A. Apollonius Cordus Pompejae Minuciae Straboni
omnibusque sal.

> I am not sure at one point where I argued that the
> Tribunes were in
> essense 'tribune-making' machines. But you are
> welcome to believe
> that I think that if you wish....

No, indeed you didn't argue that, and I didn't intend
to suggest that you did. Let me try again to explain
why I brought the point up - it's quite complex, and I
obviously didn't do a very good job of it the first
time.

You were suggesting that C. Equitius has been seeking
to overturn, overrule, or defy a 'decision' of the
tribunes. That is, of course, quite a serious
suggestion, because defying the tribunes is a serious
offence (punished, in the early republic, by
precipitation from the Tarpeian Rock, as you yourself
pointed out). So I wanted to examine whether he had in
fact defied a 'decision' of the tribunes.

You didn't specify exactly what 'decision' you thought
Cato was defying or overruling, so I thought it would
be useful to look at everything which could possibly
be seen as a tribunician decision. The idea was that,
once the exact nature of the decision was clear, it
would be easier to see whether Cato was in fact
defying it.

So one of the possibilities I looked at was that the
tribunes had decided to make C. Curius a tribune, and
that this was the decision which Cato was defying. But
of course, if the tribunes cannot make anyone a
tribune, then they obviously did not decide to make C.
Curius a tribune. So this allowed me to eliminate this
possibility and move on to look for a better one.

That was the sole reason I mentioned the idea. At no
point did I state or even imply that you had suggested
it, as I'm sure anyone who read my message will assure
you.

> ... I'm also 'pretty
> sure' that I've
> acknowledged the rights to freedom of expression,
> atleast once or
> twice :)

Yes, you did. And you quite rightly said that freedom
of expression has its limits. You further suggested
that Cato had transgressed these limits. I was trying
to examine whether he had in fact done that.

> I did argue, and still do, that the Tribunes have
> the
> constitutional right to administer the law, and in
> so doing, render
> an application/interpretation of leges pertinent to
> this, in a
> manner they see as being within the letter and
> spirit of the
> constitution.

On this we entirely agree.

> ... The Tribunes do not see Saturninus
> resignation as
> valid, and see him as still a Tribune. I do not
> personally believe
> they are 'inventing' a Tribune in Saturninus'
> situation.

Indeed not, and, as I mentioned, I never said that you
did so believe.

> I didn't invent the word 'co-opt' although I have
> used it in
> responses a couple of times, when others have used
> it in the course
> of conversation in this matter. I don't care for
> the word really,
> but that is just 'me'.

I certainly never intended to accuse you of inventing
the word 'co-opt'! I could not agree more strongly
with your statement that you did not invent it.

> Most people can read what I wrote and formulate
> their own
> conclusions, for better or for worse, I'm sure.

Yes. I read what you wrote and concluded that you
believe Cato has been trying to defy or overturn a
tribunician decision. If you do believe that, I feel
it quite important to persuade you that your belief is
incorrect.

> And I am sorry the Tribunes' decision offends you to
> the point where
> you took part in discussions regarding impeachment
> proceedings, as
> per Galerius' request, who evidentally is not
> deliriously happy with
> matters either.

No need to be sorry! But you seem to consider that by
replying to Ti. Galerius' question about impeaching
tribunes I was in some way encouraging him to do so.
This is rather odd, given that in my reply I pointed
out that it was virtually impossible to impeach
tribunes. A less encouraging reply I can hardly
imagine! Indeed it was considerably less encouraging
than the reply of C. Julius, who pointed out the
possibility of having a tribune deposed by the
concilium plebis.

> ... And why are we still wanting to talk
> about it...it
> is a done deal, and lets move on to see what we can
> do to atleast
> potentially prevent a similar future dilemna, shall
> we?

I quite agree that there is no point in further
discussing whether Saturninus is or is not a tribune.
That's why I haven't been discussing it recently.

My message to you the other day was on a related but
different subject: whether Cato has been trying to
defy or overturn a decision of the tribunes. You see,
it is my firm opinion that, *regardless* of whether
Saturninus is or is not a tribune, Cato has not been
trying to defy or overturn a decision of the tribunes.
The purpose of my message was to set out the reasoning
behind this opinion.

> Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius wrote a post a couple of
> days ago, which
> pretty much parallels the content of the rest of
> your post here. It
> is message 34034. I in turn responded to his
> concerns in message
> 34052. In lieu of repeating myself, I invite you to
> read my reply
> to Metellus.

Thank you for the references. Your reply to Metellus
seems to be largely concerned with this idea of
impeachment, which you mentioned above. I don't really
see, therefore, how it relates to Cato, who has not
suggested impeaching anyone.

> I don't see a fruitful need to continue this
> discussion any further,
> in light that we are working on new legislation to
> resolve the
> matter in what will likely be a more productive
> fashion.

Well, if that means that you are not going to carry on
accusing other citizens of serious misconduct, then by
all means let's drop the subject.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve QFM,

LOL, you disappoint me here. If I had ever packed it in, I always
wanted to squeal and whine in the grand style of Nero,
wailing, "Ohhhhhhh, what an artist Nova Roma has lost!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/13/05 6:38:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> Whattaya think?
>
>
> It has my vote. It also stops these grandstanding
speeches "Because no one
> here takes me seriously
> I resign all my offices and my citizenship et al et al."
>
> This way a citizen fades away, and we don't have to throw him from
tarpan
> rock for treason!
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A. Apollonius Cordus Cn. Equitio Marino amico
omnibusque sal.

> ... There are citizens I only
> speak with once or
> twice a year, at some event. They are proud of
> their citizenship but
> have no interest in the on-line activities of Nova
> Roma. When they
> joined Nova Roma they did so under certain
> conditions, none of which
> required them to participate in the mailing lists,
> or pay the taxes.
> The socii status recognizes this, and accords them a
> minimal citizenship
> status rather than throwing them out.

I'm puzzled. Is anyone suggesting that people should
lose their citizenship if they fail to participate in
the mailing lists or pay the taxes? My suggestion, at
any rate, was that anyone who responds to the census
be registered as a citizen, as at present, and that
anyone who doesn't respond to the census be considered
no longer a citizen, though always with the option to
resume citizenship at any time. I can't see how that
would exclude the people you're talking about.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Cassio Calvo omnibusque sal.

> Nova Roma does have a form of postliminium.
> According to the Lex
> Fabia de Censo found at
>

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2003-05-31-i.html

...

> "IX. At any time, a Socius may contact the Censores
> and ask to
> regain his/her Citizenship, which will then be
> granted unless there
> are compelling reasons otherwise."

Indeed; but postliminium in the republic was automatic
and could not be refused by the censores or anyone else.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Romans


Would the following Citizens please drop me a private note listing your province. Thanks

Quintus Sevilius Fidenas
Gaius Ambrosius Artorius
Iulia Caesaris
Gaius Equitius Cato
Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Quintus Postumius Albinus Maius
Iusta Sempronia Iustina
M. Ambrosius Falco
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Julilla Sempronia Magna
Quintus Valerius Callidus
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Lucius Aelius Baeticus Murena
Tiberius Ambrosius Quintilianus


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor








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

Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia Q. Cassio Calvo SPD

Regarding the 'non-lawyerese' explanation you mention - is it something
you've written privately and specifically to deal with this enquiry, or is it
available to everyone? If the latter, would you please tell me if it's on the
NR website, or whether I might be able to get a copy. I don't think I'm thick
(well, not too thick) but it would be good to see another version of the new
law, so that I can be sure I've understood all the implications.

Multas gratias tibi ago.


In a message dated 14/03/2005 14:18:15 GMT Standard Time,
Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com writes:

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:29:58 -0000
From: "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@...>
Subject: Re: Gens Laws


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Guiboche" <nate@m...>
wrote:

> Salve Good Sir
>
> I shall study this!! I hope it is not too complex!!! (I feel

there will be

> no such luck!!)
>
> Quintus Sertorius

Salve,

Your gut feeling would be correct. It's complicated and a tad bit
confusing on the first couple of read throughs but after the tenth
or so time reading it in small chunks the "lawyerese" starts to
become a little clearer.

I'm emailing you a much longer explanation that's not in "lawyerese".

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus






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

G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete omnes

I just had an idea. I know, hide the women and children, put the
livestock safely in the barn, and count the silverware...

But seriouisly, as I see it, under our law we currently have three
types of affiliation within Nova Roma: full taxpaying citizenship
(assidui), non-taxpaying citizenship (capite censi), and
non-citizenship (socii).

My idea to repeal those Articles in the lex Fabia would actually RAISE
the status of the affiliates of whom you speak (the socii), Censor:
all they need do is reply to the Census and they become citizens,
non-taxpaying and non-voting. They wouldn't do anything more than
they do now which is, I presume, say "here!" when the Census rolls
around.

Also, Apollonius Cordus, by repealing Article IX of the lex Fabia, we
do away with the unhistorical ability to deny citizenship to anyone
who wishes to reclaim it.

So, my suggested text for the new lex is, in its entirety, with
amendements as suggested by others, is:



"LEX _________ DE CIVITATE MAGISTRATUMQUE EIURANDAE

I. The lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda and the lex Equitia
de Civitate Eiuranda are hereby repealed in their entirety. The lex
Fabia de Censo is hereby amended by the repeal of Articles VII, IX,
and X.

II. Citizenship in Nova Roma is considered resigned if, and only if,
a citizen does not respond to a Census of the population held as
prescribed by law.

III. Any citizen who wishes to reclaim their citizenship may do so by
writing to the Censors of Nova Roma expressing their desire to do so.
In accordance with the ancient practice of postliminium, they may
resume their citizenship exactly as if it had never been lost, with
the following guidelines:

A. The Censors' Office will keep a record of all names of citizens who
have been struck from the rolls of citizenship to ensure that there is
no duplication of names possible.

B. No public offices held at the time of resignation shall carry
over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any religious
titles and their corresponding century points as specified by the
Collegium Pontificum.

C. Any other titles, honors, effects, or century points shall carry
over to the returning citizen only after they have remained a citizen
for six (6) months after their return. Century points awarded for
longevity shall not include the time during which a citizen did not
appear on the rolls.

D. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the Censors
collegially.

IV. An elected magistrate may resign their office at any time by
publishing a notice of resignation in the Forum of Nova Roma (the
"Main List"), with the following results:

A. If a magistrate resigns his or her office, that resignation shall
take effect immediately upon publication of that resignation.

B. The office they held will become vacant immediately upon
publication of their resignation, and shall only be filled by an
election called by the appropriate magistrate as prescribed by law."



It think that's my story, and I'm sticking to it :-) Of course, as
you may have noticed, I'm not in favour of the idea of a grace period
when it comes to magistracies for reasons I've extolled on several
occasions, so this would be a lex designed with that in mind.

Valete bene,

Cato

Salve Cato


Very Nice work.

Now I hope one of the Magistrate that can, will propose this very good lex.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: gaiusequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The status of the socii



G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete omnes

I just had an idea. I know, hide the women and children, put the
livestock safely in the barn, and count the silverware...

But seriouisly, as I see it, under our law we currently have three
types of affiliation within Nova Roma: full taxpaying citizenship
(assidui), non-taxpaying citizenship (capite censi), and
non-citizenship (socii).

My idea to repeal those Articles in the lex Fabia would actually RAISE
the status of the affiliates of whom you speak (the socii), Censor:
all they need do is reply to the Census and they become citizens,
non-taxpaying and non-voting. They wouldn't do anything more than
they do now which is, I presume, say "here!" when the Census rolls
around.

Also, Apollonius Cordus, by repealing Article IX of the lex Fabia, we
do away with the unhistorical ability to deny citizenship to anyone
who wishes to reclaim it.

