> Salvete, fratres sororesque!
>
> I don't really understand this law at all
> (http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-10-07-vii.html)...

> The real reason I am interested is that I wanted to be paterfamilias
> of gens Aurelia if the listed pater couldn't be contacted (which
> seems to be the case)... in fact, the pater listed isn't even on the
> gens webpage as a citizen!

> Could someone else answer me privately?

> LUDI CIRCENSES
> November 15th
>
> Quarters
> by Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia and Marcus Sempronius Sophus

> Quarter Race 1

> .... here comes Vita Brevis on your
> left, rounding the inside, holding back then pulling forward, and
> passing!
>
> NO! That old trick of waiting until the last minute has worked again,
> and Vita Brevis takes the lead.

> Final results:
>
> 1. Vita Brevis
> 2. Inexpugnabilis III
> 3. Hor-Behedet
> 4. Portus Victoriae Iuliobrigensis

> Quarter Race 2
>
> HELLLLLLO Folks! This is Tickus Tockus McLoughlinus [...]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:

> Three. The BoD of NR INC. cannot, under Maine corporate law,
allow an
> illegal action to occur in the corporation. So no, we are not
forced to ratify it
> as Cordus indicates. Nor can the people eliminate the Senate. We
govern
> ourselves as provided for in the constitution. Of course since
everybody here is
> here because they want to, people could leave. We can't prevent
that. In fact
> NR would be better off if some did.


CATO: Fabius Maximus, this is a scare tactic. The State of Maine,
under our incorporation papers, could care less what we do as far as
our own By-Laws. That's a fact. The only thing they care about is
that we adhere to the statements we made to the State of Maine
regarding our planned activities. Our internal organization is of
no interest whatsoever to them. I know. I've written and/or
amended By-Laws for three (3) not-for-profit organizations in the
U.S. in three (3) different States (NY, MA, and IL). Our By-Laws
could state that our pets are members/citizens as well, and they
wouldn't care, as long as we obey the requirements for incorporation
as a not-for-profit corporation as set out by State Law.

And, of course, once again you raise the level of malice in the
discussion by suggesting that certain citizens should leave Nova
Roma. Nice going, for one who claims to represent the "old guard".

By all means, explain why you think the lex in question is a good
one or a bad one, but once again I say if you think there is a
serious threat of uncostitutionality, either bring up charges
against those you think responsible or keep your bile to yourself.

Vox populi vox dei.

Vale.

Cato

> Thank you for your thoughts.

> Michael Vaughan wrote:
> > The constitution grants itself authority higher than
> > passed laws which conflict with provisions in the
> > constitution itself. (I.A/I.B)
> > The rules in the constitution then automatically
> > take precedence, yes?

> Yes, except that one of those rules says that the
> tribúní may choose to allow the constitution to be
> overruled.

> So overruling the constitution is
> constitutional.

> > > So what do we do?
> > By I.B you should stop obeying the lex, or at least
> > the portions of the
> > lex which are
> > contradicted by the higher authority.
>
> Well, this is all very well, but who has the authority
> to decide whether the law is constitutional or not?

> I
> think it is, but others don't. So then what happens?
> Some people disobey the law and other people obey it?
> So let's imagine that this law passes and I obey it.
> Someone who thinks it's unconstitutional says that I
> am acting illegally and so he takes me to court.

> So, according to
> their theory, the comitia which has declared me
> innocent is actually not allowed to do so, because it
> is not allowed to decide whether the law I obeyed is
> constitutional or not! Where does that leave us? Back
> where we started. Everyone with his own idea of what's
> constitutional and what's not, everyone obeying some
> laws and not others, no one has the power to settle
> the matter once and for all. It would go on forever.

> My theory has the two advantages of being correct and

> of saving us from this sort of crazy situation.

> > Because however minor _this_ slip might be, the
> > self-regulation of the _Senate_ is
> > guaranteed under an almost identical clause (in V.F)
> > to the ones for the three
> > Comitia in (III.B/C/D). And that gives this man the
> > screaming heebeegeebees,
> > and I'm not a member of NR. ;)
>
> I don't see why you get heebeegeebees, whether
> screaming or silent, at this idea. In the ancient
> republic the procedures of the senate could be - and
> were - altered by the comitia. Why is everyone so
> scared of doing things the way the Romans did them?

