
> Project, and actively search for public and private funding.
>
> 4. Traditionalism:
> Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in the
> modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and

apply

> the Mos Maiorum in every activity.
>
> 5. Equilibrium.
> The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
> described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history, we
> have to protect the rights of the populus.
>
> 6. Education.
> The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people interested

in

> Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not limited

to,

> Religio, military, art and daily life.
>
>
> signed by
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> Gnaeus Salix Astur
> Lucius Arminius Faustus
> Lucius Iulius Sulla
> Gallus Minicius Iovinius
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> Titus Octavius Pius
> Caius Curius Saturninus
> Emilia Curia Finnica
> Manius Constantinus Serapio
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
> Proconsul Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Tribune Tiberi,

I don't see it like that. Lately I have noticed the momentum of NR
getting slower and slower and I am thinking some sort of jumpstart
may be in order. I was hoping that we could get projects like
Violanda going, more get-togethers etc. One of my Canada Occ.
members wrote me last week saying that we needed a lot more action
in NR. Apathy, he observed just breeds more apathy and eventually
things just wither away to nothing. I therefore see no harm in this
active group taking the bull by the horns and moving on to greater
things. When all their goals are in action, there will be much on
their plates and that means very little or no time for partisan
politics in my opinion.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve Romans
>
> Does today mark the moment in Nova Roman history that we see the

start of a two or multi party system?

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:17 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Announcement of the Libra Alliance
>
>
> The Platform of the Libra Alliance
>
> The Libra Alliance is a group of earnest and experienced

citizens,

> including current and past magistrates. Our interest in the

growth

> and success of Nova Roma has motivated us to gather and share

ideas

> which we feel will benefit our micronation. In keeping with the
> chosen name "Libra", meaning Scales or Balance, our common

platform

> is rooted in a commitment to promote Roman political equilibrium
> described by Polybios. This, as we feel the religious, political

and

> cultural heritage will provide a balance of opportunities for

growth

> of our res Publica.
>
>
> 1. The Religio Statement.
> Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and

cultus

> privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.
>
> 2. The Real-life statement.
> Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
> civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings

(e.g.

> Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
> Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).
>
> 3. Cooperation.
> The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public

and

> private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
> Project, and actively search for public and private funding.
>
> 4. Traditionalism:
> Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in

the

> modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and

apply

> the Mos Maiorum in every activity.
>
> 5. Equilibrium.
> The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
> described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history,

we

> have to protect the rights of the populus.
>
> 6. Education.
> The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people

interested in

> Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not

limited to,

> Religio, military, art and daily life.
>
>
> signed by
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> Gnaeus Salix Astur
> Lucius Arminius Faustus
> Lucius Iulius Sulla
> Gallus Minicius Iovinius
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> Titus Octavius Pius
> Caius Curius Saturninus
> Emilia Curia Finnica
> Manius Constantinus Serapio
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
> Proconsul Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

of Service.

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

---P. Minucia Tiberia Propraetor Quinto Lanio Paulino s.p.d.


(snip)

You wrote:

>
> Salve Censor Caeso Fabi Quintiliane,
>
> Certainly this alliance should benifit all citizens in Nova Roma.
> Those who have signed their names here have all certainly
> contributed the time, talents and effort to Nova Roma and whether

or

> not citizens have agreed or disagreed with them before, their
> dedication to Res Republica is unquestionable.
>
> Often many organizations hit brick walls and doldrums and it is
> sometimes necessary to step back, access the situation, regroup

and

> take on the challenges with renewed vigour as they are doing. I

wish

> this new group all the best and will be more than happy to

cooporate

> with it when requested.

Pompeia: Thank you for voicing your positive and quite accurate
appraisal of the spirit and motivations behind the establishment of
this fellowship. A fair bit of thought and discussion was put into
the statements you read below. We are citizens with differing
experiences in Nova Roma, and we wanted to present to the people our
mutual objectives and convictions in the most accurately
representative manner possible. I appreciate your good wishes, as do
others, I'm sure.