So, my suggested text for the new lex is, in its entirety, with
amendements as suggested by others, is:



"LEX _________ DE CIVITATE MAGISTRATUMQUE EIURANDAE

I. The lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda and the lex Equitia
de Civitate Eiuranda are hereby repealed in their entirety. The lex
Fabia de Censo is hereby amended by the repeal of Articles VII, IX,
and X.

II. Citizenship in Nova Roma is considered resigned if, and only if,
a citizen does not respond to a Census of the population held as
prescribed by law.

III. Any citizen who wishes to reclaim their citizenship may do so by
writing to the Censors of Nova Roma expressing their desire to do so.
In accordance with the ancient practice of postliminium, they may
resume their citizenship exactly as if it had never been lost, with
the following guidelines:

A. The Censors' Office will keep a record of all names of citizens who
have been struck from the rolls of citizenship to ensure that there is
no duplication of names possible.

B. No public offices held at the time of resignation shall carry
over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any religious
titles and their corresponding century points as specified by the
Collegium Pontificum.

C. Any other titles, honors, effects, or century points shall carry
over to the returning citizen only after they have remained a citizen
for six (6) months after their return. Century points awarded for
longevity shall not include the time during which a citizen did not
appear on the rolls.

D. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the Censors
collegially.

IV. An elected magistrate may resign their office at any time by
publishing a notice of resignation in the Forum of Nova Roma (the
"Main List"), with the following results:

A. If a magistrate resigns his or her office, that resignation shall
take effect immediately upon publication of that resignation.

B. The office they held will become vacant immediately upon
publication of their resignation, and shall only be filled by an
election called by the appropriate magistrate as prescribed by law."



It think that's my story, and I'm sticking to it :-) Of course, as
you may have noticed, I'm not in favour of the idea of a grace period
when it comes to magistracies for reasons I've extolled on several
occasions, so this would be a lex designed with that in mind.

Valete bene,

Cato




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ahrpag/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1110922953/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>




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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

M. Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
shuttling between Hibernia and America Occidentalis, I'm now in a
bit of a tizzy. When is the date for my taxes to be in? Has it
already occurred; I don't want to set a bad example;) Since I'll be
in the U.S I'll be paying the dollar rate...with apologies
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

M. Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
Salve Pauline;
Sorry, I'm away from my legal and historical books but if there are
no impediments, I'm be proud to propose this - bringing back the
practices of Republican Rome is wonderful.
optime valete
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

>
> Very Nice work.
>
> Now I hope one of the Magistrate that can, will propose this very

good lex.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gaiusequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@y...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:42 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The status of the socii
>
>
>
> G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino A. Apollonio Cordo

quiritibusque

> S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> I just had an idea. I know, hide the women and children, put the
> livestock safely in the barn, and count the silverware...
>
> But seriouisly, as I see it, under our law we currently have

three

> types of affiliation within Nova Roma: full taxpaying

citizenship

> (assidui), non-taxpaying citizenship (capite censi), and
> non-citizenship (socii).
>
> My idea to repeal those Articles in the lex Fabia would actually

RAISE

> the status of the affiliates of whom you speak (the socii),

Censor:

> all they need do is reply to the Census and they become citizens,
> non-taxpaying and non-voting. They wouldn't do anything more

than

> they do now which is, I presume, say "here!" when the Census

rolls

> around.
>
> Also, Apollonius Cordus, by repealing Article IX of the lex

Fabia, we

> do away with the unhistorical ability to deny citizenship to

anyone

> who wishes to reclaim it.
>
> So, my suggested text for the new lex is, in its entirety, with
> amendements as suggested by others, is:
>
>
>
> "LEX _________ DE CIVITATE MAGISTRATUMQUE EIURANDAE
>
> I. The lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda and the lex

Equitia

> de Civitate Eiuranda are hereby repealed in their entirety. The

lex

> Fabia de Censo is hereby amended by the repeal of Articles VII,

IX,

> and X.
>
> II. Citizenship in Nova Roma is considered resigned if, and only

if,

> a citizen does not respond to a Census of the population held as
> prescribed by law.
>
> III. Any citizen who wishes to reclaim their citizenship may do

so by

> writing to the Censors of Nova Roma expressing their desire to

do so.

> In accordance with the ancient practice of postliminium, they may
> resume their citizenship exactly as if it had never been lost,

with

> the following guidelines:
>
> A. The Censors' Office will keep a record of all names of

citizens who

> have been struck from the rolls of citizenship to ensure that

there is

> no duplication of names possible.
>
> B. No public offices held at the time of resignation shall carry
> over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any

religious

> titles and their corresponding century points as specified by the
> Collegium Pontificum.
>
> C. Any other titles, honors, effects, or century points shall

carry

> over to the returning citizen only after they have remained a

citizen

> for six (6) months after their return. Century points awarded for
> longevity shall not include the time during which a citizen did

not

> appear on the rolls.
>
> D. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the

Censors

> collegially.
>
> IV. An elected magistrate may resign their office at any time by
> publishing a notice of resignation in the Forum of Nova Roma (the
> "Main List"), with the following results:
>
> A. If a magistrate resigns his or her office, that resignation

shall

> take effect immediately upon publication of that resignation.
>
> B. The office they held will become vacant immediately upon
> publication of their resignation, and shall only be filled by an
> election called by the appropriate magistrate as prescribed by

law."

>
>
>
> It think that's my story, and I'm sticking to it :-) Of

course, as

> you may have noticed, I'm not in favour of the idea of a grace

period

> when it comes to magistracies for reasons I've extolled on

several

> occasions, so this would be a lex designed with that in mind.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ahrpag/M=298184.6018725.7038619.30011
76/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1110922953/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gsl
f/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>

>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-

Roma/<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/>

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

unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

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

of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

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

Salve Cato, Amice!

I am sorry that You didn't talk to me about my lex. Now the Boni who
fought it like hell and lost two years ago enjoy your support. I am
not angry, but i would appreciate at least _one_ private question
before going public.

I will not kill myself to defend the lex, but I can't just let You
play with the history of things You haven't looked into as far as I
know. Sorry, I don't like to show the obvious splitter that we have
over and over on "our" side! I really don't grudge Maximus this. He
hasn't deserved it! But I can't be silent!
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Editor-in-Chief, Publisher and Owner of Roman Times Quartely
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

Good Day Gaius!!

Thank for the welcome it is good the hear from you also!! There is much
work to do now...

Quintus Sertorius

----- Original Message -----
From: "gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <gaiuspopilliuslaenas@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:25 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Laws


>
>
> Salve Quinte Sertori!!!
>
> Good to have you back indeed!
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Gaius Popillius Laenas
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Guiboche" <nate@m...>
> wrote:
>> Good Day All
>>
>> I have been away for quite some time in the service of my Country
> and I am currently trying to sort out the disposition of the members
> of my Gens... But I have noticed that there has been changes the
> responsibilities and authority of the Gens heads... Can someone
> give me some reference as to these news rules?
>>
>> Quintus Sertorius (Independent)
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Cato, et salvete omnes -

What benefit would there be to changing the current system?
Citizens get to vote, taxpaying Citizens get a bit more influence, the
Socii are carried on the books as friends/allies, and then there's the
casual readers who don't want to register at all ("lurkers") but at
least are allowed to speak up.

Citizenship *IS* clearly distinguished, and carries benefits (voting,
office-holding etc.).
Do you have another category in mind that needs to be distinguished,
and what would the practical benefits be in changing things?

Vale et valete
- Troianus

On Mar 14, 2005, at 12:11 PM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:

>
>
> G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino Censore S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Censor
>
> I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but in fact they really *don't* have
> any type of citizenship, according to the law. The lex Fabia says
> that they are specifically considered an "ally", not a citizen.
> Although I can empathize with a desire to keep out of the on-line
> stuff to some degree, there must be something which defines
> citizenship clearly and definitively if it is to have any worth at all
> --- *we* should be putting conditions on *granting* citizenship, not
> the other way around. Is there another way we can do this; perhaps
> create a *new* system by which non-citizens can be "allies"? This is
> perhaps a little more complex than simply writing a resiognation lex,
> but I think it will benefit the res publica in the long run if we
> consider this.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
> wrote:
>> Salvete Quirites,
>>
>> gaiusequitiuscato wrote:
>>
>>> Citizenship should mean a great deal more
>>> than just voting in our elections, which, in essence, is the only
>>> difference now. Which is better, 2000 people who hang around or 200
>>> that want to actually see the res publica grow and work? I'm not
>>> trying to offend anyone or cut people off, but citizenship is a
>>> serious and meaningful thing. I think that should be emphasized.
>>
>> It is Cato, but not every Nova Roman who takes their citizenship
>> seriously reads these mailing lists, and not every one of them has
> any interest in reading them. There are citizens I only speak with
> once or twice a year, at some event. They are proud of their
> citizenship but have no interest in the on-line activities of Nova
> Roma. When they joined Nova Roma they did so under certain
> conditions, none of which required them to participate in the mailing
> lists, or pay the taxes. The socii status recognizes this, and accords
> them a minimal citizenship status rather than throwing them out.
>>
>> Valete quirites,
>>
>> -- Marinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Cordus -

Keep in mind that we are also a Non-Profit Organization, and therefore
*required* to maintain a list of members!

Therefore, YES, Citizenship CAN be resigned: They are quitting the NPO
group, they want to be taken off our roster of Members and we are
obligated to do so, in order to keep our list as accurate as feasible.

Vale
- Troianus

On Mar 14, 2005, at 2:18 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

>
> A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Cassio Calvo omnibusque sal.
>
>> Nova Roma does have a form of postliminium.
>> According to the Lex
>> Fabia de Censo found at
>>
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2003-05-31-i.html
>
> ...
>
>> "IX. At any time, a Socius may contact the Censores
>> and ask to
>> regain his/her Citizenship, which will then be
>> granted unless there
>> are compelling reasons otherwise."
>
> Indeed; but postliminium in the republic was automatic
> and could not be refused by the censores or anyone else.
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Q. Metellus Quiritibus sal.

If anyone has had any difficulty, as I have, in finding a copy of
Fowler's "Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic", Elibron has
made paperback reprints of the book, going for 15.95 USD. The
information is here:
http://www.elibron.com/english/other/item_detail.phtml?msg_id=225180.

Most places sell this for about 30 USD, and I've seen it up into the
200 range. Might be worth your money!

Valete,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
Fetialis

Salve Tribune Marca Hortensia Maior

You have until the last day of April 2005. After that date any citizen who pays late will have to add the 50% late fee.

Just before the Ides of March we have about 75 citizens who have paid for 2005.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Taxes



M. Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
shuttling between Hibernia and America Occidentalis, I'm now in a
bit of a tizzy. When is the date for my taxes to be in? Has it
already occurred; I don't want to set a bad example;) Since I'll be
in the U.S I'll be paying the dollar rate...with apologies
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12932rg3p/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1110925931/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>




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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Salve Troianus my Cuz and Quaestor colleague

The only thing I believe our Colleague Cato is doing with this well debated and well refined Lex , is to bring us a little closer to Rome. Cordus pointed out that it was unheard of and not really possible for a Roman to resign their citizenship except by staying away from the Census.
NR has a Census and one can drift away and then drift back with no penalty for doing so.

Anybody can still make suggestions to the proposed lex for the simple reason that only a Magistrate of a higher rank can place this before the voters.

I will also at long last bring an end to the "uncertainty" in some minds on when a resignation takes effect.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: S E M Troianus<mailto:hermeticagnosis@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The status of the socii


Salve Cato, et salvete omnes -

What benefit would there be to changing the current system?
Citizens get to vote, taxpaying Citizens get a bit more influence, the
Socii are carried on the books as friends/allies, and then there's the
casual readers who don't want to register at all ("lurkers") but at
least are allowed to speak up.