> > there
> > seems little point in having a
> > constitution which claims "highest
> > authority" [when it can be overridden
> > by inaction]
> Yes, there is little point. I have been saying this
> for some time. ;)

> Salve Romans
>
> While the vote in the CPT is on going maybe we can talk about

>
> Who was most responsible for the Roman civil war Cato or Caesar

>
> Bonus Question: Why couldn't Cato and Caesar ever reconcile their

> What was the main reason for their antipathy?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Salve Romans
>
> While the vote in the CPT is on going maybe we can talk about other

>
> Who was most responsible for the Roman civil war Cato or Caesar and

>
> Bonus Question: Why couldn't Cato and Caesar ever reconcile their

> What was the main reason for their antipathy?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I wonder if there is a political 'tempest in the teapot' behind

> Joan of Arc campaign...an awful lot of fuss is being made over

> proposal...over a technical anomaly..........*why*??
>
> TGP- because I and the other Tribunes made a mistake in thinking

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>
> (snip)
>
> Pompeia -"you attempted, whether you like to hear it it or not,

>
> TGP -I have not done any such thing.
>
> I was along with the other Tribunes and the CP were the judges

>
> Would I have done thing differently with the gift of hindsight

>
> Would I have defended this or any other Plebian , Senator or not

>
> Absolutely not.
>
> Pompeia -"for reasons you felt somehow compelled to as Tribune,

>
> TGP- I believe the reasons I did what I did are clear and

>
> "Mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omium sermo"
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:10 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why Cordus is not correct
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"

> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > Pompeia Minucia Tiberia has said in part
> >
> > "***Tribune Galerius****, would you like to propose such a
> motion?
> >
> > TGP The constitution of Nova Roma already sets up the four

> as separate bodies
> > with the ability to set their own rules. The Plebeians are
> accorded one of these Comitia and two
> > are open to all citizen, while the Collegium Pontificum sets

> internal rules for the Comitia Curiata.
>
> Pompeia: Thanks for the info...I am clearly aware, but I
> nonetheless appreciate your efforts...Ahh, I really wanted to to
> propose that lex I suggested. Be a Pal:)
> >
> > You are the Tribune voicing the most passionate objection to

> proposal. Yes!
> >
> > TGP Yes I am but a better question would be to ask why the

> of this Lex and the other Tribunes are absent from this debate?
>
> Pompeia: I am sorry to have to break this to you Tiberi, but
> an 'absence' of the other tribunes from this the debate is

> indicator that there is not majority veto 'against' this

> lex. I have seen the Tribunes emerge and collegially affirm or
> condemn a veto with flank speed. Ahh,not in this instance,
> though......
>
> Moreover..........
>
> Heck I've seen one Tribune gather "Private and Personal"
> information from Praetores regarding their appraisal of the
> preformance of a controversial Senator on this list, and run

> these unofficial and trusted memos as if it were ex officum
> statements, a consensus of both of them..... ONLY to splatter

> on the ML as a tool to produce 'intercessio' against the

> sworn agreement between Senator Drusus and the

> in the presence of Minerva et al....a sworn document, ....only

> meet with failure of your intercessio.. probably on the basis

> shoddy (legally actionable?) extraction of information from the
> Praetors who would hardly proove to serve as an ex officium
> appraisal as to how Drusus lived up to his end of the
> bargain.......in short.....you attempted, whether you like to

> it it or not, to break an oath of the Gods made by the Censores

> Drusus, for reasons you felt somehow compelled to as Tribune,

> were rather scanty when it came to explaining relative
> merits. Anyway, aside from suggesting that this is possible

> rem sacrilege, and the possible battering ram of our Religio

> my nattering is off on a tangeant...but........ If you don't

> from your Tribune collegia, or do I, it is perhaps that they are

> in as much agreement with you as you suggest?
>
>
> We worry about the Tribunes taking charge of a minor clause in