Vale
Po

>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> <christer.edling@t...> wrote:
> > The Platform of the Libra Alliance
> >
> > The Libra Alliance is a group of earnest and experienced

citizens,

> > including current and past magistrates. Our interest in the

growth

> > and success of Nova Roma has motivated us to gather and share
> ideas
> > which we feel will benefit our micronation. In keeping with the
> > chosen name "Libra", meaning Scales or Balance, our common
> platform
> > is rooted in a commitment to promote Roman political equilibrium
> > described by Polybios. This, as we feel the religious, political
> and
> > cultural heritage will provide a balance of opportunities for
> growth
> > of our res Publica.
> >
> >
> > 1. The Religio Statement.
> > Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and
> cultus
> > privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.
> >
> > 2. The Real-life statement.
> > Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
> > civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings
> (e.g.
> > Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
> > Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).
> >
> > 3. Cooperation.
> > The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public
> and
> > private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
> > Project, and actively search for public and private funding.
> >
> > 4. Traditionalism:
> > Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in

the

> > modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and
> apply
> > the Mos Maiorum in every activity.
> >
> > 5. Equilibrium.
> > The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
> > described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history,

we

> > have to protect the rights of the populus.
> >
> > 6. Education.
> > The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people

interested

> in
> > Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not

limited

> to,
> > Religio, military, art and daily life.
> >
> >
> > signed by
> >
> > Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo
> > Gnaeus Salix Astur
> > Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > Lucius Iulius Sulla
> > Gallus Minicius Iovinius
> > Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> > Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> > Titus Octavius Pius
> > Caius Curius Saturninus
> > Emilia Curia Finnica
> > Manius Constantinus Serapio
> > Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> > Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> >
> > --
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> > Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
> > Proconsul Thules
> > Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> > Civis Romanus sum
> > ************************************************
> > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> > "I'll either find a way or make one"
> > ************************************************
> > Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> > Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salvete Quirites, et salve Tribunus Galerius,

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Tribunus Plebs wrote:

> Ex Officio

Duely noted.

[...]

> Having completely failed to convince my fellow Tribune
> of the error of his ways and to have a version of his Lex
> introduced in the Comitia Plebis Tributa for an up and
> down vote,

If I were to direct the Rogatores to report a count of the votes of
Plebeian citizens, by tribe, would you accept that as representative of
the vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa? They could provide this report
when they provide the report of the Comitia Populi Tributa.

I appreciate your concern, but I'd also like to see the people vote on
the merits of the law rather than the question of having it voted by two
comitia.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi Galeri,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> Salve Romans
>
> Does today mark the moment in Nova Roman history that we
> see the start of a two or multi party system?

No. I would not have put my name on a party declaration. This alliance
is an alliance, nothing more. We have no secret oaths, nor handshakes,
nor requirements to endorse each other for office. What we will do is
advise and consult with each other.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Quinte Lani,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

> Certainly this alliance should benifit all citizens in Nova Roma.

Thank you. We've been working on this for a while. The idea here being
an alliance for ballance in the progress of NR.

> Those who have signed their names here have all certainly
> contributed the time, talents and effort to Nova Roma and whether or
> not citizens have agreed or disagreed with them before, their
> dedication to Res Republica is unquestionable.

Again, thank you.

Vale,

-- Marinus

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete

Having just this afternoon returned home from the Bethesda Naval Hospital
and seeing all the veterans, young and old, gather to celebrate Veterans
Days and also the USMC Birthday. I can say I'm very Proud to be a fellow
veteran (US Navy) and citizen of such fine people.

I'm having a very hard time typing this right now as I spent the past week
in the Surgical Ward after having had a surgery Monday. I saw too many young
broken bodies this past week, but I also saw many who care for, love,
respect and honor them...