Citizenship *IS* clearly distinguished, and carries benefits (voting,
office-holding etc.).
Do you have another category in mind that needs to be distinguished,
and what would the practical benefits be in changing things?

Vale et valete
- Troianus

On Mar 14, 2005, at 12:11 PM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:

>
>
> G. Equitius Cato Gn. Equitio Marino Censore S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Censor
>
> I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but in fact they really *don't* have
> any type of citizenship, according to the law. The lex Fabia says
> that they are specifically considered an "ally", not a citizen.
> Although I can empathize with a desire to keep out of the on-line
> stuff to some degree, there must be something which defines
> citizenship clearly and definitively if it is to have any worth at all
> --- *we* should be putting conditions on *granting* citizenship, not
> the other way around. Is there another way we can do this; perhaps
> create a *new* system by which non-citizens can be "allies"? This is
> perhaps a little more complex than simply writing a resiognation lex,
> but I think it will benefit the res publica in the long run if we
> consider this.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
> wrote:
>> Salvete Quirites,
>>
>> gaiusequitiuscato wrote:
>>
>>> Citizenship should mean a great deal more
>>> than just voting in our elections, which, in essence, is the only
>>> difference now. Which is better, 2000 people who hang around or 200
>>> that want to actually see the res publica grow and work? I'm not
>>> trying to offend anyone or cut people off, but citizenship is a
>>> serious and meaningful thing. I think that should be emphasized.
>>
>> It is Cato, but not every Nova Roman who takes their citizenship
>> seriously reads these mailing lists, and not every one of them has
> any interest in reading them. There are citizens I only speak with
> once or twice a year, at some event. They are proud of their
> citizenship but have no interest in the on-line activities of Nova
> Roma. When they joined Nova Roma they did so under certain
> conditions, none of which required them to participate in the mailing
> lists, or pay the taxes. The socii status recognizes this, and accords
> them a minimal citizenship status rather than throwing them out.
>>
>> Valete quirites,
>>
>> -- Marinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129sjdq1c/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1110932563/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>




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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

It seems indeed as if the creation of a new lex regarding resignations
has spun a little out of control :-)

I offer here, once more, the originally proposed new lex which
involves itself solely with resignations, and does not draw into
itself any of the myriad aspects which have accreted themselves onto
it recently. I include the grace period for magistracies because I
have had an interestingly large volume of private email, from a VERY
wide spectrum of citizens, voicing their opinion that it should be put
back in:


"LEX _________ DE CIVITATE MAGISTRATUMQUE EIURANDAE

The lex Cornelia et Maria &c. is hereby amended by substitution as
follows:

'II. If a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the publication of
their resignation, counting inclusively.
A. If, during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
without penalty.
B. If a currently serving magistrate resigns from his/her office(s)
and/or his/her citizenship, that magistrate is granted the same
nundina to retract his/her resignation and resume his/her period in
office; any office(s) he/she may have held being suspended from
further action until the nundina has passed.
C. The citizen can withdraw the resignation by publication of his/her
desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same channel that
he/she used to submit the resignation.'

Furthermore, Article IV of the Constitution of Nova Roma is amended by
substitution as follows:

'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate dies or upon a valid
resignation tendered by the magistrate, as defined by law.'"



Also included is of course the ability of a citizen to resign their
citizenship voluntarily and at a time of their own choosing; although
Apollonius Cordus is correct in his well-considered discussion
vis-a-vis ancient Roman citizenship, there are a number of laws in
several countries macronationally which might be ... uhhh ...
"concerned" by an attempt to enforce association involuntarily.

So.

The discussion regarding citizenship is fascinating, and worth the
effort we put into it, but I think that perhaps the immediate
situation, that of resignations of magistracies, needs to be put front
and centre by itself once more.

Valete bene,

Cato

OSD G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes.

OK, you're getting tired of hearing me, I know. But here, side by
side, are ALL THREE versions of the possible new lex as I see it: with
grace, without grace, and involving the whole kit and kaboodle.

######################################################################

VERSION 1.0 INCLUDING GRACE PERIOD FOR MAGISTRATES

"The lex Cornelia et Maria &c. is hereby amended by substitution as
follows:

'II. If a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the publication of
their resignation, counting inclusively.
A. If, during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
without penalty.
B. If a currently serving magistrate resigns from his/her office(s)
and/or his/her citizenship, that magistrate is granted the same
nundina to retract his/her resignation and resume his/her period in
office; any office(s) he/she may have held being suspended from
further action until the nundina has passed.
C. The citizen can withdraw the resignation by publication of his/her
desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same channel that
he/she used to submit the resignation.'

Furthermore, Article IV of the Constitution of Nova Roma is amended by
substitution as follows:

'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate dies or upon a valid
resignation tendered by the magistrate, as defined by law.'"

######################################################################


VERSION 2.0 WITHOUT GRACE PERIOD FOR MAGISTRATES

"The lex Cornelia et Maria &c. is amended by addition as follows:

III. If a currently serving magistrate resigns from his office or his
citizenship, either separately or concurrently, he will be considered
to have vacated his office upon the publication of his resignation.
He may still resume his citizenship in accordance to Section II of
this law (within the nundina allowed); his office, being vacated, will
remain so until the magistrate empowered to do so by law can call for
an election to fill said vacancy as prescribed by law."


######################################################################


VERSION 3.0 WHICH INVOLVES RESIGNATIONS AND CITIZENSHIP ITSELF

"I. The lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda and the lex Equitia
de Civitate Eiuranda are hereby repealed in their entirety. The lex
Fabia de Censo is hereby amended by the repeal of Articles VII, IX,
and X.

II. Citizenship in Nova Roma is considered resigned if a citizen does
not respond to a Census of the population held as prescribed by law.

III. Any citizen who wishes to reclaim their citizenship may do so by
writing to the Censors of Nova Roma expressing their desire to do so.
In accordance with the ancient practice of postliminium, they may
resume their citizenship exactly as if it had never been lost, with
the following guidelines:

A. The Censors' Office will keep a record of all names of citizens who
have been struck from the rolls of citizenship to ensure that there is
no duplication of names possible.

B. No public offices held at the time of resignation shall carry
over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any religious
titles and their corresponding century points as specified by the
Collegium Pontificum.

C. Any other titles, honors, effects, or century points shall carry
over to the returning citizen only after they have remained a citizen
for six (6) months after their return. Century points awarded for
longevity shall not include the time during which a citizen did not
appear on the rolls.

D. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the Censors
collegially.

IV. An elected magistrate may resign their office at any time by
publishing a notice of resignation in the Forum of Nova Roma (the
"Main List"), with the following results:

A. If a magistrate resigns his or her office, that resignation shall
take effect immediately upon publication of that resignation.

B. The office they held will become vacant immediately upon
publication of their resignation, and shall only be filled by an
election called by the appropriate magistrate as prescribed by law."

######################################################################

That's it. Those are my offerings. I leave them with you to read and
discuss, and promise not to add any more. I encourage anyone else to
write their own, too.

Valete bene,

Cato

Salve Cordus -

There are some people (my understanding is that they are mostly
re-enactors, Legion members) who do not spend ANY time online and would
therefore not be responding to a Census inquiry. "Socii" is a status
tailor-made for such friends and allies who are Roman sympathizers but
spend no time online.

Likewise, as real-life events expand and local groups form, more
non-computer folk will be joining in some capacity, so it isn't just
for re-enactors. Likewise the upcoming University recruiting effort
will find people who love Roma and what we're about, but will not have
time for online participation. Same goes for local "real world"
Religio efforts: Someone wants to learn and participate, and be
considered a member, but isn't online.

In short, it's a very practical category!

Vale
- Troianus

On Mar 14, 2005, at 2:15 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

>
> A. Apollonius Cordus Cn. Equitio Marino amico
> omnibusque sal.
>
>> ... There are citizens I only
>> speak with once or
>> twice a year, at some event. They are proud of
>> their citizenship but
>> have no interest in the on-line activities of Nova
>> Roma. When they
>> joined Nova Roma they did so under certain
>> conditions, none of which
>> required them to participate in the mailing lists,
>> or pay the taxes.
>> The socii status recognizes this, and accords them a
>> minimal citizenship
>> status rather than throwing them out.
>
> I'm puzzled. Is anyone suggesting that people should
> lose their citizenship if they fail to participate in
> the mailing lists or pay the taxes? My suggestion, at
> any rate, was that anyone who responds to the census
> be registered as a citizen, as at present, and that
> anyone who doesn't respond to the census be considered
> no longer a citizen, though always with the option to
> resume citizenship at any time. I can't see how that
> would exclude the people you're talking about.
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Cato

Ave! l Romans

Well it was to good to last.

It is with great disappointment with this newer/older version of this lex that I can not in good conscience vote for it.

Now I hope nobody introduces it to be voted on.

The original goal as I saw it was to reinforce the clear unmistakable language of Article IV of the Nova Roma Constitution which says that

"An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies." Both cato and I belive that to be the case.

Some good people can have a different view of what the current standard is or what the language means but regardless of that we should all agree on what the standard SHOULD BE.

If you can not do the job you ASKED to do and were ELECTED to do. Then you get out of the way for someone else who can and is willing to serve the Republic.

To me this is Roman!

Cato's early draft, before the current one was elegant in its simplicity and Roman in that it moved us a little closer to Roman ways.

I sometimes wonder why Cordus ( who does not often agree with me) takes the time to share his scholarship when we usually dismiss it almost out of hand. Cordus has shown us how to deal with citizenship resignation in a historically Roman way and Cato has written a most elegant Lex.

I DO hope some introduces that one.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

PS why a "currently serving magistrate"... Can a former or never magistrate resign?

----- Original Message -----
From: gaiusequitiuscato<mailto:mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:59 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Recap of lex solely regarding magisterial resignations



G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

It seems indeed as if the creation of a new lex regarding resignations
has spun a little out of control :-)

I offer here, once more, the originally proposed new lex which
involves itself solely with resignations, and does not draw into
itself any of the myriad aspects which have accreted themselves onto
it recently. I include the grace period for magistracies because I
have had an interestingly large volume of private email, from a VERY
wide spectrum of citizens, voicing their opinion that it should be put
back in:


"LEX _________ DE CIVITATE MAGISTRATUMQUE EIURANDAE

The lex Cornelia et Maria &c. is hereby amended by substitution as
follows:

'II. If a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the publication of
their resignation, counting inclusively.
A. If, during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
without penalty.
B. If a currently serving magistrate resigns from his/her office(s)
and/or his/her citizenship, that magistrate is granted the same
nundina to retract his/her resignation and resume his/her period in
office; any office(s) he/she may have held being suspended from
further action until the nundina has passed.
C. The citizen can withdraw the resignation by publication of his/her
desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same channel that
he/she used to submit the resignation.'

Furthermore, Article IV of the Constitution of Nova Roma is amended by
substitution as follows:

'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate dies or upon a valid
resignation tendered by the magistrate, as defined by law.'"



Also included is of course the ability of a citizen to resign their
citizenship voluntarily and at a time of their own choosing; although
Apollonius Cordus is correct in his well-considered discussion
vis-a-vis ancient Roman citizenship, there are a number of laws in
several countries macronationally which might be ... uhhh ...
"concerned" by an attempt to enforce association involuntarily.

So.

The discussion regarding citizenship is fascinating, and worth the
effort we put into it, but I think that perhaps the immediate
situation, that of resignations of magistracies, needs to be put front
and centre by itself once more.

Valete bene,

Cato




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129b38luc/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1110938358/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>




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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Salve,

I also would like to get a copy of this(i.e. Gens Law for Dummies),
please.