> constititution which will greately benefit our civites, but it

> entirely 'ok' to behave shoddily in entrapping information
> marked 'private and persona' from the Praetors to use as your

> to intercessio of a divinely sworn and Latinized agreement. My,
> just in time for Bona Dea..remember that Tribune, Galeri? He

> get much praise for his antics either, but that's another story.
> >
> >
> > Let's segregate the assemblies into 3 clear-cut
> entities.......SNIP
> >
> > TGP Not very historical
>
> Pompeia: No, and that is one of the 'Cordian' points... the end
> product of the very thing you are suggesting, is..a methodology

> is embarrassingly unhistorical and impractible...but you'll

> it *works* when it serves one's purpose to quote the Vedian
> Consitutiion verbatim to counter another's arguments, doesn't
> it??...see below..........tempest in the teapot
> >
> > I wonder if there is a political 'tempest in the teapot'

> this
> > Joan of Arc campaign...an awful lot of fuss is being made over
> this
> > proposal...over a technical anomaly..........*why*??
> >
> > TGP- because I and the other Tribunes made a mistake in

> our fellow Tribune would fix his own legislation making it
> constitutional and legal. The current "campaign" is to defeat a
> clearly unconstitutional Lex from being enacte
>
> Pompeia: Strange; I heard no such statement made on the ML
> regarding the feeling of other Tribunes..and certainly none

> angst againt you...perhaps they anticipate the results of the

> If this 'doesn't' work out, things can be rearranged in keeping

> Germanicus' insistance....but yet, I am not sure if this would
> alter the outcome, other than to satisfy Dictator Germanicus,

> reasons I explained in a previous post
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Tribunus Plebs
> >
> > Valete
> Pompeia
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> 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

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

>... or Caesar and why?

>
> G. Equitius Cato Ti. Galerio Paulino quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve Tiberius Galerius et salvete omnes.
>
> Now hold on just a minute, Tiberius Galerius! I may be a loud-

> and cause some trouble but I think it's kind of unfair to try to

> the Civil War on me!
>
> Oh....wait a minute...you're probably talking about the Cato in

> Antiqua.
>
>
> oops
>
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato <--- Not the Cause of The Civil War
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"

> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > While the vote in the CPT is on going maybe we can talk about
> other things.
> >
> > Who was most responsible for the Roman civil war Cato or Caesar
> and why?
> >
> > Bonus Question: Why couldn't Cato and Caesar ever reconcile

> many differences?
> > What was the main reason for their antipathy?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Iulius
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:51 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Discussion Question of the Week



SALVE PAULINE

Interesting topic, and hard to answer. I'll answer with another
question, because the problem is much bigger, in my opinion...
Why are you reconducting the reasons for this civil war to 2 persons,
and not to the previous civil wars, with the persons that caused and
fought them, and to the fast expansion of Rome in ancient world? And
to the crisis of republican system?

BENE VALE
L IUL SULLA




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> While the vote in the CPT is on going maybe we can talk about other
things.
>
> Who was most responsible for the Roman civil war Cato or Caesar and
why?
>
> Bonus Question: Why couldn't Cato and Caesar ever reconcile their
many differences?
> What was the main reason for their antipathy?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




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]

----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:08 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why Cordus is not correct



---Salve Galerius Tribune et Salvete Omnes:

(snip)


I wrote:
> I wonder if there is a political 'tempest in the teapot' behind
this
> Joan of Arc campaign...an awful lot of fuss is being made over
this
> proposal...over a technical anomaly..........*why*??
>
> TGP- because I and the other Tribunes made a mistake in thinking
our fellow Tribune would fix his own legislation making it
constitutional and legal. The current "campaign" is to defeat a
clearly unconstitutional Lex from being enacted.