________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:55:47 -0500
From: Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus <bcatfd@...>
Subject: Happy Birthday USMC

Salvete,

The day is nearly over but I want to wish all fellow Marines in Nova
Roma a happy 229th birthday! Happy birthday Marinus and all other
Marines here in Nova Roma, both former and active. (once a Marine,
always a Marine. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine.) I'm sure
there are others here besides the two of us. Happy birthday to you all
and join me in a toast to the Corps! (and esp to those in action as we
speak)

Semper Fi,

Palladius

AVE TI GALERI PAVLINE

I could definitely undersign our Consul's words. I hate people
thinking and making decisions in my place, and that's what parties
do.
On the contrary I accepted to join the Libra because it's an
alliance of serious, honest and hard working people who share aims
and ideals I for one share. It being an alliance, nobody will make
decisions in my place. My voice will be as important as the one of
the other members and we all will work toward common goals.

OPTIME VALE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio

Salve Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

As always we find you trying to find a middle ground and to bring unity from disagreement and I must say that your proposal is not without merit. The problem is that the constitution is CLEAR in that ONLY the Comitia Plebis Tributa can adopt rules for its internal operation and the only legal way I know for this to be done is to have a proposed lex placed before it.

If the legislation in question has merit it can withstand an up or down vote in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. (a version written just for the CPT )

I stand my my respectful request that ALL the citizens of Nova Roma vote against it in its current clearly unconstitutional form.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The vote on the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum


Salvete Quirites, et salve Tribunus Galerius,

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Tribunus Plebs wrote:

> Ex Officio

Duely noted.

[...]
> Having completely failed to convince my fellow Tribune
> of the error of his ways and to have a version of his Lex
> introduced in the Comitia Plebis Tributa for an up and
> down vote,

If I were to direct the Rogatores to report a count of the votes of
Plebeian citizens, by tribe, would you accept that as representative of
the vote of the Comitia Plebis Tributa? They could provide this report
when they provide the report of the Comitia Populi Tributa.

I appreciate your concern, but I'd also like to see the people vote on
the merits of the law rather than the question of having it voted by two
comitia.

Vale,

-- Marinus


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

> As always we find you trying to find a middle ground and
> to bring unity from disagreement and I must say that your
> proposal is not without merit.

Thank you.

> The problem is that the
> constitution is CLEAR in that ONLY the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> can adopt rules for its internal operation

That's correct. However, the Comitia Plebis Tributa is not a specific
webform or Cista. It is the Plebeian citizens voting in their tribes.
If we're going to have a vote by tribes anyway (and it seems we are)
then why not just get the Rogatores to report the results in two ways?
One report for the tribes as a whole, and the other for the tribes as
representative of the plebes only?

> and the only legal way I know for this to be done is to have a
> proposed lex placed before it.

But certainly you'll agree that my Consular imperium grants me the
auctoritas to can make this a temporary legal alternative, won't you?

Vale,

-- Marinus

EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

Today is the third day of Ludi Plebeii Quiz! Test your knowledge of
Roman things in an easy and fun way! You can still answer to Quiz 2,
too!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 8
-Ludi Plebeii Quiz 3

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI PLEBEII QUIZ
November 10th - 14th
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL

-------------

Quiz 3 - November 12th

1. According to Roman tradition, who was the father of Romulus and
Remus?
a. Mercurius
b. Mars
c. Iuppiter
d. Aeneas

2. Which Roman Emperor had the wall across Brittania built?
a. Trajan
b. Nero
c. Vespatian
d. Hadrian

3. The Carthegenians were ethnically
a. Romans
b. Greeks
c. Phonecians
d. Egyptians

4. What is the value of MCMLXXXVII ?
a. 1987
b. 1789
c. 1978
d. 1928

5. In a Republican Legion, the cohorts were divided into maniples
('hands'). How many maniples per cohort?
a. 2
b. 3
c. 4
d. 5

-------------

Still some time to participate to the Quiz 2 (in the previous email)!
Review the questions here:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

-------------

How to participate:

Answers to the quiz questions must be posted by e-mail to Arnamentia
Moravia Aurelia to arnamentia_aurelia@... with the following
information:

-header "Ludi Plebeii Quiz"

facts about the participant(s):
-Nova Roman name
-real name
-Nova Roman Province
-age
-e-mail address.

-number of the quiz
-answer to at least one question of the day�s quiz.

For more detailed information see for the RULES:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

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

Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Populo Quiritium Romano salutem dicit

Mi Fratres Sororesque,

I can do nothing but echo the words of Tribunus Tiberius Galerius in these
last few moments before we reach a dies nefastus. The proposed Lex Arminia
is nothing if not unconstitutional. If you were to sit down, and take a
moment, and read the relevant paragraphs of the Constitution (III.C., and
III.D.) side-by-side with the proposed Lex Arminia (which I have placed at
the bottom of this missive), I should hope you too will understand that it
is unconstitutional, as Tribune Lucius Arminius Faustus knows it is.

To vote for this proposal is to say that the legal processes which we have
put into place are meaningless, unworthy, negligible.... To vote for this
proposal is to completely ignore the process of law.

There is a process to accomplish what Lucius Arminius is trying to do. We
have put this process into place, and it is there to be followed, not to be
ignored. We have a process, and it must be followed.

I do not ask you to vote against historical accuracy, nor would I likely
ever. I ask you, the Roman People of the Quirites, to vote against what is
unconstitutional. Ladies and Gentlemen, if it is in you to uphold the
Constitution under which we ought to operate, you must vote AGAINST the LEX
ARMINIA DE RATIONE COMITIORUM PLEBIS ET POPULI TRIBUTORUM.

Most Sincerely,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
Plebeian Citizen

Salve Illustris Quintus Lanius Paulinus!

>Salve Censor Caeso Fabi Quintiliane,
>
>Certainly this alliance should benifit all citizens in Nova Roma.
>Those who have signed their names here have all certainly
>contributed the time, talents and effort to Nova Roma and whether or
>not citizens have agreed or disagreed with them before, their
>dedication to Res Republica is unquestionable.

Thank You and to prove You true I hereby pledge to dedicate even more
of my strength to Nova Roma during the rest of my term.

>Often many organizations hit brick walls and doldrums and it is
>sometimes necessary to step back, access the situation, regroup and
>take on the challenges with renewed vigour as they are doing. I wish
>this new group all the best and will be more than happy to cooporate
>with it when requested.

As our name (Libra) indicate our intention is to stand for a well
balanced policy with a lot of room for cooperation and serious
discussions. I will surely take your offer seriously.

>Regards,
>
>Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Illustris Quintus Lanius Paulinus!

>Salve Tribune Tiberi,
>
>I don't see it like that. Lately I have noticed the momentum of NR
>getting slower and slower and I am thinking some sort of jumpstart
>may be in order. I was hoping that we could get projects like
>Violanda going, more get-togethers etc. One of my Canada Occ.
>members wrote me last week saying that we needed a lot more action
>in NR. Apathy, he observed just breeds more apathy and eventually
>things just wither away to nothing.

This worries me too, but still I know that there is alot of creative
and very dedicated people in Nova Roma. So my hope is much stronger
than my worries. ;-)

>I therefore see no harm in this
>active group taking the bull by the horns and moving on to greater
>things. When all their goals are in action, there will be much on
>their plates and that means very little or no time for partisan
>politics in my opinion.

I have already felt the impact of my work load. You seem to be right
and I can't say that I am sorry! ;-)

>Regards,
>
>Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus who said in part

"....this a temporary legal alternative"

If we were involved in civil or foreign wars I would be very leery of anything that could be labeled a "temporary legal alternative" but we are not and so I can find NO justification for not using the procedures that the Constitution requires.

The government of Rome is whole and not rent asunder at the current moment due to any internal or external affairs that I am aware of .

Our constitutional officers are at hand to do what is legally required. Short cuts no matter how well meaning are not appropriate in times of peace and order and should be used with extreme caution even in war time. Many times the FORM of our action is as important as the substance of the issue in question.

If Tribune Lucius Arminius Faustus wants the Comitia Plebis Tributa to adopt his Lex then all he has to do is formally ask them to in the manner prescribed by the Nova Roman Constitution.


With utmost respect Consul

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribune Plebs

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The vote on the Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis Tributorum


Salve Tiberi Galeri,

> As always we find you trying to find a middle ground and
> to bring unity from disagreement and I must say that your
> proposal is not without merit.