Vale,

Quintus Servilius Fidenas



On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:26:10 EST, KECTAM@... said:

>
>
> Postuma Sempronia Graccha Placidia Q. Cassio Calvo SPD
>
> Regarding the 'non-lawyerese' explanation you mention - is it something
> you've written privately and specifically to deal with this enquiry, or
> is it
> available to everyone? If the latter, would you please tell me if it's
> on the
> NR website, or whether I might be able to get a copy. I don't think I'm
> thick
> (well, not too thick) but it would be good to see another version of the
> new
> law, so that I can be sure I've understood all the implications.
>
> Multas gratias tibi ago.
>
>
> In a message dated 14/03/2005 14:18:15 GMT Standard Time,
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:29:58 -0000
> From: "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@...>
> Subject: Re: Gens Laws
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Guiboche" <nate@m...>
> wrote:
> > Salve Good Sir
> >
> > I shall study this!! I hope it is not too complex!!! (I feel
> there will be
> > no such luck!!)
> >
> > Quintus Sertorius
>
> Salve,
>
> Your gut feeling would be correct. It's complicated and a tad bit
> confusing on the first couple of read throughs but after the tenth
> or so time reading it in small chunks the "lawyerese" starts to
> become a little clearer.
>
> I'm emailing you a much longer explanation that's not in "lawyerese".
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

> If you resigned from the Roman legio what happened to you?

Salve,

I believe that was considered desertion and if caught one was made
an example to show the other troopers that one had much better odds
of survival facing the million screaming Gauls as a unit than
attempting to sneak off in the night.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

AVETE OMNES

Just a few words on why I think the grace period for the resigning
magistrates should be kept.

In the "macronational" world things happen much "slower" than
through the Internet.
In ancient Rome, when a magistrate decided to go to the Forum and
make a public declaration, from the moment he made his decision we
can imagine him asking his slave to help him wearing the toga (which
takes a long time, believe me! :-) ), leaving home an walking
through the streets of the city in order to reach the centre of the
political life. During all of this, he has enough time to think
thousands of times about his decisions, and he at the end he can
reconsider and decide not to go to the rostra and not to make his
declaration.
On the Internet we don't have all of this. A citizen may make a
decision upon reading the last one of a long series of messages
which sadden him and, maybe along with a particular private
situation, decides to resign, the precise moment of the first
decision nearly coinciding with the one of the action. It's so easy
to send a mail, and it's much faster than wearing your toga and
walking to the Forum.

That's why I think the so called "grace period" (which I deem
a "wondering period") should be kept.
Maybe a nundina is too much. Let's reduce it, let's reduce it a lot,
but let's keep it.

OPTIME VALETE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
Senator
Aedilis Plebis
Propraetor Italiae

The Ides of March are come....

But we at least have St. Patrick's Day for catharsis. (g)

Paulla Corva

Chantal
Chantal's LiveJournal
http://aerden.livejournal.com
"Yesterday, it worked.
Today, it is not working.
Windows is like that."

Grace period should be tossed out. You want a job you do it. You don't cut and run. To me that is frankly disgraceful to an individual. The decision to resign a magistracy oughtta be a serious decision and not have some grace period so someone who didn't take it seriously can say oh "I'm sorry, I really didn't mean what I said" and come back and resume the job as if nothing happened. When you are elected people have placed their trust in you to do a job and take it seriously. Simply saying "I resign" breaks that trust end of story, no waiting period.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

Salvete Mani Constantine Serapio et omnes,

You bring up a very good point here and I am relieved that this
grace period mechanism had been in place in the past and thus
prevented us from losing some good magistrates. On the other hand,
perhaps there should be "some" kind of penalty or reprecussion built
into the law which would encourage a magistrate to think a good 10x
before throwing in the towel on some hightend state of emotion.
People in power do need to be somewhat stronger and show better
leadership under micro and macro world duress than your average
citizen in my opinion. Perhaps he or she would forfit their century
points given for that particular office even though they keep their
jobs.Just saying they cannot run the next year for office is
irrelevant since they'd probably lose an election anyway for
quitting. Any other suggestions on this?

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:

>
> AVETE OMNES
>
> Just a few words on why I think the grace period for the resigning
> magistrates should be kept.
>
> In the "macronational" world things happen much "slower" than
> through the Internet.
> In ancient Rome, when a magistrate decided to go to the Forum and
> make a public declaration, from the moment he made his decision we
> can imagine him asking his slave to help him wearing the toga

(which

> takes a long time, believe me! :-) ), leaving home an walking
> through the streets of the city in order to reach the centre of

the

> political life. During all of this, he has enough time to think
> thousands of times about his decisions, and he at the end he can
> reconsider and decide not to go to the rostra and not to make his
> declaration.
> On the Internet we don't have all of this. A citizen may make a
> decision upon reading the last one of a long series of messages
> which sadden him and, maybe along with a particular private
> situation, decides to resign, the precise moment of the first
> decision nearly coinciding with the one of the action. It's so

easy

> to send a mail, and it's much faster than wearing your toga and
> walking to the Forum.
>
> That's why I think the so called "grace period" (which I deem
> a "wondering period") should be kept.
> Maybe a nundina is too much. Let's reduce it, let's reduce it a

lot,

> but let's keep it.
>
> OPTIME VALETE
> Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
> Senator
> Aedilis Plebis
> Propraetor Italiae

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete

> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:38:18 -0000
> From: "Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@...>
> Subject: Why I think the grace period should be kept
>
>
> AVETE OMNES
>
> Just a few words on why I think the grace period for the resigning
> magistrates should be kept.

<SNIP>

> That's why I think the so called "grace period" (which I deem
> a "wondering period") should be kept.

L Equitius: The main problem with this is *we cannot keep what we don't
have.*
We do NOT have a "grace period" for 'resigning magsitrates'.
Once they resign they are not magistrates any longer.
It's in the Constitution.
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution.html
"An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies."

In fact, what the Tribunes are doing, or rather failing to do in not holding
elections to full the vacant Tribune office, is, if nothing else,
dereliction of their duty and can be remedied by removing them from office
and holding elections.

"Should one of the ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties, as
defined by the comitia that elected him, that magistrate may be removed by a
law originating in the comitia that elected him."(or her/s)

Since the Patricians clearly represent more than 10% of the population I
don't see why the Consules
cannot hold this election in the comitia populi tributa, ("To call the
Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order;")
as would be the right and responsibility of the Tribunes were they to be
agreeable.

"To call the comitia plebis tributa to order, except when the Patrician
order shall constitute more than ten percent (10%) of the total population,
in which case the power shall be altered to calling the comitia populi
tributa to order;"

Oh well, fat chance of common sense ruling the day here.

> Maybe a nundina is too much. Let's reduce it, let's reduce it a lot,
> but let's keep it.
>
> OPTIME VALETE
> Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
> Senator
> Aedilis Plebis
> Propraetor Italiae

M. Hortensia Maior L. Equitio Cincinnato Auguri spd;
Salve; I'm extremely surprised by your conclusion. You do
realize that it is completely ahistorical to remove the tribunes
from office. As A. Apollonius Cordus pointed out in a previous post,
Ti. Gracchus removed a fellow tribune and it was the start of a
terrible downhill spiral for the Republic. Surely you are not
advocating this.
In any event by their actions the tribunes are de-facto co-
opting Saturninus so there is no vacancy.
bene vale in pace deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

> In fact, what the Tribunes are doing, or rather failing to do in

not holding

> elections to full the vacant Tribune office, is, if nothing else,
> dereliction of their duty and can be remedied by removing them

from office

> and holding elections.
>
>

The ides of march have come, but still haven´t passed... :)

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Chantal Gaudiano <aerdensrw@y...>
wrote:

> The Ides of March are come....
>
> But we at least have St. Patrick's Day for catharsis. (g)
>
> Paulla Corva
>
> Chantal
> Chantal's LiveJournal
> http://aerden.livejournal.com
> "Yesterday, it worked.
> Today, it is not working.
> Windows is like that."

Lucius Equitius <vergil96@...> writes:

> Since the Patricians clearly represent more than 10% of the population I
> don't see why the Consules cannot hold this election in the comitia populi
> tributa,

I feel sure the tribunes who vetoed Tribuna Hortensia's attempt to call an
election would also veto a Consular call. Furthermore, plebeian tribunes can
only be elected in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. In no case can the patricians
vote for the plebeian tribunes.

Valete,

-- Marinus

M. Hortensia Maior L. Cinninato Auguri spd;
Salve; I am also glad to see another pontiff here. I mentioned
to Pontiff Maximus that the NR official interactive calendar is able
to be updated with the religious feriae. Our good webmaster Calvus
said that anyone may enter data.
Since this is the exclusive province of the pontiffs, I ask you
to please put in the festivals for March.
We have the calendar, we have the pontiffs, as a member of the
religio I ask you both to fufill your religious duties.
bene vale in pace deorum
M. Hortensia Maior TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

AVETE QVINTE LANI PAVLINE OMNESQVE

> You bring up a very good point here and I am relieved that this
> grace period mechanism had been in place in the past and thus
> prevented us from losing some good magistrates. On the other hand,
> perhaps there should be "some" kind of penalty or reprecussion

[...]

> Perhaps he or she would forfit their century
> points given for that particular office even though they keep

their

> jobs.

That looks reasonable. In general I'm against drastic positions.
Eight days as a "grace/wondering" period is too much;
no "grace/wondering" period at all means both risking to loose very
good magistrates and failing to perceive the particular conditions
of an Internet-based communication system.
On the contrary, a short "grace/wondering" period (say 24 hours) and
a penalty like the one you suggest seems the a good compromise, what
the ancients would call "in medio virtus".

By the way, I think some sort of compromise has to be found if we
want to avoid this law to be modified every year by every new
Consul, Praetor and Tribune! ;-)

OPTIME VALETE
M'C.Serapio

G. Equitius Cato Q. Lanio Paulino M. Constantino Serapio quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

I, too, think that a person who wants to assume a magistracy needs to
be a little tougher than the average Joe, so to speak, which is one of
the reasons why I'm not particularly comfortable with a grace period.

I very much like the picture that Constantinus Serapius has painted of
that mental time in which a magistrate in ancient Rome might gather
his thoughts on the way to the Forum. To weigh his decisions
carefully, to practice his speech, to trim and add and hone it to
reflect as precisely as possible the exact tone he wishes to convey.
But the speed and accessability of the Internet work both ways on this
issue.

We all know how the Internet works (not the mechanics, of course ---
I'm one of those who marvel at the fact that I can flip a switch and a
light comes on). We know that things are almost instantaneous. We
have all made goofy mistakes, like pressing the "reply" button instead
of the private email address of an individual. And we know the
consequences of sending out a post, of making a speech in the Forum,
that will potentially be heard by hundreds of our fellow-citizens.

So the image of thought gathering, while potent, is something that
should apply to what must be done *before* pressing that "send"
button. A magistrate, a citizen, a visitor, anyone, knows that they've
got the choice to send or not send, to speak or remain silent --- and
that the results of their decision will be instantaneous and
irretrievable.

As the old proverb goes, a broken plate once mended still serves its
purpose --- but better never to have broken it in the first place.

Valete bene,

Cato

P.S. - I must agree with L. Equitius Cincinnatus when he says that to
refer to "keep[ing]" the grace period for magistrates is incorrect, as
the very issue of whether or not one ever truly existed under our law
is at the heart of the current discussion.

G. Equitius Cato M. Constantino Serapio S.P.D.

Salve Constantinus Serapius!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:

> By the way, I think some sort of compromise has to be found if we
> want to avoid this law to be modified every year by every new
> Consul, Praetor and Tribune! ;-)

CATO: HEY! what about the quaestors? Geez, everyone always ignores
the quaestors!