Pompeia: I'm still musing at the above statement, I apologize
quirites; 'the current *campaign* is to defeat a clearly
unconstitutional lex from being enacted.' I would say that if you
thought it was 'clearly' unconsitutional Tribune, causing grievously
legal harm to the people, you had 72 hours to 'campaign' against it,
when your 'campaigning' legally might have effected the changes you
have been 'worried' about as of late,... well after the 72 hour
vetoing period. A rather delayed reaction,isn't it? Instead, you
display alot of legally ineffectual grandstanding which serves no
purpose in protecting the people and guarding justice....no...it
just put people through the wringer over technical anomalies in
our 'clear as mud' constitution.

Like the song goes: "It's a little too late to do the *right thing*
now"...but you are always welcome to make a huge, needless fuss at
any time, for whatever purpose you so choose.

And now you have opened up another thread and you want to talk about
something else, I see? Do doubt! The Civil War? Theoretical causes
of civil unrest, maybe? Not, I ...I am going to work.

Pompeia
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

>

>GALERIUS: The constitution of Nova Roma empowers the Tribunes to

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:08 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why Cordus is not correct
>
>
>
> ---Salve Galerius Tribune et Salvete Omnes:
>
> (snip)
>
>
> I wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a political 'tempest in the teapot' behind
> this
> > Joan of Arc campaign...an awful lot of fuss is being made over
> this
> > proposal...over a technical anomaly..........*why*??
> >
> > TGP- because I and the other Tribunes made a mistake in

> our fellow Tribune would fix his own legislation making it
> constitutional and legal. The current "campaign" is to defeat a
> clearly unconstitutional Lex from being enacted.
>
> Pompeia: I'm still musing at the above statement, I apologize
> quirites; 'the current *campaign* is to defeat a clearly
> unconstitutional lex from being enacted.' I would say that if

> thought it was 'clearly' unconsitutional Tribune, causing

> legal harm to the people, you had 72 hours to 'campaign' against

> when your 'campaigning' legally might have effected the changes

> have been 'worried' about as of late,... well after the 72 hour
> vetoing period. A rather delayed reaction,isn't it? Instead, you
> display alot of legally ineffectual grandstanding which serves no
> purpose in protecting the people and guarding justice....no...it
> just put people through the wringer over technical anomalies in
> our 'clear as mud' constitution.
>
> Like the song goes: "It's a little too late to do the *right

> now"...but you are always welcome to make a huge, needless fuss

> any time, for whatever purpose you so choose.
>
> And now you have opened up another thread and you want to talk

> something else, I see? Do doubt! The Civil War? Theoretical

> of civil unrest, maybe? Not, I ...I am going to work.
>
> Pompeia
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Tribunus Plebs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Get unlimited calls to
>
> U.S./Canada
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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

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

>Who was most responsible for the Roman civil war Cato or Caesar and

>
> Hmmm, well I'd say the anti-Caesarians as a group were to blame.

> Later for their disloyalty though the ingrates would be purged by

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: Publius Albucius
To: NRGallia@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:21 AM
Subject: [NRGallia] Two opposites conceptions of a constitution ?


P. Minius Albucius A. Apollónio Cordo s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

In your post n° 30129 :



> You wrote

If we cannot use any legal principle to help us

interpret the constitution, then I am at a loss to see

how we can interpret the constitution at all. Surely

we need to interpret it, because no matter how

detailed it may be there will always be some slight

point of uncertainty or ambiguity. How do we interpret

it, then, if we cannot use any interpretive

principles?



> My opinion

That is not what I have said, but more precision is better.

I have spoken of " general principles of Law " (GPL).

We used the example of " what is not forbidden is allowed ".

GPL are roughly a kind of unwritten under-constitutional common law in the system considered.

Principles of interpretation are different. What is a problem for our poor minds is that we use the same word (" principle ") to talk about rules whose field of application is not the same.

Principles of interpretation could be compiled in a book called " how to decrypt juridical texts ". They apply, as you know it, to execution texts, laws, constitutions, international conventions, and so on.

The " useful effect " which we talked about is one of these principles.

As I know you and your insatiable curiosity for the exchanges of ideas, I will only add that they are a part of what linguists call " meta-language ". But no Apollonius please ! I will not reply on this subject ! No no...



> You wrote

But a violation of the constitution is not forbidden.