Thank you.

> The problem is that the
> constitution is CLEAR in that ONLY the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> can adopt rules for its internal operation

That's correct. However, the Comitia Plebis Tributa is not a specific
webform or Cista. It is the Plebeian citizens voting in their tribes.
If we're going to have a vote by tribes anyway (and it seems we are)
then why not just get the Rogatores to report the results in two ways?
One report for the tribes as a whole, and the other for the tribes as
representative of the plebes only?

> and the only legal way I know for this to be done is to have a
> proposed lex placed before it.

But certainly you'll agree that my Consular imperium grants me the
auctoritas to can make this a temporary legal alternative, won't you?

Vale,

-- Marinus

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
wrote:

> Salve Tiberi Galeri,
>
> > As always we find you trying to find a middle ground and
> > to bring unity from disagreement and I must say that your
> > proposal is not without merit.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > The problem is that the
> > constitution is CLEAR in that ONLY the Comitia Plebis Tributa
> > can adopt rules for its internal operation
>
> That's correct. However, the Comitia Plebis Tributa is not a specific
> webform or Cista. It is the Plebeian citizens voting in their tribes.
> If we're going to have a vote by tribes anyway (and it seems we are)
> then why not just get the Rogatores to report the results in two ways?
> One report for the tribes as a whole, and the other for the tribes as
> representative of the plebes only?

Because there is no law, and no provision of the Constitution, that
would even imply that such a thing was proper or allowed. Sounds
simple enough to me. The Comitia Plebis votes, and the Comitia Populi
votes, and they are NOT the same thing, and they should NOT be treated
as if they were.

Is the Comitia Plebis officially called? Not that I've seen. And if
it's not, then it cannot pass any leges.

> > and the only legal way I know for this to be done is to have a
> > proposed lex placed before it.
>
> But certainly you'll agree that my Consular imperium grants me the
> auctoritas to can make this a temporary legal alternative, won't you?

I most certainly do not.

Your Consular authority is inferior to the Constitution, and the
passed leges. If you can point me to some place in either the
Constitution or the law that allows for counting the votes of the
Comitia Plebis when it has not been officially called, then I invite
you to do so.

But our good Tribune Lucius Arminius Faustus, who has taken it upon
himself to remake Nova Roma's system of laws despite what the
Constiution (you remember, that document which is supposed to be the
ultimate basis of our laws, decrees, and edicts), has not seen fit to
call the Comitia Plebis.

ONLY THE COMITIA PLEBIS CAN VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT CHANGES THE WAY THE
COMITIA PLEBIS VOTES.

It's really simple. Even Lucius Arminius Faustus should be able to
comprehend it.

But Lucius Arminius Faustus is being stubborn. His pride is hurt. He
is reacting with emotion, and his rage is blinding him to the reality
of the law. He is refusing not only to call the Comitia Plebis, but
even to ALLOW it to be called by another Tribune!

I'm not really sure how he thinks he has that authority, but that's
another discussion.

As a rule, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, I support you and your legal
interpretations. But in this instance, you're just making it up as you
go along, in the interest of expediency. There is a place for that,
where the law is silent, but here the law-- the Constitution, our
ultimate law that trumps leges, decreta, and edicta-- is plain.

Only the Comitia Plebis can vote on something that changes the way the
Comitia Plebis votes.

Only the Comitia Populi can vote on something that changes the way the
Comitia Populi votes.

Only the Comitia Centuriata can vote on something that changes the way
the Comitia Centuriata votes.

Simple.

If folks don't like that, then the answer is equally simple. CHANGE
THE CONSTITUTION! We have procedures for changing it in there for a
reason, you know!

But until they do that, the Constition, as it currently reads, stands
as the ultimate law of the land. It trumps priestly decrees,
magisterial edicts, and laws passed by the comitiae (whether or not
any flawed laws happen to be "caught" by the tribunes). And the
Constitution says that a vote of the Comitia Populi cannot change the
procedures of the Comitia Plebis, then a vote of the Comitia Populi
cannot change hte proedures of the Comitia Plebis, no matter how much
Lucius Arminus Faustus might want it to be able to.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

Salve, Caeso Fabius Amice; et salvete, omnes.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 08:17:41PM +0100, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus wrote:
> The Platform of the Libra Alliance

[snip]

> 1. The Religio Statement.
> Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and cultus
> privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.
>
> 2. The Real-life statement.
> Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
> civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings (e.g.
> Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
> Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).
>
> 3. Cooperation.
> The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public and
> private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
> Project, and actively search for public and private funding.
>
> 4. Traditionalism:
> Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in the
> modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and apply
> the Mos Maiorum in every activity.
>
> 5. Equilibrium.
> The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
> described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history, we
> have to protect the rights of the populus.
>
> 6. Education.
> The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people interested in
> Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not limited to,
> Religio, military, art and daily life.

Well, well. That sounds like the Nova Roma I *thought* I'd joined when I
originally came on board.

I've been away from this list - not posting but monitoring it pretty
regularly - because I found that I was getting discouraged by what I saw
Nova Roma becoming. I hung on (although barely and by the skin of my
teeth) through a few really bad stretches, when I saw the people that I
most respect here being denigrated, abused, and essentially forced out.
I'm glad that I did manage to stick it out; it now looks, once again,
like there's something here worth working toward.

I don't have much time to contribute these days - my life is quite full
- but I'll gladly give some of it to this effort.


Vale et valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Non omne quod licet honestum est.
Not everything that is permitted is honest.
-- Corpus Iuris Civilis: Digesta

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
>
> As always we find you trying to find a middle ground and to bring

unity from disagreement and I must say that your proposal is not
without merit. The problem is that the constitution is CLEAR in that
ONLY the Comitia Plebis Tributa can adopt rules for its internal
operation and the only legal way I know for this to be done is to have
a proposed lex placed before it.

>
> If the legislation in question has merit it can withstand an up or

down vote in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. (a version written just for
the CPT )

>
> I stand my my respectful request that ALL the citizens of Nova Roma

vote against it in its current clearly unconstitutional form.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs

I can but echo your admiration for Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus'
desire to effect compromise. It is one of the chief reasons I see him
as one of the finest Consuls our Republic has been priviliged to have.

I must also echo your warning that there is no legal recourse to enact
the solution he has proposed; unless the Comitia Plebis is offically
called to order, there is no way it can enact any legislation.
Plebiscita, I should more properly say.

I cannot praise you enough, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, for navigating
through these waters and finding a true middle ground that could
satisfy both the people and the law.

Let cooler heads prevail, and let the Constitution and the laws be
followed, and let both Comitiae be called to pass their own versions
of the lex at hand. Eminently reasonable.

Let a pair of laws be passed-- one in each of the two Comitiae-- with
precisely the same effect, but passed according to the Constitution's
strictures.

I cannot thank you enough, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, for offering a
sober and reasoned alternative.

Step one, quirites: vote down the law currently up for a vote, which
violates the Constitution on a technical matter, but which will be
rectified in a vote immediately following.

It really does seem the best solution to the problem.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

SALVETE OMNES, CIVES ROMANI

Glad to see how many different Cives appreciate our efforts to find
the right way to get Nova Roma stronger and stronger. I'm happy to
see how this engagement is appreciated too by many parts in our
republic, those who write everyday, and those who don't, but read
all messages and also contribute to our growth. I received some
private messages from friends and unknown Cives in Nova Roma after
the announcement from Ill. Senator Quintilianus, that was decided to
be our spokesman for it, but not our leader, because as above stated
we are not a party. We are just an alliance, we do not like
political sterile fights and we do believe in our common passion for
Ancient Rome.
When asked to join Libra Alliance some time ago, I was honoured that
my efforts for Nova Roma were appreciated, and in these weeks I
found more and more spurs for them.
I hope and I'm sure that we'll be able to recruit more and more
Cives with our same believes.

VALETE BENE
L IUL SULLA
Quaestror



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:

> Salve, Caeso Fabius Amice; et salvete, omnes.
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 08:17:41PM +0100, Caeso Fabius

Quintilianus wrote:

> > The Platform of the Libra Alliance
>
> [snip]
>
> > 1. The Religio Statement.
> > Nova Roma should increase knowledge about cultus publicus and

cultus

> > privatus and perform and actively support public life-rituals.
> >
> > 2. The Real-life statement.
> > Nova Roma should develop more real-life activities like rallies,
> > civil and military reenactment events, local group gatherings

(e.g.

> > Oppidia and Municipia),and cultural learning initiatives (e.g.
> > Academia Thules, and the Religio Romana rituals video project).
> >
> > 3. Cooperation.
> > The Res Publica should strengthen and increase links with public

and

> > private institutions eg the Vindolandia Project, the Magna Mater
> > Project, and actively search for public and private funding.
> >
> > 4. Traditionalism:
> > Nova Roma should work to become a beacon of Roman tradition in

the

> > modern world. In doing this the Res Publica should follow and

apply

> > the Mos Maiorum in every activity.
> >
> > 5. Equilibrium.
> > The Res Publica should aspire to the Roman political equilibrium
> > described by Polybios. At this period in Nova Roma's history, we
> > have to protect the rights of the populus.
> >
> > 6. Education.
> > The Res Publica should educate her citizens and people

interested in

> > Nova Roma about all aspects of Romanitas such as, but not

limited to,

> > Religio, military, art and daily life.
>
> Well, well. That sounds like the Nova Roma I *thought* I'd joined

when I

> originally came on board.
>
> I've been away from this list - not posting but monitoring it

pretty

> regularly - because I found that I was getting discouraged by what

I saw

> Nova Roma becoming. I hung on (although barely and by the skin of

my

> teeth) through a few really bad stretches, when I saw the people

that I

> most respect here being denigrated, abused, and essentially forced

out.

> I'm glad that I did manage to stick it out; it now looks, once

again,

> like there's something here worth working toward.
>
> I don't have much time to contribute these days - my life is quite

full

> - but I'll gladly give some of it to this effort.
>
>
> Vale et valete,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

=-

> Non omne quod licet honestum est.
> Not everything that is permitted is honest.
> -- Corpus Iuris Civilis: Digesta

Salvete Omnes,
I would thank the cives which appreciated the Libra as a group of
friends having the same goals and working hardly for NR.

I would invite you to visit our little official website too. Here
you could find the news about this friendly alliance and our common
goals:

www.fraelovdesign.it/libra/

[Please take my apologies because it have some little error, I'll
correct it asap ;-) ]

Valete bene
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senator, Tribunus and member of the Alliance

Salve Romans

While I congratulate the members of the Libra Alliance on their goals and wish them well I get the impression from their website ( VERY NICE FAC) that it is indeed a full blow political party. The website lists what the Alliance is, has its platform listed, lists it members and has the following writen in a section called "Elections 2005"

"Several members of the Alliance will run for the next Nova Roman elections. The Libra wishes to support its members inviting you to do the same. The list of the candidates supported by the Libra will be published as soon as possible."

While I have nothing against political parties in general and nothing against political parties in Nova Roma I think we should call a spade a spade.

If you have a set of goals , a written platform, a list of likeminded citizens you are prepared to support in an election then you are a political party.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
An independent Candidate for Praetor
Not a member of the Boni
Not a member of the Libra Alliance


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

Salve Paulinus,

> While I congratulate the members of the Libra Alliance on their

goals and wish them well

Thank you very much, thsi is our most effort to improve NR. Everyone
coming from each "political school" is invited to join the Libra.

> I get the impression from their website ( VERY NICE FAC)

Thank you very much, but it's very small and esay. I did it in 20
minutes ;-)

> that it is indeed a full blow political party. The website lists

what the Alliance is, has its platform listed,

Yes,, we have a political platform but please look for its brevity.
When we met to discuss about the goals of NR, everybody agreed that
we have all the same common mission and the same goals. The ways to
accomplish them were very similar but not the same. Well, we decided
to accomplish them with all our efforts but everyin with the own
method and way having the own personal opinion.

> lists it members
> and has the following writen in a section called "Elections 2005"
>
> "Several members of the Alliance will run for the next Nova Roman

elections. The Libra wishes to support its members inviting you to
do the same. The list of the candidates supported by the Libra will
be published as soon as possible."

>
> While I have nothing against political parties in general and

nothing against political parties in Nova Roma I think we should
call a spade a spade.

Amice, I agree qith you, I'm not against the political parties and I
don't understand why the people here refuse them as hardly as
possible. Yes, they are correct saying that the partisan system is
not Roman; however everybody know that during the Res Publica there
were political semi-organized groups.

About the list of candidates supported by the Allaince, of course if
we're a political groups of political friends, it's quite logical to
think that I would vote for candidates close to my ideas, to my
methods and to my goals. So...

1) in the Libra there are several former and current Magistrates;
2) the majority of them would run in the next elections
3) all the members of this group have same goals and political ways

1 + 2 + 3 = we would vote for our friends

This is not a "game" by a political party, this is logical and the
reality. I would vote for my friends being no in the Libra too... ;-)

> If you have a set of goals , a written platform, a list of

likeminded citizens you are prepared to support in an election then
you are a political party.

Well, if you prefer call the Libra a political party, please do it.
But we don't consider ourself a party. We're not forced to accept
the decision of the party, the Libra doesn't propose us a list of
candidates, we're not forced to vote for the candidates listed in
teh website, we have some differences and we prefer call us a group
of friends worried hardly for the future of Nova Roma.
You'll see that some member of the Libra wouldn't vote for each
candidate of the Libra, as I probably would vote for other
candidates out of the Alliance.

> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> An independent Candidate for Praetor

The Consul called the candidacy time? when? ;-)
I'm joking, I wish you good luck!

> Not a member of the Boni

Well, I'm happy you're not a member of the political party
called "Boni". However, Amice, your positions and actions during the
last year were very very close to the Boni. Do it make you a Bonus
too? In my opinion you're very close to be it, but you prefer be
forced by nobody. ;-)

Vale
FAC

Salvete Quirites,

I remind you all that today is nefastus publicus, where political actions
(including discourse) are prohibited by religious custom. Therefore I
will not be engaging in any public discussions that might be considered in
any way political until tomorrow.

Those citizens and magistrates who have addressed messages to me, I assure
you I have saved those messages, and will reply to them. But not today.

Valete,

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

EMILIA CURIA FINNICA AEDILIS PLEBIS QUIRITIBUS SPD,

Today is the fourth day of Ludi Plebeii Quiz! Take your chance and test
you're knowledge in Roman soldier's individual equipment! You can still
answer to Quiz 3!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

DAY 10
-Ludi Plebeii Quiz 4

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----------


LUDI PLEBEII QUIZ
November 10th - 14th
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL

-------------

Quiz 4 - November 13th

1. Scutum
a. sponge used for personal hygiene
b. entrenching tool
c. shield
d. utility belt

2. Caligae
a. sandals
b. dagger
c. backpack
d. ceremonial helmet

3. Balteus
a. sling
b. belt
c. breastplate
d. linen underwear

4. Dloabra
a. pickaxe
b. undershirt
c. neck cloth
d. backpack

5. Ligo
a. pack strap
b. entrenching tool
c. pallisade stake
d. blanket

-------------

Still some time to participate to the Quiz 3 (in the previous email)!
Review the questions here:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

-------------

How to participate:

Answers to the quiz questions must be posted by e-mail to Arnamentia
Moravia Aurelia to arnamentia_aurelia@... with the following
information:

-header "Ludi Plebeii Quiz"

facts about the participant(s):
-Nova Roman name
-real name
-Nova Roman Province
-age
-e-mail address.

-number of the quiz
-answer to at least one question of the day�s quiz.

For more detailed information see for the RULES:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/emiliacuria/index_ple_quiz.html

SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EACH QUIZ ACCEPTED WITHIN 48 HOURS TIME INTERVAL!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

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