<grumble grumble grumble...> :-)

Vale optime,

Cato

M' CON SERAPIO CN EQVITIO CATONI SPD

> > By the way, I think some sort of compromise has to be found if

we

> > want to avoid this law to be modified every year by every new
> > Consul, Praetor and Tribune! ;-)
>
> CATO: HEY! what about the quaestors? Geez, everyone always

ignores

> the quaestors!
>
> <grumble grumble grumble...> :-)

<grin> :-) I mentioned Consuls, Praetors and Tribunes as they are
the only ones who can lawfully convene the comitia and submit them a
law :-)
Actually neither the quaestors (like you) nor the plebeian aediles
(like me) have this power :-)
Still we can take part in these discussions and make our proposals,
which is one of the most Roman things we can do, isn't it? ;-)

OPTIME VALE
M'C.Serapio

M'CON SERAPIO L EQVITIO CINCINNATO AVGVRI SPD

> > That's why I think the so called "grace period" (which I deem
> > a "wondering period") should be kept.
>
> L Equitius: The main problem with this is *we cannot keep what we

don't

> have.*
> We do NOT have a "grace period" for 'resigning magsitrates'.

Ok, that's part of the debate of these days about Saturninus'
tribuneship. Still my post was about another matter, i.e. a proposal
for the law which should finally define how the resignation of
magistracy works, so that everybody agree what the law says. :-)
If you think the expression "to keep the grace period" is wrong,
just replace it with "to >have< the grace period" wherever it
appears. The core of the proposal is the same :-)

This looks like that kind of things nobody will ever manage to
convince the other is wrong. :-) In these cases the only reasonable
solution is to discuss together to find a compromise which is
acceptable for everybody, isn't it? :-)

OPTIME VALE
M'C.Serapio

A retouched version of The Death of Caesar, with a Star Wars theme...

http://www.livejournal.com/community/roma_antiqua/139017.html?style=mine#cutid1

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:

> By the way, I think some sort of compromise has to be found if we
> want to avoid this law to be modified every year by every new
> Consul, Praetor and Tribune! ;-)
>
> OPTIME VALETE
> M'C.Serapio

Salve,

I wonder if that is not one of the reasons voter turn out continues
to drop. When it reaches a point where one is called to vote on
whether to amend the amendment to the lex that rescinded the
amendment to the previous lex that rescinded another lex.... people
start to say, "Why bother? It will just be changed again next year."

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Romans

One more attempt to get this right.

I will be using the most recent action of Caius Curius Saturninus to illustrate my point.

This is NOT an attack on him but on the actions that have come about because of it.

Earlier today Manivs Constantinvs Serapio wrote in part

"On the Internet we don't have all of this. A citizen may make a
decision upon reading the last one of a long series of messages
which sadden him and, maybe along with a particular private
situation, decides to resign, the precise moment of the first
decision nearly coinciding with the one of the action. It's so easy
to send a mail, and it's much faster than wearing your toga and
walking to the Forum."

This scenario as written above is NOT why we have what to me is becoming more and more a Constitutional crisis.

By his own statement when he came back as as a citizen and after he was "reinstated" as a Tribune by the votes of three Tribunes and not the will of the people, Caius Curius Saturninus STATED that he had been thinking of resigning from NR for a YEAR! He ran for office at a time he was thinking of quitting NR. He won election as a Tribune and was thinking about resigning from NR . He took the oath of office and within 48 hours resigned as a Tribune.

His resignation was not the result of "long series of messages which sadden him". It was the result of thinking about it for a YEAR! And if someone resigns because of something someone SAID they need to get REAL and be ROMAN!

"Oh Romans !!! Hannibal has destroyed our forces in battle after battle I do not think I can go on so I will not be taking the field in Spain...With regrets" Publius Cornelius Scipio

If Scipio had made a real speech like the above he would never had been "Africanus" and Rome would have "fallen" centuries earlier that she in fact did. Romans were made of sterner stuff.

Frankly it does not matter WHY someone believes they must step down from an elected magistracy. They made a pact with the electorate to DO A JOB in return for VOTES. That's the deal. NO more, NO less. No grace period is required as the compact has been made and one side can not or at least should not change it after the votes have been counted.

You stand for election and are elected then you do the JOB. If you can not do the job LEAVE and someone else will do it. But please do not ask the Citizens of Nova Roma to wait while you have a "think fest" deciding on what you "really" want to do. We do not need to know that you are thinking of resigning until you have done so and we do not need for you to have "second" thoughts.

Stay or go, lead or follow or please just get the hell out of the way.

Cato has drafted a very good lex. This is the one that a magistrate should place before the voters.

"LEX _________ DE CIVITATE MAGISTRATUMQUE EIURANDAE

I. The lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda and the lex
Equitia de Civitate Eiuranda are hereby repealed in their entirety. The
lex Fabia de Censo is hereby amended by the repeal of Articles VII,
IX, and X.

II. Citizenship in Nova Roma is considered resigned if, and only
if, a citizen does not respond to a Census of the population held as
prescribed by law.

III. Any citizen who wishes to reclaim their citizenship may do
so by writing to the Censors of Nova Roma expressing their desire to
do so.

In accordance with the ancient practice of postliminium, they may
resume their citizenship exactly as if it had never been lost,
with the following guidelines:

A. The Censors' Office will keep a record of all names of
citizens who have been struck from the rolls of citizenship to ensure that
there is no duplication of names possible.

B. No public offices held at the time of resignation shall carry
over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any
religious titles and their corresponding century points as specified by the
Collegium Pontificum.

C. Any other titles, honors, effects, or century points shall
carry over to the returning citizen only after they have remained a
citizen for six (6) months after their return. Century points awarded for
longevity shall not include the time during which a citizen did not
appear on the rolls.

D. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the
Censors collegially.

IV. An elected magistrate may resign their office at any time by
publishing a notice of resignation in the Forum of Nova Roma (the
"Main List"), with the following results:

A. If a magistrate resigns his or her office, that resignation
shall take effect immediately upon publication of that resignation.

B. The office they held will become vacant immediately upon
publication of their resignation, and shall only be filled by an
election called by the appropriate magistrate as prescribed by
law."


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus









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

Salve Romans


I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to state in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional provisions they have
"reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.

Article IV "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies. "

On amending the Nova Roma Constitution Article 1 Section D.

"This Constitution may be altered by law passed by the comitia centuriata; such alterations to this Constitution must be ratified by a vote of two-thirds of the entire Senate before they shall take effect. The edicta of an appointed Dictator may also alter this Constitution, subject to ratification by the Senate."

At no time in Nova Roman history has the constitution been amended to increase the powers of the Tribunes to include Co-option of a private citizen into a vacant Tribuneship.

Power of the Tribune of the Plebs Article IV section 7 of the Nova Roman Constitution

1.. Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Five tribunes of the plebs shall be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term lasting one year. They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
2.. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and 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; once a pronouncement of intercessio has been made, the other Tribunes may, at their discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement with that intercessio.
3.. Each Tribune may issue only one such declaration of support or disagreement, but may change their declaration from one to the other, should they wish to do so.
4.. The initial pronouncement of intercessio by a Tribune shall count as that Tribune's declaration of agreement.
5.. Should the number or the Tribunes who choose to disagree with an intercessio equal or exceed the number of Tribunes who choose to support it, the intercessio shall be revoked.
1.. Intercessio may not be imposed against statements of support for or disagreement with a use of intercessio that are issued pursuant to the preceding paragraph.
2.. The issuance and function of intercessio shall be defined according to procedures described by legislation passed by Comitia.
6.. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against another Tribune using the same mechanism as described in paragraph IV.A.7.a. above;
7.. To be immune from intercessio pronounced by other magistrates, except as described in paragraphs IV.A.7.a. and IV.A.7.b. above;
8.. To be privy to the debates of the Senate, and keep the citizens informed as to the subjects and results thereof, in such manner and subject to such restrictions as may be defined by law;
1.. To call the Senate to order;
2.. To call the comitia plebis tributa to order, except when the Patrician order shall constitute more than ten percent (10%) of the total population, in which case the power shall be altered to calling the comitia populi tributa to order;
3.. To administer the law;
4.. To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other tasks, as they shall see fit.


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

Salve

I meant to save my last post on the Constitutional Crisis as I have not finished writing it. It was not meant to be sent just yet.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

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

AVE TI GALERI PAVLINE

As I wrote in my answer to L Equitius Cincinnatus, the subject of my
post was not Saturninus' case, but rather the content of the law
people are discussing in these days.

Surely you agree with me that there are people who want to include
the "grace nundina" in such a law and people who don't want to
include it. That's a fact.

Now, after a lot of days (weeks, months? :-) ) that people have been
discussing the matter, we see nobody managed to convince the other.
Therefore, to date, the situation is that not everybody agree to
have the nundina and not everybody agree not to have it.

This means that, should now a magistrate propose a law which
includes the "grace nundina", next year (or even earlier) another
magistrate will propose a new law amending it and deleting the
nundina. Still, after several months, another magistrate will
propose another amendment which will reintroduce it, and so on...
The experience of past years tells us that nearly every law which is
submitted to the Comitia gets approved, even if it modifies a law
which passed in the same comitia just one year earlier. It would
become a vicious circle and a perpetual polemic contio on this list,
not to say that, as Q. Cassius Calvus rightly pointed out, voters
loose their interest in the comitia themselves.

On the contrary, if one side gives up the idea of having no grace
period at all and the other side gives up the idea of allowing the
resigning magistrate to resume his office without penalty, we might
manage to solve the matter once and for all so that everybody agree.

A proposal came from a couple of mails on this list by Q. Lanius
Paulinus and me, i.e. a 24 hours grace period instead of 8 days and,
in case the magistrate withdraws his/her resignation, the total loss
of the century points (both present and past service) assigned to
him/her for that magistracy, that is to say he/she will work "for
free"; the State won't "pay" him/her for his/her work.

I think this proposal, or any other "midway proposal" which might
arise, is worth considering as the two opposite points of view will
never come to an agreement and will never allow us to write the
word "end" in this story.

OPTIME VALE
M'C.Serapio

G. Equitius Cato M. Constantino Serapio Ti. Galerio Paulino
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

<cough> I have another proposal...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The lex Cornelia et Maria &c. is hereby amended by substitution as
follows:

'II. If a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the publication of
their resignation, counting inclusively.
A. If, during this nundinum, the citizen desires to withdraw his or
her resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so.
B. If a magistrate resigns from their office(s), that magistrate is
granted a period of twenty-four (24) hours from publication of their
resignation to withdraw their resignation and resume their period in
office, any office(s) they may have held being suspended from further
action until the twenty-four hours has passed.
C. The citizen can withdraw the resignation by publication of their
desire to withdraw the resignation by the same channel that they used
to submit the resignation.'

Furthermore, Article IV of the Constitution of Nova Roma is amended by
substitution as follows:

'An office becomes vacant when the magistrate dies or upon a valid
resignation tendered by the magistrate, as defined by law.'"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tightened up language, short "grace period". Even I, who do not like
the idea of a "grace period" for magistracies, would support this.

Sorry I reneged on my promise not to offer any more. And yes, it
would require ratification by the Senate (in view of the wording
change for the Constitution), but the Senate should be involved in
this anyways.

Galerius Paulinus, I think we could tackle the discussion of
citizenship and its definitions at a seperate time if necessary.

Valete bene,

Cato

EDICTVM PROPR�TORICIVM XXIX (A M�ADRIANi�COMPLVTENSIS IV):SOBRE LAS FUNCIONES DE LOS LEGADOS EN CASO DE ABSENTIA
MARCVS ADRIANVS COMPLVTENSIS PROPR�TOR HISPANI� OMNIBVS CIVIBUS S�P�D�


Debido a necesidades organizativas internas y ante la posible absentia temporal de cualquiera de los dos Legati,
queda derogada durante las absentias la diferenciaci�n de funciones entre Legatus Iternis y Legatus Externis,
pudiendo y debiendo, cualquiera de los dos legati, ejercer las funciones del legado ausente.