The constitution itself does not say "this

constitution may not be violated".



> My opinion

I am not sure to succeed in convincing you on this point, even explaining you the way I see things. Because either we are too far away each other and the gap between us is tremendous, or this is happily a simple matter or words.

As you must have understood it, I am rather optimistic and I think we may belong to what our friend Arminia Maior would call " normal human beings ". So I prefer taking the second path.

For me, and according what I have understood from my legal studies, is that a constitution, like a law, or every legal rule, must, like any rule, be respected.

The fact that we do not respect this rule is what I/is called a violation of it.

Violation does not mean changes. A rule may naturally be changed as you have correctly pointed it. Sometimes this rule sets itself the way this modification has to be made, other times (for several reasons), it does not foresee that amending process.

So a constitution, written (i.e. French one) or not (U.K.'s one), cannot be violated. But it can naturally be changed.



> You wrote in the same §

To be sure, it is implied, but you seem to be saying

(correct me if I'm wrong) that the constitution is superior to any

principles we may use to interpret it with, so we

cannot apply those principles to it. So let's say we

have a principle "if a law implies that it may not be

violated, then it may not be violated". That's a very

reasonable principle, but we can't apply it to the

constitution, because we can't apply any principles to

the constitution. So I don't see how we make any

progress from here.



> My opinion

No, my thought was not clear enough : please see my first opinion paragraph above. This hierarchy does not apply to interpretation principles or rules.



> You wrote

You have put your finger on the crucial point. You say

that "a constitution has, by essence, no enforcement

powers among reputed equal institutions". But if this

is so, why does every country in the world which has a

supreme constitution also have a supreme court, or

some similar body, which has the power to interpret

and enforce the constitution?



> My opinion

------Sorry for my limited English vocabulary : I wanted to say " impose (by force) ". Please re-read these lines applying this meaning !

------ About supreme courts : they say the constitutional rule, but cannot oblige (impose by force) any constitutional power to obey their judgments.

What makes every political systems work is that every " constitutional " institutions tacitly agree on the basic need for them in respecting the fundamental rule (however it is called : " constitution, magna carta, etc.) and, when a constitutional court exists, to obey its prescriptions.



> You wrote at last :

Nova Róma's constitution is partially enforced,

therefore it is only partially supreme. It is

protected and enforced by the tribúní. But their power

to protect and enforce it is limited. Therefore the

supremacy of the constitution is also limited, since a

constitution has no teeth except in so far as it is

enforced. This constitution is protected only as much

as any other léx is protected, and so it has only the

same authority as any other léx: and this is proved by

the constitution itself, which does not create any

institution with the power to enforce it. If the

constitution intended itself to be supreme, it would

have created such an institution. It has not, and

therefore it is not.

> My opinion

Alas ! Here is one of our few but key divergences : I think, on the contrary, that, from the moment you have a written text called " constitution ", you imply in the conception the more widely agreed that it is superior to other legal texts (hierarchy of norms). And, at this moment, it must be respected as such.

By essence, because it sets the relations between powers which cannot use some force between them, the constitution cannot create any juridical mechanism or power to impose its respect to any potential trespasser. And you cannot ask some constitutional court to do this function for it would be able to say to constitutional law, not to impose it by force.

You know, I was reading in the days later one of your opponent's post who wrote : you sustain the law of the strongest. This citizen was not totally wrong. For, behind the constitutional medium, your argument was and is very close to this one : " I respect you because you have organized you own defenses and supremacy means ; but I see that you have not, I respect no more this supremacy. ".

Even in the case of a unwritten " constitution " system, you could not back this thought up. Because it always exist fundamental laws which, because they form what Rousseau calls the " social contract " of the People considered, must be respected.

In order to make your thinking go further, I could end in putting forward that, in a certain sense, the less a rule can be imposed by force, the more it have chances to be a fundamental rule in the society considered.



Cura ut valeas, Apollonius.