Este Edicto entra en vigor al d�a siguiente de su publicaci�n.


DATVM�SVB�MANV�MEA�POST�IDUS�MARTIAS� MMDCCLVIII�A�V�C,
FR�APULE�CAESARI�C�POPILIO�LAENAE�CONSVLIBVS

M�ADR�COMPLVTENSIS
PROPRAETOR HISPANIA
SCRIBA CENSORIS CFQ


**************************************************************************************************************
EDICTVM PROPR�TORICIVM XXIX (M�ADRIANI�COMPLUTENSIS IV) DE MUNERIS LEGATORUM IN EORVM ABSENTIA
MARCVS ADRIANVS COMPLVTENSIS PROPR�TOR HISPANI� OMNIBVS CIVIBUS S�P�D�

Ob necessitudinem ordinationis intern� atque potem absentiam pro tempore utrorumcumque Legatorum,
differenti� munerum Legati Internis Rebus atque Legati Externis Rebus in absentiis eorum derogantur,
utercumque legatus poterit atque debebit munera huius absentis accipere.

Hoc edictmm postero die publicationis valet.


DATVM�SVB�MANV�MEA�POST�IDUS�MARTIAS�MMDCCLVIII�A�V�C

FR�APULO�CAESARE�C�POPILIO�LAENATE�CONSVLIBVS

M�ADR�COMPLVTENSIS
PROPRAETOR HISPANIA
SCRIBA CENSORIS CFQ

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

M.Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;

Eheu, the other 3 tribunes Fuscus, Albucius, Bianchius applied the
theory that Saturninus had a nundium to decide, they based this on
the previous treatment of Consul Laenas and Pontiff Scaurus.
According to this theory Saturninus never resigned.

I, a minority opinion, believe Saturninus was co-opted, but this is
not the least bit unconstitutional. I do not have the energy now,
having just returned to Hibernia to discuss that argument. Perhaps
Cordus will if he is here in the forum.

Ti. Galerius Paulinus, I heard you I considered the law and I've done
my best. Now is the time to respect the tribunes's decisions. This
constant behavior does you no credit. Why did you not agitate so
violently against the reinstatement of Laenas or Scaurus?

We of course may discuss, analyze legal issues to our heart's
content, that is what occurred in the forum. But Tribune Saturninus
is by law tribune. There are no more live legal issues.
optime vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP




-"Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@m...> wrote:

> Salve Romans
>
>
> I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to state

in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional provisions
they have

> "reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct

violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.

>
>

Salve Tribune Marca Hortensia Maior

who said in part


"But Tribune Saturninus is by law tribune."

He is not!

There are no laws that allows him to be returned after resigning except by election.

The section of Lex the Tribunes say their action is based on was repelled and the constitution changed before Saturninus resigned. I have already stated that I and everybody else in NR "missed" the two previous cases but regardless of that the CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS have changed and these MUST be they ones the rule this case not the "opinion" of the Tribunes.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:23 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Constitutional crisis - not



M.Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;

Eheu, the other 3 tribunes Fuscus, Albucius, Bianchius applied the
theory that Saturninus had a nundium to decide, they based this on
the previous treatment of Consul Laenas and Pontiff Scaurus.
According to this theory Saturninus never resigned.

I, a minority opinion, believe Saturninus was co-opted, but this is
not the least bit unconstitutional. I do not have the energy now,
having just returned to Hibernia to discuss that argument. Perhaps
Cordus will if he is here in the forum.

Ti. Galerius Paulinus, I heard you I considered the law and I've done
my best. Now is the time to respect the tribunes's decisions. This
constant behavior does you no credit. Why did you not agitate so
violently against the reinstatement of Laenas or Scaurus?

We of course may discuss, analyze legal issues to our heart's
content, that is what occurred in the forum. But Tribune Saturninus
is by law tribune. There are no more live legal issues.
optime vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP




-"Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
>
> I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to state
in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional provisions
they have
> "reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct
violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129j6a1qo/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1111073045/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>




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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Come on, Paulinus!

When I have read this subject I jumped to the mail, afraid of ´what
is so big?´. But now I realize that it is just a passed subject,
already resolved by direct application of NR laws and the sacred
Tribunicia Potestas beloved by the gods. So, since the question is
very well developed by the Tribunes and there is magistrates working
on - perhaps - a new law, I won´t extend myself on it. I really fell
tempted to reply the arguments, but I wont.

Come on! When you write ´Constitutional Crisis´, you even offend the
current magistrates! What a over-reacting!

You have all right to disagree of the magistrates. We have disagreed
many times on our former tribunate. However, respect the decision of
the magistrates, specially the real keepers of ther liberty, the
Tribunes. Remember, the magistrates are encharged by the ultimate
power, the Comitia, to apply the laws on each case. So, stop such
bravados of ´Constitution is been broken! The world will be teared
apart!´ and others things. They make me really annoyed, ands a bit
angry as well. Our constitution needs a big reform, it is true, I am
the first to say this. But the magistrates are managing to handle
what is possible. And... I can say there is really a good work
nowadays. ´Constitutional crisis!', humpf! We see the magistratures
independent and working on its colleagialities, and the three powers,
Magistrature, Senate and Comitia, working on harmony. We have much to
do. But we have done much. And these accomplishments must please all
novorromans. I really let a message of hope and praises to all
novorromans. Step by step we are getting closer to a more roman Nova
Roma.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus PR


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

> Salve Romans
>
>
> I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to state

in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional provisions
they have

> "reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct

violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.

>
> Article IV "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or

dies. "

>
> On amending the Nova Roma Constitution Article 1 Section D.
>
> "This Constitution may be altered by law passed by the comitia

centuriata; such alterations to this Constitution must be ratified by
a vote of two-thirds of the entire Senate before they shall take
effect. The edicta of an appointed Dictator may also alter this
Constitution, subject to ratification by the Senate."

>
> At no time in Nova Roman history has the constitution been amended

to increase the powers of the Tribunes to include Co-option of a
private citizen into a vacant Tribuneship.

>

Salvete,

"regardless of that the CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS have changed and
these MUST be they ones the rule this case not the "opinion" of the
Tribunes."

Be aware of your words... this ´opinion´ as you call, this ´opinion´
is the power the Comitia encharged them, it is the Tribunicia
Potestas, as beloved by the roman gods, we all must respect and
honour.

If words werent supposed to have different interpretation, we wouldnt
have 30000 churches/sects/paths based and following on the same
sacred documents, on all big religios of nowadays. We wouldnt have
judges on our tribunals, since the law would be enough. So, human
word is very plastic. You understand somthing, I understand other,
the People decides who they will encharge to apply the law.

We can comply. Yes, we can comply. We may regret the elected
magistrates, yes we can... but, we must respect.

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus PR

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

> Salve Tribune Marca Hortensia Maior
>
> who said in part
>
>
> "But Tribune Saturninus is by law tribune."
>
> He is not!
>
> There are no laws that allows him to be returned after resigning

except by election.

>
> The section of Lex the Tribunes say their action is based on was

repelled and the constitution changed before Saturninus resigned. I
have already stated that I and everybody else in NR "missed" the two
previous cases but regardless of that the CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS
have changed and these MUST be they ones the rule this case not
the "opinion" of the Tribunes.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@y...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:23 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Constitutional crisis - not
>
>
>
> M.Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
>
> Eheu, the other 3 tribunes Fuscus, Albucius, Bianchius applied

the

> theory that Saturninus had a nundium to decide, they based this

on

> the previous treatment of Consul Laenas and Pontiff Scaurus.
> According to this theory Saturninus never resigned.
>
> I, a minority opinion, believe Saturninus was co-opted, but this

is

> not the least bit unconstitutional. I do not have the energy now,
> having just returned to Hibernia to discuss that argument.

Perhaps

> Cordus will if he is here in the forum.
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus, I heard you I considered the law and I've

done

> my best. Now is the time to respect the tribunes's decisions.

This

> constant behavior does you no credit. Why did you not agitate so
> violently against the reinstatement of Laenas or Scaurus?
>
> We of course may discuss, analyze legal issues to our heart's
> content, that is what occurred in the forum. But Tribune

Saturninus

> is by law tribune. There are no more live legal issues.
> optime vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
>
>
>
>
> -"Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> >
> > I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to

state

> in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional

provisions

> they have
> > "reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct
> violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129j6a1qo/M=298184.6018725.7038619.300117
6/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1111073045/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/
*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>

>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-

Roma/<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/>

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

unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

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

Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

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

Salvete Quirites,

I agree with the post, copied below, by Praetor Faustus. It is now
time to move this discussion to the laws list an off of the Main
Forum.

Valete,

G. Popillius Laenas
Consul

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:

>
> Come on, Paulinus!
>
> When I have read this subject I jumped to the mail, afraid of

´what

> is so big?´. But now I realize that it is just a passed subject,
> already resolved by direct application of NR laws and the sacred
> Tribunicia Potestas beloved by the gods. So, since the question is
> very well developed by the Tribunes and there is magistrates

working

> on - perhaps - a new law, I won´t extend myself on it. I really

fell

> tempted to reply the arguments, but I wont.
>
> Come on! When you write ´Constitutional Crisis´, you even offend

the

> current magistrates! What a over-reacting!
>
> You have all right to disagree of the magistrates. We have

disagreed

> many times on our former tribunate. However, respect the decision

of

> the magistrates, specially the real keepers of ther liberty, the
> Tribunes. Remember, the magistrates are encharged by the ultimate
> power, the Comitia, to apply the laws on each case. So, stop such
> bravados of ´Constitution is been broken! The world will be teared
> apart!´ and others things. They make me really annoyed, ands a bit
> angry as well. Our constitution needs a big reform, it is true, I

am

> the first to say this. But the magistrates are managing to handle
> what is possible. And... I can say there is really a good work
> nowadays. ´Constitutional crisis!', humpf! We see the

magistratures

> independent and working on its colleagialities, and the three

powers,

> Magistrature, Senate and Comitia, working on harmony. We have much

to

> do. But we have done much. And these accomplishments must please

all

> novorromans. I really let a message of hope and praises to all
> novorromans. Step by step we are getting closer to a more roman

Nova

> Roma.
>
> Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus PR
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> >
> > I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to

state

> in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional

provisions

> they have
> > "reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct
> violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.
> >
> > Article IV "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns

or

> dies. "
> >
> > On amending the Nova Roma Constitution Article 1 Section D.
> >
> > "This Constitution may be altered by law passed by the comitia
> centuriata; such alterations to this Constitution must be ratified

by

> a vote of two-thirds of the entire Senate before they shall take
> effect. The edicta of an appointed Dictator may also alter this
> Constitution, subject to ratification by the Senate."
> >
> > At no time in Nova Roman history has the constitution been

amended

> to increase the powers of the Tribunes to include Co-option of a
> private citizen into a vacant Tribuneship.
> >

Salve Romans

Could you please send me the following info.

Would Robert "R" who paid his taxes on 2/8/2005 drop me a note with his NR name and Province.

Cynthia Cassia Justicia and Gaius Iulius Iulianus I need your Macro name Thanks


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consular Quaestor



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

Greetings:

I just joined this list [also the religio romano list].

A brief introduction: I am a college professor. I teach
philosophy and religion. My areas of research
expertise are ancient philosophy, law, and the history of religion
(particularly, the history of ancient Indo-European religion,
especially, Vedic, Zoroastrian, and Roman religions as three very
closely related descendents of a shared ancestral religion and
culture -- for example, the rites and rituals of a number of Roman
and Vedic public sacrifices, care of fires, domestic cult, and
regulations for the priesthoods are almost an exact match --
in this I continue and develop the research started by Georges
Dumezil, Puhvel, Mallory, Eliade, Lincoln, etc.).

Some of the correspondence between Vedic and Roman rituals
are so close that we have on two occasions hypothetically
extrapolated what the Romans "might have done" only later
to discover new evidence that that is indeed what the Romans
did. We are currently working on the ritual relations between
the hearth fire of Rome tended by the Vestal Virgins and the
domestic hearth fire in the Roman home.

We are also on the legal structure of the religions in the
Roman empire (public vs. civil citizenship, marriage, public vs.
civilly legal religions, etc.). This is also providing a basic
time-line of Roman legal and political history because it was
the Germans that codified Roman law. Historically, Roman law
was organized in chronological order (somewhat like the
US Federal Register).

I have also taught Military Science and the history of C3
beginning with the Roman legions. Their distributed and
delegated command structure would be copied by the
Germans in the defeat of Napoleon (who had a rigidly
centralized command structure -- namely, everything
from strategy to tactics went through him). It would be
developed further by the Germans in the "Captain's War"
of Prussia against Austria, become the basis for sturmtactics
in WWI, and Blitzkrieg in WWII. The same C3 doctrine is
now the basis of US military doctrine.

Also in miliary history, we have done research on the survival
and use of Roman infantry tactics in Swiss tactics. The Swiss
developed the pikemen infantry that could destroy cavalry.
In our research of how the Swiss came up with this (and much
of the Swiss sense of being "freemen" answerable to no medieval
feudal lord but only to the emperor) comes from the Romansch
cantons in the east. Here, in this alpine regions, people trace
their family ancestry on the same parcel of land back either to
the invading Germanic Walser, or to the Celto-Roman Raetians,
or to Roman settlers mustered out from the Legions II Augusta,
XII Gemina, XIV Gemina, I Adiu trix, VIII Augusta, XI Claudia Pia
FEdelis, XIV Gemina, VIII Augusta, XXII Primigenia. Due to the
alpine conditions, the Germanic tribes could not defeat the Roman
settlers and called a truce. To this day, two valleys on both sides
of a mountain will have German descendents of the Walser speaking old
German dialect (or High German as official Swiss language) and the
other valley Raetian and Roman descendents speaking one of
the Romansch dialects. Here are some sayings of the Surselva Romansch.

"Basdrinaglia la pu bella parantaglia"

"The more distantly related the better"

"Chi serva ad sumun, nun agradesch ad ingun"

"He who will serve everyone serves no one."

The traditional Swiss dagger that "freemen" wear to their local
political committee is a descendent of a Roman Gallic dagger.
Well, enough on the Swiss...

Twenty years ago I was one of the early ones helping the Renaissance
Faires and SCA get going.

Currently, I am also involved in Living History and Re-enacting (WWI
and WWII). Locally, there is a new SCA group that with some old
Silly War and other TP re-enactors are discussing raising a Roman
Legion. Locally, we actually have a castle that also resembles a
late Roman fort where the Renaissance Faire and Medieval Tournaments
are held. The owners are interested in hosting "Roman events".

Finally, I am also into cooking and reviving Roman cuisine.


Aulus Sempronius Regulus (Tennessee)




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

In a message dated 3/14/05 6:41:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
hermeticagnosis@... writes:

There are some people (my understanding is that they are mostly
re-enactors, Legion members) who do not spend ANY time online and would
therefore not be responding to a Census inquiry. "Socii" is a status
tailor-made for such friends and allies who are Roman sympathizers but
spend no time online.






Guys, amazing how you all miss the point.

Socii are here for the SOLE reason to pump up our numbers, so certain people
who have grants get their payouts. It has nothing to do with historical
Rome. It also is a-HISTORICAL! (Damn there's that word again!) The Socii were
members of alliances that consider them Friends of the Senate and People of
Rome.

As Friends of Rome, these nations, cities et al were OBLIGATED to give the
Senate assistance when they asked for it. In quid pro quid, Rome would aid
these nations, cites et al, in return if they were trouble.

So now lets review: May we call on our Socii if we need aid? No. Our
Socii exists for the sole reason to give citizen names a reposatory when they
fall off our grid, so they really want to avoid us.
When I proposed a dues system, I had two levels. First class citizens and
Second Class.

The First Class were a "pay to play" option, you want to take part in
magistracies, you had to pay
dues

The other was everybody else.

I had no loss of citizenship. I had inactive citizenship and inactive
Senate members.

My system was more elegant. Of course I can't cheat on grants because of it.

Q. Fabius Maximus

So


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

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:10:33 -0000
From: "Maior" <rory12001@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1854


M. Hortensia Maior L. Equitio Cincinnato Auguri spd;
Salve; I'm extremely surprised by your conclusion. You do
realize that it is completely ahistorical to remove the tribunes
from office.

L Equitius: So is having female Tribunes, ahistorical (sic).

As A. Apollonius Cordus pointed out in a previous post,
Ti. Gracchus removed a fellow tribune and it was the start of a
terrible downhill spiral for the Republic. Surely you are not
advocating this.

L Equitius: I am "advocating" that the Tribunes do their job, which is to
call the Comitia to fill the position vacated by the resignation of the
former Tribune.

In any event by their actions the tribunes are de-facto co-
opting Saturninus so there is no vacancy.

L Equitius: Which is entirely contrary to established Law. We have a
Constitution that *specifically* addresses this issue and it's is being
'subverted'. Nothing personal, just a point of law.

bene vale in pace deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP


________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:53:06 -0500
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
Subject: Consuls calling Tribunician Elections

Lucius Equitius <vergil96@...> writes:

> Since the Patricians clearly represent more than 10% of the population I
> don't see why the Consules cannot hold this election in the comitia populi
> tributa,

I feel sure the tribunes who vetoed Tribuna Hortensia's attempt to call an
election would also veto a Consular call.

L Equitius: Can't veto something constitutional. It was clearly
constitutional to call for an election to replace the vacated, by
resignation, position. The veto was invalid, and still would be.

Furthermore, plebeian tribunes can
only be elected in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. In no case can the patricians
vote for the plebeian tribunes.

L Equitius: Constitutions says if there are more than 10% Patrician then
these votes are to take place in the Comitia Populi Tributa.

Matter of fact, it doesn't say anywhere that Tribunes have to be Plebeians,
as in:
The Tribunes Plebis must be Plebian and of the "Ordo plebeius".

II.C.3. Ordo plebeius (plebeian order). The plebeian order shall consist of
individuals who do not belong to either the patrician or equestrian orders.

(for all you fans of tangential argument :-)

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:32:07 -0000
From: "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@...>
Subject: Re: Why I think the grace period should be kept


G. Equitius Cato Q. Lanio Paulino M. Constantino Serapio quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

I, too, think that a person who wants to assume a magistracy needs to
be a little tougher than the average Joe,

<SNIP>

As the old proverb goes, a broken plate once mended still serves its
purpose --- but better never to have broken it in the first place.

L Equitius: Thanks, I like that.

Valete bene,
Cato

P.S. - I must agree with L. Equitius Cincinnatus when he says that to
refer to "keep[ing]" the grace period for magistrates is incorrect, as
the very issue of whether or not one ever truly existed under our law
is at the heart of the current discussion.

L Equitius: Thank you. I have seen you too maintain your
dsicussions/arguments strictly to the point regardless of what person may be
involved. These are matters of principle not personalities.
Well, done Cato.

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:56:42 -0000
From: "Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1854


M'CON SERAPIO L EQVITIO CINCINNATO AVGVRI SPD

> > That's why I think the so called "grace period" (which I deem
> > a "wondering period") should be kept.
>
> L Equitius: The main problem with this is *we cannot keep what we
>don't have.*
> We do NOT have a "grace period" for 'resigning magsitrates'.

Ok, that's part of the debate of these days about Saturninus'
tribuneship. Still my post was about another matter, i.e. a proposal
for the law which should finally define how the resignation of
magistracy works, so that everybody agree what the law says. :-)

L Equitius: Ah but it wasn't clear that you were debating a proposal, to me
anyway :-)

If you think the expression "to keep the grace period" is wrong,
just replace it with "to >have< the grace period" wherever it
appears. The core of the proposal is the same :-)

L Equitius: I understand you now, I was simply making sure that everyone
understood where we are now.
What the Law is, not what some may want it to be.

This looks like that kind of things nobody will ever manage to
convince the other is wrong. :-) In these cases the only reasonable
solution is to discuss together to find a compromise which is
acceptable for everybody, isn't it? :-)

L Equitius: Well, I do see your point, but for me *not* having a 'grace
period' is best.
I recommend "think before you act" whenever possible. If one is considering
resignation then think of the consequences of pushing that 'send' button.
Sleep on it.
As should be done when replying in a "heated dsicussion" :-P

I would like to make a suggestion, for what it's worth I've found that going
to "Digest" has really help me keep things in perspective. I read everything
and many things make me angry, but they just aren't worth getting and
staying upset over. I'll write things and put them in my "Draft" folder. I
almost always leave them unsent, just writing them seems to be 'cathartic'.

Valete

Salve Aule Semproni Regule (Tennessee);-)

Welcome!

I know Tennessee is a very looong State, but I am in Memphis. Feel
free to write me privately if you have any questions about Nova Roma.

Again, welcome!

Vale,

Gaius Popillius Laenas

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

Read the story at http://tinyurl.com/3lvqa

"BERLIN (Reuters) - Sharing a name with the most famous leader of ancient Rome
is not always easy when you're a modern politician -- especially on the Ides
of March..."

-- Marinus

Salve Aule Semproni,

Aulus Sempronius REgulus <a_sempronius_regulus@...> writes:

> I just joined this list [also the religio romano list].

Pleased to have you among us. Have you applied for Nova Roman citizenship? I
don't find your name in my census database.

> A brief introduction: I am a college professor. I teach
> philosophy and religion. [snip impressive curriculum vitae]

I look forward to seeing what you have to share with us all here.

Vale,

Gn. Equitius Marinus

16 Mar 200



Salve All



I am trying to spread information on my name sake.. Here is a link to an article about Quintus Sertorius of Old Roma... http://www.ancientcoinmarket.com/mt/mtarticle1/1.html More soon, enjoy...


Vale



Quintus Sertorius



Canada Occidentalis
nate@...


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

Ave Novaromani!

There was some important news lately and I didn't see anyone bring it
up here though it's probably of interest to most everyone ...

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

Trove of Roman sculptures may go public
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published March 15, 2005

ROME -- One of the world's greatest collection of ancient Roman
sculptures may soon be returned to public display in Rome, the Art
Newspaper reported this week.

The collection of 620 Roman statues including 100 portraits of
emperors and their relatives were first put on display by Prince
Alessandro Torlonia in his palace in the Trastevere neighborhood in
1859 but was stored away in the basement in the 1960s when the
Torlonia family converted the palace into apartments. . . .


http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050315-024555-1283r

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

> If you resigned from the Roman legio what happened to you?

Salve,

I believe that was considered desertion and if caught one was made
an example to show the other troopers that one had much better odds
of survival facing the million screaming Gauls as a unit than
attempting to sneak off in the night.