P. Minius Albucius
Scr. Propr. Galliae
scr. Cadomago, Gallia, a.d. XII Kal. Dec. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NRGallia-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]

> There seems to be a bit of a leap from:
>
> > Yes, except that one of those rules says that the
> > tribúní may choose to allow the constitution to
> be
> > overruled.
>
> to:
>
> > So overruling the constitution is
> > constitutional.
>
> In the first place the constitution does not
> explicitly state that any
> act against which the tribunes do not pronounce
> intercessio is
> constitutional - that is an assertion by you (via
> your point 6 from msg
> 30056). Not pronouncing intercessio on a law that
> conflicts with the
> constitution or other higher authority would produce
> a conflict to be
> dealt with by clause I.B - the passed law explicitly
> does not
> "overrule" the constitution.

> At best we can deduce that it is _permitted_ to not
> pronounce
> intercessio against a law that conflicts with the
> constitution - since
> IV.A.7 does not, as you point out, use the word
> "must" - which I don't
> believe is useful to your argument.

> Anyway, consider your point 6 from your message
> 30056:
>
> "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."
>
> (point 1 being "1. The constitution says that the
> comitia tribúta
> cannot alter the procedures of the concilium
> plébis."
>
> I _think_ your following argument hangs on point 6,
> and your assertion
> that action "must" be taken to render the attempt
> invalid. That is,
> something needs to be "done" to render a law
> unconstitutional/invalid.

> There is no such statement in the constitution.
> There is provision for
> specific individuals (the tribunes) to pronounce
> intercessio, but no
> statement that this is the only route a conflict
> should be
> acknowledged. True, there is no body explicitly
> delegated a role of
> clarification in case of disagreement, but a
> dictator has the
> authority, so the capability exists, and that's a
> different argument
> really.

> To this end - consider the precedence rules in I.B.
> It explicitly
> refers to a hierarchy of potentially clashing rules
> (including "passed
> laws"), and the precedence in with those rules
> should override each
> other. This explicitly deals with laws which
> (potentially) conflict
> with the constitution.
>
> If you wish to argue that lack of tribunal
> intercessio implies
> automatic constitutional validity, I would
> counter-argue that the
> existence of I.B implies that it is possible for a
> passed law to be
> incompatible with higher authority, ie passage
> (implying the lack of
> tribunal intercessio) does not confer automatic
> constitutional
> compatibility.

> Can you expand and explain your point 6? I think I
> agree the logic of
> your 7-9, but I do not yet understand your
> explanation of 6.

> > > > So what do we do?
> > > By I.B you should stop obeying the lex, or at
> least
> > > the portions of the
> > > lex which are
> > > contradicted by the higher authority.
> >
> > Well, this is all very well, but who has the
> authority
> > to decide whether the law is constitutional or
> not?
>
> The constitution doesn't say, and this looks like a
> failing. Arguably a

> > I
> > think it is, but others don't. So then what
> happens?
> > Some people disobey the law and other people obey
> it?
> > So let's imagine that this law passes and I obey
> it.
> > Someone who thinks it's unconstitutional says
> that I
> > am acting illegally and so he takes me to court.
>
> The constitution doesn't say something like
> "individuals shall not
> bring legislation to the Comitia that violates
> other-Comitia
> self-regulation", it says that the _Comitia_ shall
> not pass such laws.
> That is, the Comitia was denied the right to pass
> the law.

> Can a trial be rustled up in that case? How _do_ you
> try a Comitia? :)

> > So, according to
> > their theory, the comitia which has declared me
> > innocent is actually not allowed to do so,
> because it
> > is not allowed to decide whether the law I obeyed
> is
> > constitutional or not! Where does that leave us?
> Back
> > where we started. Everyone with his own idea of
> what's
> > constitutional and what's not, everyone obeying
> some
> > laws and not others, no one has the power to
> settle
> > the matter once and for all. It would go on
> forever.
>
> Tsk, hardly forever. :) A dictator could issue an
> edicta on the matter,
> or body with the authority to do so (dictator or
> Comitia Centuriata,
> ratified by the senate) could amend the constitution
> to grant some body
> less extraordinary powers of jurisdiction over
> decisions regarding the
> precedence clause (I.B).