Uh huh. So why are we rewarding a person who took a job, then cannot do it? Certainly it is not very Roman. To use your Gallic analogy we now would allow people to stand for offices secure in the knowledge
knowledge that if they can't do the job they can resign, and they have 9 days to change their mind.
Or to prove a point a magistrate could resign in protest only to be "talked into" staying. The old
argument that "I was so distraught I wasn't thinking carefully," has been pretty much dispelled,
we have former magistrates willing to console those thinking about resigning. In fact we seem to
have a support network. So the excuses for nine days if it ever was valid, is no longer needed.
Q. Fabius Maximus






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

Salvete Omnes,

I don't agree that we should make a resignation grace period
official.
The reasons I don't are many, but looking through the archives at
previous resignations was enough to really firm up my opinion.
A magistrate quitting an office doesn't mean that they will be not
voted in on subsequent elections at all, so the idea of their
actions creating their own consequences in that regard isn't valid.
Some of the most bitter and nasty resignations have been followed by
sweeping elections to put that person into another important office.
Second, by allowing a person to quit and then un-quit with regards
to an office, we are telling them that their temper-tantrums are
more important than our important offices. By making official that
there is no grace period, that quitting an office is irrevocable, we
may cause a potential quitter to stop and think about their actions
more and perhaps prevent a few of these dramatic gestures.
And finally, though we all tend to think of people in the light of
honesty or honorable, if mistaken, action, making a grace period
official will allow a window for troublemakers. Any magistrate, at
that point, will be able to toss down and pick up their office
multiple times. The potential to put a halt to activity in an
important way is then wide open. To someone who simply wants to
cause as much trouble as possible on their way out, this is a
possible avenue.

Valete,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:

>
> AVETE OMNES
>
> Just a few words on why I think the grace period for the resigning
> magistrates should be kept.

<SNIP>

Salve,

Ops... no. I think the discussion must be keep here, since here is
the forum where the Contio of the Comitias are held, and here we
count with a good system of moderation. In fact, the novorromans can
discuss wherever the please.

However, I just was complaining with a former Tribune saying
´Constitutional Crisis´, it was creating turmoil and disconfourt on
the Republic. Alas I was complaining also to not insist against the
decision of the magistrates, specially a clear documented like this
one.

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus PR


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<gaiuspopilliuslaenas@y...> wrote:

>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> I agree with the post, copied below, by Praetor Faustus. It is now
> time to move this discussion to the laws list an off of the Main
> Forum.
>
> Valete,
>
> G. Popillius Laenas
> Consul
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Come on, Paulinus!
> >
> > When I have read this subject I jumped to the mail, afraid of
> ´what
> > is so big?´. But now I realize that it is just a passed subject,
> > already resolved by direct application of NR laws and the sacred
> > Tribunicia Potestas beloved by the gods. So, since the question

is

> > very well developed by the Tribunes and there is magistrates
> working
> > on - perhaps - a new law, I won´t extend myself on it. I really
> fell
> > tempted to reply the arguments, but I wont.
> >
> > Come on! When you write ´Constitutional Crisis´, you even offend
> the
> > current magistrates! What a over-reacting!
> >
> > You have all right to disagree of the magistrates. We have
> disagreed
> > many times on our former tribunate. However, respect the decision
> of
> > the magistrates, specially the real keepers of ther liberty, the
> > Tribunes. Remember, the magistrates are encharged by the ultimate
> > power, the Comitia, to apply the laws on each case. So, stop such
> > bravados of ´Constitution is been broken! The world will be

teared

> > apart!´ and others things. They make me really annoyed, ands a

bit

> > angry as well. Our constitution needs a big reform, it is true, I
> am
> > the first to say this. But the magistrates are managing to handle
> > what is possible. And... I can say there is really a good work
> > nowadays. ´Constitutional crisis!', humpf! We see the
> magistratures
> > independent and working on its colleagialities, and the three
> powers,
> > Magistrature, Senate and Comitia, working on harmony. We have

much

> to
> > do. But we have done much. And these accomplishments must please
> all
> > novorromans. I really let a message of hope and praises to all
> > novorromans. Step by step we are getting closer to a more roman
> Nova
> > Roma.
> >
> > Valete bene in pacem deorum,
> > L. Arminius Faustus PR
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> > <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > > Salve Romans
> > >
> > >
> > > I have asked both publicly and privately for the Tribunes to
> state
> > in clear and a detailed manner under what constitutional
> provisions
> > they have
> > > "reinstated" Caius Curius Saturninus as a Tribune in direct
> > violation of the clear language of the Nova Roma constitution.
> > >
> > > Article IV "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns
> or
> > dies. "
> > >
> > > On amending the Nova Roma Constitution Article 1 Section D.
> > >
> > > "This Constitution may be altered by law passed by the comitia
> > centuriata; such alterations to this Constitution must be

ratified

> by
> > a vote of two-thirds of the entire Senate before they shall take
> > effect. The edicta of an appointed Dictator may also alter this
> > Constitution, subject to ratification by the Senate."
> > >
> > > At no time in Nova Roman history has the constitution been
> amended
> > to increase the powers of the Tribunes to include Co-option of a
> > private citizen into a vacant Tribuneship.
> > >

AVE ANNIA OCTAVIA INDAGATRIX

> Any magistrate, at
> that point, will be able to toss down and pick up their office
> multiple times.

Did you read the proposal about reducing the "grace period" and
having it lasting only 24 hours instead of 9 days?
It has also been proposed to add a penalty even if the magistrate
withdraws his resignation (the lost of the century points assigned
for that office), i.e. "If you withdraw your resignation within 24
hours you can resume your office, but be aware you will be working
for free, the State won't pay you for your work".
In order to solve the problem you rightly point out in the lines I
quoted above, it might be simply stated that Nova Roma won't
tolerate this twice, and the 24 hours grace period for resignation
of magistracy can be applied only once in one citizen's life.

As I wrote in a previous post, I think a compromise has to be found.
People have been discussing this matter for about two months, and we
saw it hasn't been solved. Should now a magistrate have the law with
the nundina passed, in a few months another magistrate would have
the same law without the nundina passed, and then another magistrate
would reintroduce it... and then another one would eliminate it
again, etc. Totally useless.
Let's work out a compromise law, and the matter will be solved once
and for all.

OPTIME VALE
M'C.Serapio

G. Equitius Cato A. Octaviae Indagatrico M. Constantino Serapio L.
Arminio Fausto quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

I've been hammering out a possible compromise, and here it is:



"The lex Cornelia et Maria &c. is hereby amended by substitution as
follows:

'II. If a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the publication of
their resignation, counting inclusively.
A. If, during this nundinum, the citizen desires to withdraw his or
her resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so.
B. If a magistrate publishes a notice of resignation from their
office(s), that magistrate is granted a period of seventy-two (72)
hours from publication of their resignation to withdraw that notice
and resume their period in office, any office(s) they may have held
being suspended from further action until the seventy-two hours have
passed.
C. The citizen can withdraw a resignation by publication of their
desire to withdraw the resignation by the same channel that they used
to submit the resignation.
D. If a magistrate publishes a notice of resignation, then withdraws
that notice within the time period allowed and resumes their
magistracy, they shall only receive one-half (1/2) of the Century
points customarily awarded for having fulfilled their time in that
office.' "



N.B. - Consul Laenas, this is SLIGHTLY different from the one I sent
you privately.

Some notes on the above:

1. The "grace period" is in place, but is lengthened to 72 hours to
give a little breather and, co-incidentally, to match the 72 hours
given to our tribunes to uphold or dismiss a veto.
2. As I've changed the language from "resign"to "publish a notice of
resignatin", this avoids the possible conflict with the Constitution
Article IV statement vis-a-vis resignation.
3. A penalty, the loss of 1/2 the normal Century points, is attached
to the publication of a resignation notice.

Valete bene,

Cato

P.S. - I hope nobody minds my continued work on this; I know I
promised not to keep throwing these out at you, but it's impossible
for me not to do so :-)

Cato

Salvete,

My name is Gaius Velius Tutor and I am a new citizen in Nova Roma. I have been reading through all the messages for a few weeks now and I followed with good attention the "constitutional crisis" that seems to be going on. I was not there when the original event happened and learned about it in this "message group".

Some people here consider that the office is vacant because its owner resigned, some say it is not. There are laws and sections of the constitution backing both opinions and the debate could go forever.

I am not familiar with all the Nova Roma political or judicial system, but why didn't any magistrate simply called/formed and special tribunal (like it would have been done in ancient Rome)? The final decision would have been made long ago and the debate would be over.

Maybe this initiative has been taken already and I missed it, but I don't see why such initiative should fail to solve the problem.

Please don't flame me for posting this. As I mentionned, I am a new citizen and the simple fact of hitting the "send" button makes me very nervous.

Velete

G V Tutor


---------------------------------
Découvrez nos promotions exclusives "destination de la Tunisie, du Maroc, des Baléares et la Rép. Dominicaine sur Yahoo! Voyages.

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

G. Equitius Cato G. Velio Tutori S.P.D.

Salve Velius Tutor!

Always good to hear someone else speak in the Forum!

They only problem with utilizing the kind of tribunal that you suggest
is that we do not have in our law any kind of procedure by which one
could be called. Since it is not a lawsuit (no-one is being brought
to court by anybody), the only other recourse would be a kind of
Constitutional Court, which is so utterly unRoman that the very
thought makes the skin of many citizens crawl :-)

It is a curious pattern of Roman law that, in general, issues were
decided as they popped up; laws were passed at specific times for
specific reasons, and the idea of "precedence" was relatively unknown.
They did not have a written Constitution, or even understand the idea
of a constitution as we would understand it. So, we are attempting
now to correct an ambiguity in avery Roman fashion: pass a law that
covers the specific problem.

Vale bene,

Cato

A. Apollonius Cordus Ser. Equitio Trojano amico
omnibusque sal.

> There are some people (my understanding is that they
> are mostly
> re-enactors, Legion members) who do not spend ANY
> time online and would
> therefore not be responding to a Census inquiry.

One does not need to spend even one second online to
respond to the census. Under the lex Fabia de censo
anyone who doesn't respond by e-mail is contacted by
the provincial governor in writing through the postal
system; and anyone who doesn't respond to a written
letter is contacted by telephone. The only people who
fail to respond to the census are (a) those who
consciously decide not to respond, and (b) those who
have changed their e-mail address, postal address, and
telephone number without telling anyone.

> "Socii" is a status
> tailor-made for such friends and allies who are
> Roman sympathizers but
> spend no time online.

I don't think it is tailor-made for these people. It's
tailor-made for people who have no interest in
remaining Roman citizens whatsoever but can't be
bothered to send formal notification of their
resignation. Anyone who has any interest at all in
maintaining citizenship, regardless of time spend
online, would respond to the census. All you need to
do is answer the phone and say "yeah, I'll remain a citizen"!

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Gaius Popillius Laenas Consulis Gaio Valio Tutor salutem dicit.

>>My name is Gaius Velius Tutor and I am a new citizen in Nova

Roma.<<

Welcome to Nova Roma.

>>Please don't flame me for posting this. As I mentionned, I am a

new citizen and the simple fact of hitting the "send" button makes
me very nervous.<<

I hope no one would "flame" you for asking a honest question.
Please do not be nervous about participating; this is your Forum as
well. If you ever have any questions you want answered privately,
feel free to write me or one of the other magistrates.

Vale bene.

Salve Romans

Can someone tell me how best to translate "Summer Camp" into Latin.

Thanks

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


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

A. Apollonius Cordus Ser. Equitio Trojano amico
omnibusque sal.

> Keep in mind that we are also a Non-Profit
> Organization, and therefore
> *required* to maintain a list of members!

Yes, quite. Was someone suggesting we shouldn't? I
think I've missed the point of your comment.

> Therefore, YES, Citizenship CAN be resigned: They
> are quitting the NPO
> group, they want to be taken off our roster of
> Members and we are
> obligated to do so, in order to keep our list as
> accurate as feasible.

I'm not familiar with U.S. corporate law, but I
imagine that it allows corporations to create specific
procedures whereby membership may be resigned. If so,
what's the problem with saying "the procedure whereby
one resigns Nova Roma Inc. is to fail to reply to the
census"?

I really hope (and let me address this comment not
just to you but to those who have been e-mailing C.
Equitius privately) we are not going to return to the
bad old days when saying "it might be illegal" was
enough to stop any reform. Either something is illegal
or it isn't. If it isn't, well, no problem. If it is,
let's find another way to achieve the same thing.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com