> Your B/second strategy is not the stalemate you
> declare it to be. 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.
> Further, it twice explicitly states that it limits
> the authority of all
> other bodies, and establishes a hierarchy of those
> other bodies
> (barring the dictator) below it.

> > > Because however minor _this_ slip might be, the
> > > self-regulation of the _Senate_ is
> > > guaranteed under an almost identical clause (in
> V.F)
> > > to the ones for the three
> > > Comitia in (III.B/C/D). And that gives this man
> the
> > > screaming heebeegeebees,
> > > and I'm not a member of NR. ;)
> >
> > I don't see why you get heebeegeebees, whether
> > screaming or silent, at this idea. In the ancient
> > republic the procedures of the senate could be -
> and
> > were - altered by the comitia. Why is everyone so
> > scared of doing things the way the Romans did
> them?
>
> Because the constitution, at the moment, explicitly
> guarantees the
> senate self-regulation. If this is to be a movement
> towards increased
> historical accuracy then wouldn't it be best done
> with clarity and
> consensus, instead of by the back door?

> Salve Michael;
> it is nice to read a thoughtful counter-argument

> though I see a
> hole in yours it is Cordus's place & pleasure:) to respond.

> For historicity and also for reason that the majority of the cives
> will be able participate is why I am against a Constitution and for
> the traditional Roman form of government.
> I have no desire to see NR controlled by a small minority of
> specialized Constitutional jurists.

On 17 Nov 2004, at 09:39 pm, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
[extensively]

Cordus, thank you for your patience. I'll keep my response compact.

> But you have certainly grasped a central point in my
> argument: in order for my conclusion to be correct, it
> must be the case that the constitution gives no person
> or institution the unlimited authority to decide the
> constitutionality or unconstitutionality of things. If
> your point about the dictator were correct, my
> argument would indeed be flawed.

Could you expand on your statement that the dictator "has no power to
determine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of existing
leges or of anything else?"

I.A.1 grants the dictator's edicts the ability to override the
constitution's provisions.
I.B grants the dictator's edicts the highest legal authority.
I.D grants the dictator's edicts the ability to alter the Constitution.

So, if a dictator declares "I arrogate to myself the right to determine
the constitutional compatibility of all laws and decrees", would this
not grant him the right to do what you say he cannot?

> I hope I've cleared it up, but if not please keep
> asking.

Shall do.

>> The constitution doesn't say, and this looks like a
>> failing. Arguably a
>
> The rest of your sentence has vanished, I'm afraid, so
> I can't make any very helpful comment. :)

There was no doubt a pithy comment in the lacuna. Sadly it escapes the
author's mind at this time. :)

> In short, amending the constitution changes the rules
> forever (or until the next amendment); the thing we
> have on our plates at the moment is a different
> process by which the constitution remains the same but
> a certain rule is waived in a particular instance. I
> see no reason to suppose that the constitution does
> not intend both processes to exist side by side.

The preponderance of references to "all leges", "highest legal
authorities" and "followed in legal authority" speaks otherwise to me,
but that's probably just wishful thinking. :)

-michael

> I hope you all have enjoyed the ludi and return to
> your offices and daily tasks with a refreshed spirit.

>> You wrote
>
>Surely we need to interpret it, because no matter how
>detailed it may be there will always be some slight
>point of uncertainty or ambiguity. How do we interpret
>it, then, if we cannot use any interpretive
>principles?
>
>
>
>> My opinion
>
>That is not what I have said, but more precision is better.
>I have spoken of " general principles of Law " (GPL).
>We used the example of " what is not forbidden is allowed ".

> Each Comitia has a statement that ONLY that Comitia can "pass laws
> governing the rules by which it shall operate internally".
>
> I can not see how that is different from your suggested wording of
>
> Michael- "There would need to be a line "only laws passed by this
> Comitia can
> regulate the rules by which it shall operate internally",
>
> TGP- The constitution first uses the word ONLY and the constitution
> has "pass laws and you have "laws passed" this is a difference without
> a distinction?

> what it means in my opinion is that the Tribunes can announce
> intercessio to prevent an item from being voted on or if as in this
> case we missed it we can announce intercessio after it passes the
> Comitia as both powers are give in our constitution.

> Salve Gaius Equitius Cato
>
>
> Congratulations on your appointment as Legate for Regio Nova

>
>
> Vale
> Tiberius Galerius

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

> Gn. Equitius Marinus Consulis Quiritibus SPD
>
> I hereby call for candidates to stand for election to the ordinary
> magistracies of the Comitia Centuriata and the Comitia Populi

> Anyone wishing to serve in any of these positions must have been a
> citizen for at least six months by Kal. Ian. MMDCCLVIII (January

> 2005) and be an assiduus (tax-paying) citizen. I will convene the
> comitia for the elections at a later time, but candidates are
> welcome to announce themselves and begin campaigning if they wish.
>
> All candidates *must* let me know of their intention to stand for

> directly by sending a message to gawne@c... (gawne AT cesmail DOT
> net) in order to be placed on the ballot. Please include the word
> "Candidate" in the subject of the message, and be sure to tell me

> full Roman name and the office you are pursuing.
>
> 1 Censor
> Must be at least 27 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

> Must already have served at least six months as a consul,

> aedilis, quaestor, tribunus plebis, magister aranearius (formerly
> curator araneae), editor commentariorum (formerly curator

> rogator, or provincial governor
>
> 2 Consuls
> Must be at least 27 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

> Must already have served at least six months as a consul,

> aedilis, quaestor, tribunus plebis, magister aranearius (formerly
> curator araneae), editor commentariorum (formerly curator

> rogator, or provincial governor
>
> 2 Praetors
> Must be at least 25 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

> Must already have served at least six months as a consul,

> aedilis, quaestor, tribunus plebis, magister aranearius (formerly
> curator araneae), editor commentariorum (formerly curator

> rogator, or provincial governor
>
> 2 Curule Aediles
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> 8 Quaestors
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> 1 Magister Aranearius (webmaster)
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> 1 Editor Commentariorum (newsletter editor)
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> 2 Rogators
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> 4 Diribitores
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> 2 Custodes
> Must be at least 21 years old as of Kal. Ian. 2758 (January

>
> Citizens considering the offices of Rogator, Diribitor, and Custode
> should consult the text of the Lex Equitia de Vigintisexviris at
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-10-07-vi.html for

> details.
>
> Valete
>
> Gn. Equitius Marinus
> Consul

>
> ---Salve Marinus Consul et Salvete Omnes:
>
> I was wondering what the deadline is for the acceptance of
> declarations for candidacy .

> Before I send my 18 dollars to the NR address (PO box 1897, Wells, ME
> 04090), I ask "who will open my letter?"

> I'd like some kind of acknowledgement (email?) that it was received,
> but don't know which NR personality will be in charge of that.

>
> Salve, Finnica!
>
> > I hope you all have enjoyed the ludi and return to
> > your offices and daily tasks with a refreshed spirit.
>
> [Bardulus] Thank you and your Cohors for these wonderful ludi!
> (Although there were no chances for the Russata, snif).
>
> Vale bene,
>
> H. Rutilius Bardulus
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡100 MB GRATIS!
> Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
> http://correo.yahoo.es

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin_Casey" <caseyk@h...> wrote:
>
> I've a ~300 AD Roman ring with a rough intaglio on the bezel, and
> I'm wondering of what or whom the featured figure is.
>
> I understand that Gods/Goddesses were often featured, but I don't
> know if every lar and penates might have made his or her way to a
> ring at some point.
>
> Here's an image of the ring in question:
>
> http://depts.husson.edu/caseyk/intaglio.jpg
>
> The scan didn't show the engraving that well, so I outlined the
form
> as best I could. It seems to me like a humanoid with a seahorse-
> looking squiggle at his/her left leg, and something sitting on
> his/her crooked right arm.
>
> I thought perhaps this was Minerva with an owl, but I'm fairly
> ignorant in general, and very ignorant concerning old bronze
rings.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin