A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti amice:

> Therefore any law that attempts to grant the
> tribunes the power to
> interpret the "law" means just that - laws or leges
> as distinct from
> the constitution.

This is an interesting problem, because an ambiguity
here arises which is specific to the English language.
In English "law" can mean the entire legal system in
abstract, including customs, conventions, decisions
given in court, the writings of jurists, statutes, and
written constitutions... or it can mean a statute.

Latin has no such problem, of course. A statute is a
lex, whereas law in the general sense if jus. If there
were an authoritative Latin text of the relevant legal
documents we could easily check whether they give, or
seek to give, the tribunes the power to interpret
leges only or the whole jus. Heu, there is no such
translation that I know of.

Your wider point - that it is logically inconsistent
for a lex, which is subordinate to the constitution,
to give a magistrate the power to interpret the
constitution - has some merit, but of course on this
logic the only person with legal authority to
interpret the constitution is a person explicitly
granted that power by the constitution itself. And
what do we find? Of course we find that no such
explicit grant exists in the constitution, meaning
that, if your argument is correct, then the
constitution cannot be authoritatively interpreted by
anyone, ever. Which is, in fact, a conclusion we've
come to several times before by quite different lines
of reasoning. So once again we are in an insoluble
deadlock on account of the inadequacies of the
constitution.

I suspect you and I, and other supporters of a
flexible constitution, are beginning to get rather
tired of being proved right so depressingly often...





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Modiane.

Again - whether you, I, Uncle Tom Cobbly and All think that his claim
is invalid is utterly irrelevant. The constitution is the supreme
legal authority in Nova Roma. There is, as we have been frequently
reminded in the past, no ability to just ignore it...much easier on
many occasions though I grant you that would be.

Regardless of whether the consequences are stupid, harmful or banal,
the Constitution has to be obeyed. If we start to selectively chop
parts out that are thought to be silly, then there may come a day
when, for example, someone decides that the protection granted to the
Religio and its position and standing is irrelevant and silly, and
musters a vocal enough group and some tame tribunes to connive at it
being ignored. What we do today in this case will come back to haunt
us at a later date if we give into the easiest route - to ignore the
right given to Paulinus.

Until the constitution is done to death in a properly legal fashion
and we return to the true Roman way of the ordinary law being
supreme, then we are stuck with it. We also have no room to say "Oh
just ignore it and change it for the better". Until it is changed
what is written there is our highest legal authority and for all our
sakes and all our liberties it better be obeyed ... to the letter -
fatuous or unpleasant though the results maybe.

One consequence of this should be to once again reinforce the fact
that laws and constiutions require considerable effort, expertise and
care to craft. Just because this is Nova Roma and not a macronational
state is of no relevance. Bad by-laws, club rules, constitutions etc.
lead to muck ups - in all sizes of organizations.

You can't craft these on the back of a napkin at dinner over a few
beers.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> With this level of reasoning any citizen could request, or demand,
> provocatio whenever a magistrate appoints a scribe. Or whenever a
censor appoints a
>

Salve amice.

My point exactly - no one can interpret the wretched thing because it
doesn't allow anyone to - therefore all we can do is change it,
through due process. This is time consuming and cumbersome but that
is all we are allowed the luxury of. Everytime we have one of these
situations all we can do is re-draft it.

Of course the next thing will be for some to want to create a
specific right for someone to interpret it, and that will potentially
place far too much power in the hands of a group of people - be they
a "court" or the college of Tribunes. The only people who should have
that much power are the people, which of course is why sensibly the
Romans didn't have a rigid written constitution. Someone would have
had too much power over them as well.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cn. Caesari omnibusque sal.
>
> Scripsisti amice:
>
> > Therefore any law that attempts to grant the
> > tribunes the power to
> > interpret the "law" means just that - laws or leges
> > as distinct from
> > the constitution.
>
> This is an interesting problem, because an ambiguity
> here arises which is specific to the English language.
> In English "law" can mean the entire legal system in
> abstract, including customs, conventions, decisions
> given in court, the writings of jurists, statutes, and
> written constitutions... or it can mean a statute.
>
> Latin has no such problem, of course. A statute is a
> lex, whereas law in the general sense if jus. If there
> were an authoritative Latin text of the relevant legal
> documents we could easily check whether they give, or
> seek to give, the tribunes the power to interpret
> leges only or the whole jus. Heu, there is no such
> translation that I know of.
>
> Your wider point - that it is logically inconsistent
> for a lex, which is subordinate to the constitution,
> to give a magistrate the power to interpret the
> constitution - has some merit, but of course on this
> logic the only person with legal authority to
> interpret the constitution is a person explicitly
> granted that power by the constitution itself. And
> what do we find? Of course we find that no such
> explicit grant exists in the constitution, meaning
> that, if your argument is correct, then the
> constitution cannot be authoritatively interpreted by
> anyone, ever. Which is, in fact, a conclusion we've
> come to several times before by quite different lines
> of reasoning. So once again we are in an insoluble
> deadlock on account of the inadequacies of the
> constitution.
>
> I suspect you and I, and other supporters of a
> flexible constitution, are beginning to get rather
> tired of being proved right so depressingly often...
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide

with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato P. Memmio Albucio tr. pl. S.P.D.

Salve tribune.

I understand your reasoning, but disagree with one of its fundamental
elements.

You wrote:

"2. If we want to modify the rule on "who may interpret the
constitution", the relevant comitia would be the centuriata, for we
could talk about modifying the constitution. And I have not the
power convening it..."

The point being that the Constitution itself does not grant the
authority to interpret itself to any magistrate. It can only be
altered by the will of the People. Whether or not a lex might pop up
claiming to give he power to interpret the Constitution, the
Constitution, the self-proclaimed "highest legal authority within Nova
Roma", does not permit it --- it states clearly that in any question
of legal authority, the "higher authority shall take precedence".
Thus, the Constitution, being the "highest" possible authority, ALWAYS
prevails against a lex --- the SOLE exception being edicts issued by a
dictator.

You rightly point out that the Constitution allows itself to be
amended/altered by vote of the People called into the comitia centuriata.

The provocatio is not attempting to alter or amend the Constitution.
The provocatio is being called to answer whether or not the tribunes
had the right to make the decision they made; i.e.: did the tribunes,
Constitutionally, have the authority they granted themselves when they
made their decision?

I and others say they did not. The senatrix and others say they did.
The People should decide.

I ask you to think about this and in your formal call, see fit to
adjust the question brought before the comitia populi tributa.

Thank you for your patience.

Vale bene,

G. Equitius Cato

A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti amice:

> If so, may I suggest that in your official capacity
> you change the
> question to: "Did the tribunes of the plebeians
> have the authority to
> interpret the Constitution and make a decision on a
> Constitutional
> question?" - as that is the direct issue here.

I, too, would like this issue to be settled by the
assembly, but I think the particular wording you
suggest would be inadvisable.

If you look back over the history of the republic
you'll find that the assembly was never called upon to
rule on a question of the interpretation of existing
law. There's a good reason for that: it's not
qualified to do so. The assembly is made of people of
all kinds; it is not a panel of judges. It's a
legislative rather than a judicial body. Can you
imagine a modern parliament, or, an even closer
analogy, a national referendum being asked to rule on
the legality of an act of the executive power? It
wouldn't happen.

This isn't because of any concept of the separation of
powers: it would never happen in the U.K., which does
not observe the principle of the separation of powers,
nor did it ever happen in Rome. It's simply logic. The
thing, and the only thing, a legislative body can do
it make law. Thus in the U.K., whose parliament is
commonly called the mother of all parliaments, a
statute it called an Act of Parliament. This is
literally what it is: an act performed by the
parliament. Any act which the parliament performs is
an Act of Parliament, and the parliament cannot
perform any other type of act. Just as Cassandra could
only speak the truth, whenever a legislative body
opens its collective mouth whatever comes out cannot
be anything but legislation.

This is disguised by the fact that the assembly of the
old republic commonly acted as what looks like a court
of appeal. But in fact it wasn't a court. It wasn't
asked to decide whether the defendant had committed
the crime; it was asked to decide whether he should be
punished. Of course the question of his guilt came
into the calculation, but the assembly, unlike a
court, was perfecty free, if it so wished, to decide
that the defendant was guilty but should be set free
anyway. The outcome of a trial apud populum was simply
a very specific lex saying "let so-and-so be condemned
to such-and-such-a-penalty", just as the result of an
election was really a lex saying "let so-and-so be
such-and-such-a-magistrate". The assembly cannot do
anything but legislate.

So if the assembly, or any other legislature, attempts
to make a statement about the meaning of an existing
point of law, it will simply end up creating new law.
If the question you suggest above were put to the
assembly, the assembly would of course produce a "yes"
or a "no". But a "yes" would not tell us that the
tribunes actually did have the authority to do what
they did under the law which existed at the time, nor
would a "no" tell us that they lacked that authority.
The assembly cannot create truth, it can only create
law. So if it says that the tribunes had the
authority, it will not become true that they had it,
it will merely become law. It might, I suppose, settle
this particular dispute, but it won't give us any
clarification of the legal position. If the assembly
is asked your question and answers "no", then next
time the same situation arises, the tribunes will be
able to do exactly the same as they did before, and no
one will be able to say any more definitively whether
they have the power to do it or not.

P. Memmius' wording is, I fear, no better. The outcome
would be a lex declaring that Ti. Galerius did, or did
not, suffer a direct negative impact. If it were to
declare that he did suffer a direct negative impact,
nothing would happen except that we would have a lex
in the tabularium asserting that at some point in the
past someone had suffered a direct negative impact.
Again, it wouldn't make it true, it would just make it
law.

If the assembly is going to be asked anything, which
is suspect it is not in this particular case, the only
useful question to ask it is a question about what it
wishes to be done in the future. The verbs in ancient
Roman leges were usually future imperatives. There's a
reason for that.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato A. Apollonio Cordo S.P.D.

Salve Apollonius Cordus.

Thank you. I understand the logic of what you have written.

So, then, would the better presentation be,

"The tribunes of the plebeians shall have the collegial authority to
interpret the Constitution and pronounce binding edicts based upon
those interpretations."

?

Vale bene,

Cato

Salve Cnaeus Cornelius


Recently, Flavius Vedius returned to Nova Roma and
allowed cives to access the old list. Since then, more
than 80 cives can read the messages, including me.
I believe that Flavius Vedius needs to approve all the
newcomers, and i wonder if he is available. If you
need a specific messagem, perhaps i can send to you.


Vale
M.Arminius

--- Cnaeus Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
escreveu:

> Salve, Marce Armini,
>
> I have tried to join to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/
> but I couldn't. It writes that my membership is
> pending: however this ML is dead from years and
> I 'm strongly afraid that my membership
> will be never accepted...

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/

P. Minucia Tiberia A. Apollonio Cordoni Omnibus S.P.D.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae Straboni omnibusque
> sal.
>
> I hope you'll forgive me if I comment on only a tiny
> bit of your analysis; I don't want to suggest that the
> rest is correct or incorrect, because I said
> everything I have to say about this issue last time it
> came up.

PMTS: My comments below. And, Apolloni Corde, I think if you had
stated in this forum that I was 'correct', the shock would be too
much (or perhaps I shouldn't reveal this weak point :)), big toothy
grin.... but "correct or incorrect" and you just don't want to say,
I guess will do, as it describes most of the dialogue here to date,
depending on interpretation and who has the authority to make that
call.

>
> You wrote:
>
> > The Lex Arminia Equitia de Imperio
> >
> >
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-06-30-iv.html
> >
> > This lex defines the terms "imperium" and
> > 'potestas', and what
> > particular powers each of these designations
> > contain. Imperium is
> > that of a curule magistrate ex Praetor, Consul,
> > Censor, and to a
> > more limited extent, a governor, and 'potestas' is
> > relative to the
> > powers of the Tribunes
> >
> > Tribunes in section I of this lex under the heading
> > Potestas:
> >
> > I. Partial iurisdictio: the power to interpret the
> > law within the
> > duties of the magistrate to hold potestas .
> >
> > Why partial? Because there is five of them, and the
> > lex Labienia
> > mandates that they are one of five, they are not
> > acting alone,
> > irrespective of the veto of one another. They are
> > subject to the
> > agreement or disagreement and hence veto/abstention
> > of their
> > colleagues.
>
> It's true that there are five tribuni, but that's not
> the reason why their jurisdictio is partial. The
> aediles plebis, for example, also have partial
> jurisdictio, but there are only two of them. The
> consules, on the other hand, have full jurisdictio,
> and there are two of them also.
>
> What makes it partial is that it is limited to the
> magistrate's particular are of responsibility, whereas
> magistrates with full jurisdictio have the power to
> interpret and apply all parts of the law.
>
> In fact the power of jurisdictio, both full and
> partial, is primarily concerned with court-cases. It's
> the power of giving judgement in legal cases. It's
> what allows the aediles curules, for instance, to
> exercise judicial functions in commercial disputes
> (their jurisdictio is partial - they can only try
> commercial cases), and what allows praetores and
> consules (though in practice it's usually praetores)
> to try legal cases of all kinds.

PMTS responds to Cordus:

Partial jurisdictio defined: (from the Lex Arminia Equitia de
Imperio)
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-06-30-iv.html

"the power to interpret the law within the duties of the magistrate
to hold Potestas" (their area of responsibility as defined by the
constitution...in this case the Tribs)

Jurisdictio is the realm in which they may interpret the
law. "Partial" refers to the extent they have it.

Anyone subject to incercessio by their colleague (s) cannot
reasonably have 'full' jurisdiction in my view. They are subject to
eachothers intercessio so they only have a partial jurisdiction or
a 'degree of it' as is clarified further in section IV for you, said
section entitled 'other determinations'

articles 3 and 4 of this section tell us that Identical levels of
Potestas within the same magisture may veto each other, and that
Identical levels of imperium within the same magisture may veto each
other.

So although some of your points are well taken, one cannot have
identical levels or parts of either and claim to have the whole...so
nobody, except those void of intercessio can claim to have 'total'
potestas or imperium within themselves.

So, with respect, I do not completely follow your reasoning here.

It could be argued that as governor I have 'complete' imperium over
Canada Orientalis, and that imperium can be limited to a
geographical area per this lex; but considering the 'whole' of Nova
Roma, I have only partial jurisdiction. In this case the lex makes
a distinction of whole imperium in one geographical area, which
boils down of course to partial imperium when employable to the
entire administrational realm of Nova Roma.

So it boils down to the wording of the constitution and its pursuant
leges.

It boils down to yes/no, the Tribunes, through their administrative
powers as outlined in the constitution, have the right to
interpretive powers, which is, to me, a reasonable expectation, and
an expectation which is augmented by this lex.

In the particular case of Galerius Tiberius Paulinus Quaestor, the
ball was hurled into their jurisdictional field...they have
administered the law. They were also allowed to interpret it as
they felt appropriate, taking matters into account such as the
letter and spirit of the constitution, and the wellbeing of the
Roman people as per their oaths.



A final thought, if a handful of posters can't agree on exactly what
the laws 'mean', why do we expect such perfection from 5
Tribunes....I can't administer anything without employing some
degree of interpretation and sequential reasoning in any area of my
life...I must form a hypothesis before going further....
interpretation and extrapolation. Why are we expecting this of the
Tribs?

I'm sure every person in the realm of legal dealing only wish things
could be more cut and dry. No set of laws is perfect. But somehow
our Tribunes cannot employ reasoning within their administration?

If laws pursuant to the constitution passed in the CPT are carry no
weight, then many, many persons have wasted their time voting for
them, writing them, promulgating them. And I say this, realizing
that our constitution is our highest ruling document. Laws in the
CPT are tools to define, pursue and outline who comitia regards the
best means of utilizing the constitution. And if they have not been
vetoed and are passed, they remain law; if they define, pursue and
not contradict the constitution, they are worthy within themselves
to be utilized in my view.

Valete



Valete

>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide

with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Senator et salvete omnes.

> A final thought, if a handful of posters can't agree on exactly

what the laws 'mean', why do we expect such perfection from 5

> Tribunes....I can't administer anything without employing some
> degree of interpretation and sequential reasoning in any area of

my life...I must form a hypothesis before going further....

> interpretation and extrapolation. Why are we expecting this of the
> Tribs?

I contend we are not expecting it from them since they are not
empowered to interpret the constitution - plain and simple. If they
were it would have to be contained in the constitution which in the
order of precedence is the highest legal authority in Nova Roma
(excepting the edicts of a Dictator - which can be implied in the
rest of this post when I say only the constitution can affect
itself). Since it isn't they can't and no we should not expect it of
them.

>But somehow our Tribunes cannot employ reasoning within their

administration?>

They can in relation to ordinary laws, not in relation to the
constitution. Reasoning = interpretation and there is nothing in the
constitution to allow them, or anyone else, to interpret it.

>If laws pursuant to the constitution passed in the CPT are carry
>no weight, then many, many persons have wasted their time voting
>for them, writing them, promulgating them.

This is indeed the consequence of Section I.B of the constitution.
Passing a law but omitting to amend the constitution makes the
actual law irrelevant. Sad but undeniably true.

>And I say this, realizing that our constitution is our highest
>ruling document. Laws in the CPT are tools to define, pursue and
>outline who comitia regards the best means of utilizing the
>constitution.

That is in my view an entirely spurious and wishful belief. A law
cannot in any way affect, alter, implement, admininster, define,
pursue, outline (or any similar term) the constitution. Only the
constitution can do that as a result of Section I.B. - the order of
legal authority. Your "belief" isn't a legal reality.

>And if they have not been vetoed and are passed, they remain law;
>if they define, pursue and not contradict the constitution, they
>are worthy within themselves to be utilized in my view.

That obviously is your view but that isn't what Section I.B of the
constitution says. The only document that can do any of these
wonderful things is...the constitution.

Vale et valete
Caesar

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. Gn. Iulio Caesari
P. Memmio Albucio tr. pl. A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

Two things I'd like to point out.

This is the first: The Constitution does not allow itself to be
interpreted by anything other than itself. The words of the
Constitution cannot be altered or amended except by the vote of the
People called in the comitia centuriata. The Constitution is an
entirely self-referential document. If the Constitution guarantees
the right of a citizen, that right cannot be changed, abridged,
altered, amended, ignored, re-defined, interpreted, enlarged upon &c.
in any way shape or form under any circumstances except those which
the Constitution itself sets out --- if any. The Constitution
declares that any citizen may appeal a decision made by a magistrate
that has a direct negative impact on that citizen; it guarantees the
right of provocatio. Nowhere, in the Constitution or any lex passed
by any comitia is this right changed, abridged, altered, amended,
ignored, re-defined, interpreted, enlarged upon &c. The right of
provocatio stands, guaranteed by the Constitution of Nova Roma.

This is the second: If the comitia populi tributa is called in
accordance with the Constitution to answer a citizen's invocation of
the right to provocatio, it is called for only one purpose: to answer
that citizen's call. It must, in the words of the Constitution, be
called "to appeal a decision of a magistrate". In other words, the
ONLY issue which this calling to order of the comitia populi tributa
may deal with is whether to uphold the appellation of that decision or
to allow that decision to stand. The ONLY subject that may be put
before the People is:

"The decision 'to enroll [Caius Curius Saturninus] on the tribunician
mailing list and [allow him to take a place] place among [the
tribunes] with full capacity, powers and potestas' shall stand."

The right of provocatio is called to appeal a specific act. Not to
hash out corrections to the Constitution or laws. Not to confirm or
withdraw anyone to or from an office. For no other reason than to
decide whether the decision itself should stand.

All the rest --- cleaning up the right of provocatio, determining the
boundaries of tribunician power, everything and anything else anyone
might try to tack on --- are of no importance to the provocatio.

Memmius Albucius, with all due respect for your intentions, it is not
you who decides what issue to put before the People. It is not within
the authority of any magistrate to decide. The Constitution does not
allow any magistrate that authority. The citizen who has invoked the
right of provocatio has already done so, as he is the only one allowed
to do so under the Constitution.

Valete bene,

Cato

---Salve G. Iulius Caesar et Salvete Omnes:

Well, then what I am reading from you here is that the CPT contains
passages of 'wishful beliefs' or beliefs folks/magistrates they
elect can consider law and employ them as law.......ummm ....as long
as they are not Tribunes? Because they must follow the rote letter
of the constitution in all endeavors to 'administer the law'?

Oh.

They are not to consider these laws, these laws which are 'in
pursuit' of the given sections of the constitution, defining certain
sections of the constitution, etc?

Oh.

Why would the Tribunes promulgate laws through the CPT if there were
not 'binding on the entire populace'?

(Po shakes head)

I know the constitution is in places a bit of a mess but I am
hardpressed to find a place where we can compel them to
act/interpret things otherwise, short of a dictatorship, especially
when there is CPT law to atleast 'hint' that they might have some
powers of interpretation....in my interpretation :)

But the darned thing is, whether or not you, me, or Homer Simpson
feel that there was grounds for Provacatio, whether or not you, me
or Homie see Saturninus as a legitimate Tribune, or whether or not
for some strange reason even ye, me or Homie would in the worst way
like to see a vacant tribune position , we three, alas.... are not
constitutionally in a position to make that call. Lets lobby for
legal amendments. I do not see a pot of gold at the end of any
rainbow in doing otherwise...for anyone.

Ironic....the recent and multiple advocation of calling the CPT to
help iron this out, yet on the other side of the same mouths
questioning the legalness of anything the CPT has adopted in laws to
date, with respect to definition and prescribed use of Tribune
potestas and jurisdiction....promulgated in whole or part by
Tribunes no less.

Po shakes head....

ON another humorous note, I read on Yahoo yesterday that we
Canukians received some 'dumb government award'.....I didn't catch
the details. Do you have a link for me, if so, so I could read up
on why we've been granted such a designation?

Pompeia






In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:

> Salve Senator et salvete omnes.
>
> > A final thought, if a handful of posters can't agree on exactly
> what the laws 'mean', why do we expect such perfection from 5
> > Tribunes....I can't administer anything without employing some
> > degree of interpretation and sequential reasoning in any area of
> my life...I must form a hypothesis before going further....
> > interpretation and extrapolation. Why are we expecting this of

the

> > Tribs?
>
> I contend we are not expecting it from them since they are not
> empowered to interpret the constitution - plain and simple. If

they

> were it would have to be contained in the constitution which in

the

> order of precedence is the highest legal authority in Nova Roma
> (excepting the edicts of a Dictator - which can be implied in the
> rest of this post when I say only the constitution can affect
> itself). Since it isn't they can't and no we should not expect it

of

> them.
>
> >But somehow our Tribunes cannot employ reasoning within their
> administration?>
>
> They can in relation to ordinary laws, not in relation to the
> constitution. Reasoning = interpretation and there is nothing in

the

> constitution to allow them, or anyone else, to interpret it.
>
> >If laws pursuant to the constitution passed in the CPT are carry
> >no weight, then many, many persons have wasted their time voting
> >for them, writing them, promulgating them.
>
> This is indeed the consequence of Section I.B of the constitution.
> Passing a law but omitting to amend the constitution makes the
> actual law irrelevant. Sad but undeniably true.
>
> >And I say this, realizing that our constitution is our highest
> >ruling document. Laws in the CPT are tools to define, pursue and
> >outline who comitia regards the best means of utilizing the
> >constitution.
>
> That is in my view an entirely spurious and wishful belief. A law
> cannot in any way affect, alter, implement, admininster, define,
> pursue, outline (or any similar term) the constitution. Only the
> constitution can do that as a result of Section I.B. - the order

of

> legal authority. Your "belief" isn't a legal reality.
>
> >And if they have not been vetoed and are passed, they remain law;
> >if they define, pursue and not contradict the constitution, they
> >are worthy within themselves to be utilized in my view.
>
> That obviously is your view but that isn't what Section I.B of the
> constitution says. The only document that can do any of these
> wonderful things is...the constitution.
>
> Vale et valete
> Caesar

P. Minucia Tiberia Omnibus S.P.D.

Here's a link to the current constitution

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitutionoct57.html

Just a couple of tidbits from the above document:

IV Magistrates

number 7 (why aren't we using Roman numerals?)
Tribunes may call the CPT if the ratio of patricians to plebs is 10%
or more. I think that was pointed out on its own last night, but
pursuant to this, I point out the following:

III Comitia
D 1. CPT This assembly of Patricians and Plebians may enact
laws 'binding on the entire citizenry' Sch provision also applies to
the Plebian Assembly in this high ruling document

So, in recognition that our constitution is our highest ruling
document, it *seems* ;0 to provide the Tribunes with the ability,
by the constitution to pass stuff through the CPT which has to be
regarded as a bit more than fond sentiment...

These laws are constitionally binding.

That one might perceive a contradition in the constitution then the
constitution wins out here. But where is the constitutional
contradiction to what is written in the Lex Equitia Arminia Equitia
de Imperio
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004--6-30-iv.html

?????

They can administer the law, (and thus apply the law) they can
interpret the law by the above legislation in this process, and it
is binding on the entire citizenry.

I stand by the Tribunes on this one, I'm afraid.

Pompeia



The constitution

Salve Senator.

Re. the award - no I don't but I will look.

As to the rest - the constitution is not just a bit of a mess, it is
a large mess and increasingly we find it conflicting with itself and
common sense.

Yes - the easiest thing in the world would be to take a "practical"
and Roman approach to it, but we cannot. This document remains the
highest legal authority we have. We cannot pick and choose which
bits are more silly than the rest, for that is a subjective
judgement. Today's silliness could be defined by you, or I or even a
lot of people, and tomorrows issue could be someone else's silliness
to be ignored. The trouble is their silliness might be something
vital to us.

Yes, the tribunes can pass laws binding on the whole populace, they
just can't pass laws binding the constitution, which sits above all
of us and all laws except the edicts of a Dictator. So even if the
Tribunes have promulgated the best law in the world, with all our
support, if that law contradicts the constitution then the
constitution will trump our wonderful law into oblivion.

It isn't ironic at all regarding the fact that I want the CPT to
address the issue of provactio and at the same time point out that
laws passed by the CPT which affect the constitution or the matters
it speaks to, are null and void by virtue of the chain of legal
authority. There is no conflict. Its fact, nothing ironic about it.
Sad yes, ironic no.

In this case of the provocatio, no one can judge whether it is
justified. No one can define anything about the constitution because
that function has to be defined itself in the constitution. Once the
right of provocatio was claimed the only course of action legally
open to us was to allow the appeal. To deny it is unconstitutional.
The Tribunes cannot veto it on grounds of being unconstitutional
since it is an absolute right granted in the constitution. They
cannot interpret it away by deeming that the grounds don't exist for
they don't have that right granted under the constitution.

In terms of constitutions this is a rigid and inflexible one and due
to the gaps in it it is one that is sealed hermitically shut against
interference or interpretation. There is nothing that can be done
except to keep changing the constitution everytime we get into these
messes, empower someone to interpret it or scrap it. Frankly
inserting into a clause that someone can interpret it will do little
good, since due to the large gaps in content re. proceedural devices
and functions, the scope to interpret will be slim. In fact more
often than not I suspect that whoever got that thankless job woudl
find out that they would not have to interpret so much as insert or
completely rewrite. Then we would be locked into debates over what
defines interpretation and how far does one go. What is leagl for
theis interpreter to do or not do.

The ancient Romans didn't have a document like this for a very good
reason - it is a pain in the neck to administer and far simpler to
enact ordinary law (lex). Better that we scrap the thing in the
future and move the historic model. Return power to the people.

But for now we cannot choose to do anything but follow the
constitution to the letter, for to do otherwise is to strike at the
heart of legality in Nova Roma, and no just because we think it is
silly does not entitle us to break the wretched thing or ignore it.
The constitution is the constitution is the constitution and we are
all subject to its contents, to the absolute letter...sadly.

Vale
Caesar

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

> ---Salve G. Iulius Caesar et Salvete Omnes:
>
> Well, then what I am reading from you here is that the CPT

contains

> passages of 'wishful beliefs' or beliefs folks/magistrates they
> elect can consider law and employ them as law.......ummm ....as

long

> as they are not Tribunes? Because they must follow the rote

letter

> of the constitution in all endeavors to 'administer the law'?
>
> Oh.
>
> They are not to consider these laws, these laws which are 'in
> pursuit' of the given sections of the constitution, defining

certain

> sections of the constitution, etc?
>
> Oh.
>
> Why would the Tribunes promulgate laws through the CPT if there

were

> not 'binding on the entire populace'?
>
> (Po shakes head)
>
> I know the constitution is in places a bit of a mess but I am
> hardpressed to find a place where we can compel them to
> act/interpret things otherwise, short of a dictatorship,

especially

> when there is CPT law to atleast 'hint' that they might have some
> powers of interpretation....in my interpretation :)
>
> But the darned thing is, whether or not you, me, or Homer Simpson
> feel that there was grounds for Provacatio, whether or not you, me
> or Homie see Saturninus as a legitimate Tribune, or whether or not
> for some strange reason even ye, me or Homie would in the worst

way

> like to see a vacant tribune position , we three, alas.... are not
> constitutionally in a position to make that call. Lets lobby for
> legal amendments. I do not see a pot of gold at the end of any
> rainbow in doing otherwise...for anyone.
>
> Ironic....the recent and multiple advocation of calling the CPT to
> help iron this out, yet on the other side of the same mouths
> questioning the legalness of anything the CPT has adopted in laws

to

> date, with respect to definition and prescribed use of Tribune
> potestas and jurisdiction....promulgated in whole or part by
> Tribunes no less.
>
> Po shakes head....
>
> ON another humorous note, I read on Yahoo yesterday that we
> Canukians received some 'dumb government award'.....I didn't catch
> the details. Do you have a link for me, if so, so I could read up
> on why we've been granted such a designation?
>
> Pompeia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Senator et salvete omnes.
> >
> > > A final thought, if a handful of posters can't agree on

exactly

> > what the laws 'mean', why do we expect such perfection from 5
> > > Tribunes....I can't administer anything without employing some
> > > degree of interpretation and sequential reasoning in any area

of

> > my life...I must form a hypothesis before going further....
> > > interpretation and extrapolation. Why are we expecting this of
> the
> > > Tribs?
> >
> > I contend we are not expecting it from them since they are not
> > empowered to interpret the constitution - plain and simple. If
> they
> > were it would have to be contained in the constitution which in
> the
> > order of precedence is the highest legal authority in Nova Roma
> > (excepting the edicts of a Dictator - which can be implied in

the

> > rest of this post when I say only the constitution can affect
> > itself). Since it isn't they can't and no we should not expect

it

> of
> > them.
> >
> > >But somehow our Tribunes cannot employ reasoning within their
> > administration?>
> >
> > They can in relation to ordinary laws, not in relation to the
> > constitution. Reasoning = interpretation and there is nothing in
> the
> > constitution to allow them, or anyone else, to interpret it.
> >
> > >If laws pursuant to the constitution passed in the CPT are

carry

> > >no weight, then many, many persons have wasted their time

voting

> > >for them, writing them, promulgating them.
> >
> > This is indeed the consequence of Section I.B of the

constitution.

> > Passing a law but omitting to amend the constitution makes the
> > actual law irrelevant. Sad but undeniably true.
> >
> > >And I say this, realizing that our constitution is our highest
> > >ruling document. Laws in the CPT are tools to define, pursue

and

> > >outline who comitia regards the best means of utilizing the
> > >constitution.
> >
> > That is in my view an entirely spurious and wishful belief. A

law

> > cannot in any way affect, alter, implement, admininster, define,
> > pursue, outline (or any similar term) the constitution. Only the
> > constitution can do that as a result of Section I.B. - the order
> of
> > legal authority. Your "belief" isn't a legal reality.
> >
> > >And if they have not been vetoed and are passed, they remain

law;

> > >if they define, pursue and not contradict the constitution,

they

> > >are worthy within themselves to be utilized in my view.
> >
> > That obviously is your view but that isn't what Section I.B of

the

> > constitution says. The only document that can do any of these
> > wonderful things is...the constitution.
> >
> > Vale et valete
> > Caesar

Salve Senator.

> They can administer the law, (and thus apply the law) they can
> interpret the law by the above legislation in this process, and it
> is binding on the entire citizenry.

Again and if necessary again and again...they cannot interpret the
constitution, for though the laws are binding on the entire populace
they are not binding on the constitution (which is not a citizen or
a person) which apart from a dictors edicts is the highest legal
authority. There really is nothing contradictory about that,
dangerous yes to have written it so.

Vale
Caesar

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

> P. Minucia Tiberia Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Here's a link to the current constitution
>

---Congratulations Caesar!

You have learned to employ a typical trick in, what I speculate
might be an attempt to win a point Caesar!!:

You cut out a part of my message so your respondeo is to only half
my post..., I acknowledged in the portions of your 'snippage' that
the constitution would win out in any contradiction between a law of
the CPT and the constitutional language itself, but that I don't see
such a situation.

And you didn't indicate that you had snipped my post! (snip) {...}

Caesar, shame on you. Uhh, whatever shall I do with you?

When these tricks are employed, though, often they backfire, because
they cast a dimmer light on you than a dumber light on me, if you
get my meaning.

Tsk Tsk :)
Pompeia
(who is sure the readers can read the entirety of what I wrote
initially under this heading, and who is equally confident they will
decide from the facts presented, what is and isn't legal and
reasonable and/or whatever)



In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:

> Salve Senator.
>
> > They can administer the law, (and thus apply the law) they can
> > interpret the law by the above legislation in this process, and

it

> > is binding on the entire citizenry.
>
> Again and if necessary again and again...they cannot interpret the
> constitution, for though the laws are binding on the entire

populace

> they are not binding on the constitution (which is not a citizen

or

> a person) which apart from a dictors edicts is the highest legal
> authority. There really is nothing contradictory about that,
> dangerous yes to have written it so.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> > P. Minucia Tiberia Omnibus S.P.D.
> >
> > Here's a link to the current constitution
> >

Salve Senator

Not at all. It is late and I wanted to cut to what I thought was the
central salient point - which if held causes all else to fail. As to
the snip - indeed touche :) My error. My hard drive just died a few
hours ago and having to reformat the disk having of course lost
everything is pre-occupying me <sigh>.

Really Po there are no points for anyone to win here, at least I see
it that way and I don't believe anyone sane and rational would be in
this discussion for points.

The seriousness of the situation in the wider sense which we find
ourselves in - as Cordus has said again and again - with this
constitution cannot be lost on anyone surely. The people are hog
tied to it and no one can interpret it and if they try they will
find it too threadbare to do so without actually subverting the
right of the people to alter it.

We are in a horrendous mess and not just because of the provactio
issue - that is just another example. We are here because as Cato
succinctly said the document is self-referencing and its references
I might add are insufficient to do the job properly.

Vale
Caesar


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

> ---Congratulations Caesar!
>
> You have learned to employ a typical trick in, what I speculate
> might be an attempt to win a point Caesar!!:
>
> You cut out a part of my message so your respondeo is to only

half

> my post..., I acknowledged in the portions of your 'snippage' that
> the constitution would win out in any contradiction between a law

of

> the CPT and the constitutional language itself, but that I don't

see

> such a situation.
>
> And you didn't indicate that you had snipped my post! (snip) {...}
>
> Caesar, shame on you. Uhh, whatever shall I do with you?
>
> When these tricks are employed, though, often they backfire,

because

> they cast a dimmer light on you than a dumber light on me, if you
> get my meaning.
>
> Tsk Tsk :)
> Pompeia
> (who is sure the readers can read the entirety of what I wrote
> initially under this heading, and who is equally confident they

will

> decide from the facts presented, what is and isn't legal and
> reasonable and/or whatever)
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Senator.
> >
> > > They can administer the law, (and thus apply the law) they can
> > > interpret the law by the above legislation in this process,

and

> it
> > > is binding on the entire citizenry.
> >
> > Again and if necessary again and again...they cannot interpret

the

> > constitution, for though the laws are binding on the entire
> populace
> > they are not binding on the constitution (which is not a citizen
> or
> > a person) which apart from a dictors edicts is the highest legal
> > authority. There really is nothing contradictory about that,
> > dangerous yes to have written it so.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> > <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> > > P. Minucia Tiberia Omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Here's a link to the current constitution
> > >

Salvete,

I've read everything closely and I'm pretty sure Canada only got nominated for an award because they didn't want Bush to walk away with a clean sweep :-)
I'll find the link and post it for you.

Valete,
Metelliana





Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
Salve Senator

Not at all. It is late and I wanted to cut to what I thought was the
central salient point - which if held causes all else to fail. As to
the snip - indeed touche :) My error. My hard drive just died a few
hours ago and having to reformat the disk having of course lost
everything is pre-occupying me <sigh>.

Really Po there are no points for anyone to win here, at least I see
it that way and I don't believe anyone sane and rational would be in
this discussion for points.

The seriousness of the situation in the wider sense which we find
ourselves in - as Cordus has said again and again - with this
constitution cannot be lost on anyone surely. The people are hog
tied to it and no one can interpret it and if they try they will
find it too threadbare to do so without actually subverting the
right of the people to alter it.

We are in a horrendous mess and not just because of the provactio
issue - that is just another example. We are here because as Cato
succinctly said the document is self-referencing and its references
I might add are insufficient to do the job properly.

Vale
Caesar


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

> ---Congratulations Caesar!
>
> You have learned to employ a typical trick in, what I speculate
> might be an attempt to win a point Caesar!!:
>
> You cut out a part of my message so your respondeo is to only

half

> my post..., I acknowledged in the portions of your 'snippage' that
> the constitution would win out in any contradiction between a law

of

> the CPT and the constitutional language itself, but that I don't

see

> such a situation.
>
> And you didn't indicate that you had snipped my post! (snip) {...}
>
> Caesar, shame on you. Uhh, whatever shall I do with you?
>
> When these tricks are employed, though, often they backfire,

because

> they cast a dimmer light on you than a dumber light on me, if you
> get my meaning.
>
> Tsk Tsk :)
> Pompeia
> (who is sure the readers can read the entirety of what I wrote
> initially under this heading, and who is equally confident they

will

> decide from the facts presented, what is and isn't legal and
> reasonable and/or whatever)
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salve Senator.
> >
> > > They can administer the law, (and thus apply the law) they can
> > > interpret the law by the above legislation in this process,

and

> it
> > > is binding on the entire citizenry.
> >
> > Again and if necessary again and again...they cannot interpret

the

> > constitution, for though the laws are binding on the entire
> populace
> > they are not binding on the constitution (which is not a citizen
> or
> > a person) which apart from a dictors edicts is the highest legal
> > authority. There really is nothing contradictory about that,
> > dangerous yes to have written it so.
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> > <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@y...> wrote:
> > > P. Minucia Tiberia Omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Here's a link to the current constitution
> > >

SPONSORED LINKS
Roman empire Ancient history Fall of the roman empire The roman empire

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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




__________________________________________________
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]

P. Memmius Albucius omnibus s.d.

Please find below the edict convening our comitia tributa populi.

Contio begins tomorrow at 22 h (10 pm *Rome* time).

I remain at everybody disposal.

Valete omnes,

Tribune Albucius

_________________________________________________
TRIBUNE P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS EDICT (n° 58-15)
ON THE CONVENING OF THE COMITIA POPULI TRIBUTA
(Latin text available on demand)

I, Publius Memmius Albucius, Tribune of the Plebs, by the authority
vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma,

In view of the Constitution of Nova Roma, specially its article
III.C., IV.7.d2 and IV.A.5,
In view of my vetoed edict 58-14, a.d. XII Kal. Sextiles 2758 a.u.c.
on a call for provocatio and on the convening of the comitia tributa
populi,
In view of Lex Salicia de Tribunicia Comitiorum Convocatione, 26
nov. 2002,
In view of Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Populi Tributorum, 2 dec.
2003,
In view of the censorial messages, 20-21 June 2005, giving
confirmation that patrician citizens are above 10 % of the total
amount of novaroman citizens, case which allows a Tribune of the
Plebs to call to order the comitia populi tributa,
In view of the custom law of Nova Roma which authorizes the
modification of a draft law during the contio in order to introduce,
in this draft, the constructive amendments made by citizens.

Considering that it is useful to precise the field of the use of
provocatio,

Edicts :


Article 1

The Comitia populi tributa are called to order.


Article 2

The schedule of this comitial session is the following one :

- debates (contio) :

. beginning on July 27, 2005, at 22 :00 Rome time ;
. ending on July 31, 2005, at 22 : 00 Rome time.

- vote :

. beginning on August 3, 2005, at 00 :00 Rome time ;
. ending on August 4, 2005, at 24 :00 Rome time.

. beginning on August 7, 2005, at 00 : 00 Rome time ;
. ending on August 9, 2005, at 24 :00 Rome time.


Article 3

The agenda of this comitial session is the following one :

- Adoption of a law on provocatio (Lex Memmia de provocatione - see
below the attached file n° 1).


Article 4

The appropriate magistrates of Nova Roma and their departments are
responsible, as far as each one is concerned by the present edict,
and in due consideration of the constitution, for executing it. This
edict will be published in the Tabularium of Nova Roma.


Issued in Cadomago, Gallia, this twenty fifth day (25th) of July,
2005 C.E. (a.d. VIII Kal. Sextiles 2758 a.u.c.), during the
consulate of Fr. Apulus Caesar and Ga. Popillius Laenas



Attached n° 1 : text of the proposed law


LEX MEMMIA DE PROVOCATIONE

The comitia tributa populi have adopted by XX votes
against YY with WW abstentions the following text.

Tribune P. Memmius Albucius, as presiding magistrate,
promulgates the law in the following terms :


In view of the Constitution of Nova Roma, specially its articles II.
B. 5 which states that :

« IIB. The following rights of the Citizens who have reached the age
of 18 shall be guaranteed, but this enumeration shall not be taken
to exclude other rights that citizens may possess:
(..)
5. The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate
that has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia
populi tributa ; »


Considering that, contrary to the laws or practices of ancient Rome,
neither the Constitution nor the laws of Nova Roma define precisely
the contents of this right and how it may be exercised ;

Considering that this article II. B. 5 does not thus limit, as the
ancient practice did, the jus provocationis to criminal affairs, or
to acts taken by consuls using their imperium ;

Considering that, if the right of provocatio must be applied as a
right guaranteed to citizens by the constitution of Nova Roma, it is
necessary to precise its scope ;

it is disposed :


Article 1

The right of provocatio defined by the article II. B.5 of the
Constitution of Nova Roma does not concern, by essence :

- the acts that a magistrate makes without having her-/him- self any
power of appreciation and are thus not « decisions » in the sense of
the Constitution ;

- the acts which may create, for a citizen, the lack of an
opportunity or may deprive her/him of a potential gain, but which
does not create an immediate damage for this citizen. These acts are
thus considered not having «a direct negative impact upon » the
concerned person.


Article 2

The magistrates authorized by the Constitution to convene the
comitia populi tributa must refuse to call them for order upon a
appeal of provocatio which would attack an magisterial act entering
in the frame of the article 1 above.


Article 3

The present law do not prevent the concerned citizen to use every
other legal means offered by the laws of Nova Roma.


The present law shall be executed as a law of the Republic of Nova
Roma.


Romae, a. d. XVII Kal. Sept. 2758 a.u.c. (August 16 th 2005)
Fr. Apulus Caesar and Ga. Popillius Laenas consulibus

Magistratus praeses,
P. Memmius Albucius
Tribunus Plebis

Salve

> This is the first: The Constitution does not allow itself to be
> interpreted by anything other than itself.

*Lol* Ok, we are crossing the border of animism, aren't we? Do you
expect the Constitution to materialize somewhere in the world, grow
arms and fingers and write you an email expressing the correct
self-interpretation? I just hope that, after that, she doesn't get in
a personal crisis... it wouldn't be funny to see our constitution
laying on a psicologist' couch saying "Doc, I don't fully understand
myself, you think it's because I like a maternal figure in my life,
having been written by men?".

Nonsenses apart, the mere fact that the intercessio power of we
tribunes is based on the Constitution that reads

"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"

should make it clear to anyone not blinded by furious partisanship
that the Tribunes, in order to make their work, has to confront the
acts of magistrates against the other legal documents and that implies
a given degree of interpretation as, sadly, the laws do NOT speak out
for themselves, not even the Constitution.

But of course that is not the point, is it? The point is that you
basically have to put in doubt the very core of tribunician power and
the means necessary for it to work, as that is the only way you might
have a chance of bringing forward your client's claims. When will you
actually stop trying to demolish and raising doubts on the powers of
the magistrates of Nova Roma for your own and your client's benefit?

Oh, btw, your repeated, under various forms, sentence that sounds like
"Oh, you tribunes are so afraid of calling the Comitia". You know, the
tactic of calling someone "chicken" in order to have him doing
something he otherwise wouldn't do is usually abandoned as one turns 5
years old, at worst 10. I'm sure you can find something better to try
to lure us Tribunes to do something against the laws of Nova Roma, if
you really must force us to.

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Tribunus Plebis
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

Joey King (metelliana@...) has sent you a news article.
(Email address has not been verified.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Personal message:

Salvete,
Here is the article I read.
Valete,
Metelliana

Canada, U.S. vie for crown at World Stupidity Awards in Montreal - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/laughs_stupidity_awards

============================================================
Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/

Salve Fusce.

The only place you can look for guidance is the constitution. You
base your position no doubt on the fact that the spirit of the
constitution is being violated, but that is your interpretation which
you have absolutely no power to exercise.

The appeal to provocatio clearly doesn't abuse the letter of the
consitution since it simply says when that degree of harm has
occurred a person can call upon this. It doesn't allow you to be the
arbiter of whether that has occurred.

It can only abuse the spirit of the constitution if the constitution
gave guidance as to what grounds a call for provocatio would be
justified. It doesn't. You can't abuse the spirit of a plain and
simple fact - Paulinus can claim provocatio and no one can interpret
that right away - well not legally. You have done it but illegally.

You seem to be consistently trying to push the edges of this debate
into personal animosity and that simply won't work. Anyone is fully
justified in asking whether your refusal is based essentially on not
wanting to risk a finding that contradicts your decision to allow our
ex-tribune to take up his office again.

As for how the constitution is meant to be interpreted, it can't as
there is no mechanism in it that permits this. A charming little
picture of a Freudian constitution you paint, and probably given its
circular nature not far from the truth, were it a person.

As for raising doubts about the magistrates and the rest of the
impassioned plea to essentially ask Cato to stop doing what he should
be doing - advocate for his client and expose illegality - that is an
emotive plea based on no legal foundation whatsover.

Vale
Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@g...> wrote:

> Salve
>
>
> > This is the first: The Constitution does not allow itself to be
> > interpreted by anything other than itself.
>
>

C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.

Salvete.

This is a bit sad...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/italy_roman_roads;_ylt=AqKa6hxW2SlFTovI.ePmi.ADW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Valete,

Hadrianus

"Some believe Mithras - and also Dionysus - made it easier for Romans
to eventually accept Christianity.

As early as their so-called archaic age, the Greeks had 'borrowed'
Isis and Osiris, identifying them with Demeter and Dionysus .

Osiris married his sister Isis, who like him symbolised the passage
of time and entry into the afterlife. Many Roman sanctuaries with
Egyptian gods and 'Egyptianising' priests were later established,
particularly the temple of Isis at Rome under Caligula. Mithras -
whose famous depiction as he slays a mythically powerful bull is one
of the other stand-out statues on view - was an ancient Indo-Iranian
deity, found from the Bronze Age onward. The cult, which was brought
back from the East by Roman legionaries, held its initiations in
caves and had sacrificial meals there.

The exhibition concludes with a series of Mithraic objects that
demonstrate how later Roman rites tended towards monotheism."


Excerpt from: 'Greek, Roman cults at Colosseum'
http://tinyurl.com/ag62w • http://ansa.it

A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.

> Thank you. I understand the logic of what you have
> written.
>
> So, then, would the better presentation be,
>
> "The tribunes of the plebeians shall have the
> collegial authority to
> interpret the Constitution and pronounce binding
> edicts based upon
> those interpretations."
>
> ?

That would be a perfectly proper wording for a
proposal to the assembly, yes.

It wouldn't actually be very helpful, so I'd vote
against it, but that's a separate issue.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae omnibusque sal.

[Disclaimer: I have not quoted all of your original
message. I trust that people who want to check whether
I've misrepresented your points will read your
original message for themselves.]

> P. Minucia Tiberia A. Apollonio Cordoni Omnibus
> S.P.D.

(Thanks for the greetings, but my cognomen is of the
second declension and so takes the dative Cordo.)

> Partial jurisdictio defined: (from the Lex Arminia
> Equitia de
> Imperio)
>

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-06-30-iv.html

>
> "the power to interpret the law within the duties of
> the magistrate
> to hold Potestas" (their area of responsibility as
> defined by the
> constitution...in this case the Tribs)
>
> Jurisdictio is the realm in which they may interpret
> the
> law. "Partial" refers to the extent they have it.

Yes, indeed.

> Anyone subject to incercessio by their colleague (s)
> cannot
> reasonably have 'full' jurisdiction in my view.
> They are subject to
> eachothers intercessio so they only have a partial
> jurisdiction or
> a 'degree of it' as is clarified further in section
> IV for you, said
> section entitled 'other determinations'

Well, your point is reasonable, and one can reasonably
argue that what is called "full jurisdictio" by legal
scholars, historians, and the laws of our republic is
not really "full" in this sense and perhaps ought not
to be called that.

But I'm not concerned with whether full jurisdictio is
really full in this sense, or whether partial
jurisdictio is really partial. "Full jurisdictio" is a
technical legal term which has a specific meaning. You
may think the name is a misnomer, but that does not
change what it means.

The difference between full jurisdictio and partial
jurisdictio is very easily seen simply by contrasting
articles II.5 and I.3 of the lex Arminia Equitia.

II.5 "Full iurisdictio, the power to interpret the
law, on all levels on all Nova Roma subjects."

I.3 "Partial iurisdictio, the power to interpret the
law within the duties of the magistrate holding the
Potestas."

This makes it pretty clear what is meant in law by
full and partial jurisdictio. Full jurisdictio is the
power to interpret the law in all circumstances;
partial jurisdictio is the power to interpret the law
only as far as it applies to that magistrate's
particular duties.

That's all I wanted to say: to tell you the technical,
legal meaning of the term "partial jurisdictio". You
are quite correct to say that the jurisdictio of the
tribuni plebis is also partial in another sense, in
that they are subject to one another's veto; but this
is not what is meant by the technical term "partial
jurisdictio", because it is also true of the consules,
who have "full jurisdictio".

So I'm not saying that you're wrong about the tribunes
being subject to mutual veto. It is entirely true, and
if your argument depends on it then I have not
contradicted your argument. I just wanted to make sure
people were not misled by your passing remark to think
that "partial jurisdictio" meant something other than
what it means.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius P. Memmio omnibusque sal.

Thank you for this quick action. I'll send you my
comments on your proposal privately, as you requested.

I would point out, however, a problem with your
proposed schedule for voting: you have scheduled
voting (the 4th to the 9th of August) to overlap
completely with the Conventus at Rome, which runs from
the 4th to the 10th. Therefore voting will occur at
precisely the time when a very large portion of our
active population is away from home and unable to
vote.

Could I persuade you to postpone, or at least extend,
the voting period to the second half of August? In
fact it might be better still to wait until September,
since at other times in August many other people will
be away on holiday.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

Edictum Propraetoricium XXXI (a M. Adriano Complutensi VI) De praefecto ad Italica Splendens

EX HOC, SEQUENS CIVIS DESIGNATVS EST PRAEFECTVS AD PROIECTVM ITALICA SPLENDENS

POR EL QUE EL SIGUIENTE CIUDADANO ES NOMBRADO PREFECTO PARA EL PROYECTO ITALICA SPLENDENS:

THE FOLLOWING CITIZEN IS HEREBY APPOINTED AS PRAEFECTVS FOR ITALICA SPLENDENS PROJECT:

· MARCVS MINICIVS LUPVS


Este Edicto entra en vigor inmediatamente.

This edictum becomes effective immediately.

DATVM·SVB·MANV·MEA·A·D·VII·KAL·SEXTILES MMDCCLVIII
FR·APULE·CAESARI·C·POPILIO·LAENAE·CONSVLIBVS

MARCVS ADRIANVS COMPLVTENSIS
PROPRAETOR HISPANIAE


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

M. Hortensia Maior A. Apollonio Spd;
Salve;
since you have more weight with our enigmatic colleague, please ask
him to postpone the Comitia to October so after all the dies nefasti
etc and the Conventus and all the Europeans and Americans on
holiday, we can group together the legislation we need to pass:
resignations, provocatio and others and discuss it with adequate
time and then only have to vote in one sitting.

It's a matter of convenience for us all and simplicity; they can all
be the Leges Memmia for all I care....
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior TRP

> Could I persuade you to postpone, or at least extend,
> the voting period to the second half of August? In
> fact it might be better still to wait until September,
> since at other times in August many other people will
> be away on holiday.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato P. Memmio Albucio tr. pl. quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve tribune et salvete omnes.

Memmius Albucius, I'm glad to see you step forward with a working
draft on a needed law.

Now, where in the call do you address the appeal of my client?
Because, as I've explained, my client is calling for the comitia
populi tributa to hear his appeal; in answering his invocation of the
right of provocatio, you must make it clear (if it is your intent to
do so) that the comitia will be hearing his appeal.

I remind you that a call to convene the comitia populi tributa to hear
Galerius Paulinus' appeal has NOT been issued, and therefore CANNOT
have been vetoed.

So, I need to ask directly: will the comitia populi tributa be
hearing my client's appeal?

Valete bene,

Cato
(I'm dropping the rswt because you all know what I'm doing)

Hi, I want to kno more about Nova Roma, but, till now, I can't
understand some things, and I need some help, can anyone help me? I
have questions such as if there's an age limit to be a citizen, and
how can a person be a for example portuguese and novaroman?

G. Equitius Cato to Sacadura sends greetings.

Salve Sacadura.

You'll get most of the information you're looking for here:

http://www.novaroma.org/main.html

Take look, wander around the website. It should answer most
questions. Anything that isn't clear, we'll all be happy to answer :-)

But yes, you can have "dual citizenship", so to speak, and you must be
18 to apply for citizenship, unless one of your parents (or guardians)
who is a citizen applies for you.

Vale bene (go well),

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sacadura_340" <sacadura_340@y...>
wrote:

> Hi, I want to kno more about Nova Roma, but, till now, I can't
> understand some things, and I need some help, can anyone help me? I
> have questions such as if there's an age limit to be a citizen, and
> how can a person be a for example portuguese and novaroman?

Salvr C. Minuci Hadriane,

Thanks for your comments on vinegar the other day; most helpful.

This cobblestone situation is sad. Hopefully they will find some way
to preserve more area. This is not the first time; apparently in the
1930's there was a huge refurbishing in Rome from putting in modern
wider roads at that time to clearing the malarial swamps once and
for all. Apparently there are still quite the treasues left under
the roads.

I recommend watching the movie, "Roma" by Felleni which I have in my
collection. It takes you on a terrific journey over 40 years and it
makes you laugh, sad and yet is a treasure for getting a glimpse of
the city.
The movie has a great scene where they are extending the subway
system in the early 1970's and encountering villas, catacombs, art
treasures etc. They stopped construction whenever encountering these
sites and painstakingly did their best to document, preserve and
save what they could.

Regards,

QLP






--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:

> C. Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete.
>
> This is a bit sad...
>
>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/italy_roman_roads;_ylt=AqKa6hxW2SlFTovI.eP
mi.ADW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

>
>
> Valete,
>
> Hadrianus

Salvete M. Hortensia Maior Tribuna et Omnes:

Yes, this is indeed a terrible time of year to hold an election like
this...well, any election, actually.

I do not understand the 'legalities' by how a veto is somehow
being 'overturned' of D. Constantinus Fuscus. I realize that there
are those who want to go to comitia on this issue, but what is the
technicality in doing so...

Did Memmicus Tribunus change the wording in the issuance/reissuance
of this edictum?

How can he call the comitia within a day, even with a revised
edictum to call the comitia... when this doesn't allow the other
tribunes the allotted time to look at it.

Pompeia




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

> M. Hortensia Maior A. Apollonio Spd;
> Salve;
> since you have more weight with our enigmatic colleague, please

ask

> him to postpone the Comitia to October so after all the dies

nefasti

> etc and the Conventus and all the Europeans and Americans on
> holiday, we can group together the legislation we need to pass:
> resignations, provocatio and others and discuss it with adequate
> time and then only have to vote in one sitting.
>
> It's a matter of convenience for us all and simplicity; they can

all

> be the Leges Memmia for all I care....
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
>
>
> > Could I persuade you to postpone, or at least extend,
> > the voting period to the second half of August? In
> > fact it might be better still to wait until September,
> > since at other times in August many other people will
> > be away on holiday.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Domitio Constantino Fusco salutem dicit

By flooding the main list with propaganda, some people seem to be trying to
inflict the rest of us with a sense of "dread" that this is a much larger
problem than it really is. My advice to our magistrates is to ignore this
"plea" for provocatio. Its simply being used to make a political point.

Lets call it like it is.

Paulinus didn't get elected Praetor last year. He wanted another
opportunity to be elected to something, and tribune is more prestigious than quaestor.
He had already been quaestor in the past. The whole issue of the provocatio
is motivated by pride and ego, or some well hidden political statement -- is
Paulinus being manipulated by someone else to make a "point?" Who knows.

My advice to Paulinus... get over it. You didn't win for Praetor, and you
were Tribune last year. Enjoy your break as Quaestor, and try again for
Praetor in November.

My advice to our magistrates... ignore this call for Provocatio. Let those
who are going to fill our in-boxes up with e-mail drone on and on, but use
the delete key generously.

Valete;

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus



In a message dated 7/26/2005 2:56:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dom.con.fus@... writes:

But of course that is not the point, is it? The point is that you
basically have to put in doubt the very core of tribunician power and
the means necessary for it to work, as that is the only way you might
have a chance of bringing forward your client's claims. When will you
actually stop trying to demolish and raising doubts on the powers of
the magistrates of Nova Roma for your own and your client's benefit?

Oh, btw, your repeated, under various forms, sentence that sounds like
"Oh, you tribunes are so afraid of calling the Comitia". You know, the
tactic of calling someone "chicken" in order to have him doing
something he otherwise wouldn't do is usually abandoned as one turns 5
years old, at worst 10. I'm sure you can find something better to try
to lure us Tribunes to do something against the laws of Nova Roma, if
you really must force us to.

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus





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

Here is the link to the actual site that issued the award:

_http://www.stupidityawards.com/_ (http://www.stupidityawards.com/)

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus

In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:04:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
metelliana@... writes:

Joey King (metelliana@...) has sent you a news article.
(Email address has not been verified.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Personal message:

Salvete,
Here is the article I read.
Valete,
Metelliana

Canada, U.S. vie for crown at World Stupidity Awards in Montreal - Yahoo!
News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/laughs_stupidity_awards





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

Salvete A Apolloni et QFM,

Thank you both for your comments on my posting.
Actually as surmized, I posted the article so newcomers on this list
would get a little familiar with the office of tribune and its
powers.
Coming on to a heavy constitutional debate, legal jargon and all is
enough to scare the ravens off the trees for many people who might
just move on to other pastures. Any constitution, including ours is
rather dry and tedious to read at times so I thought this article
about Tribunes and the mention of the famous villain Masalla might
spark some more interest with newbies.

That said, I do not wishfully think to adhere to many customs and
government policies of Republican Rome. No, if I got frustrated and
kicked a tribune in his ass or thwarted his work, I do not relish
the thought of being ripped to pieces by my fellow citizens or fired
off the nearest cliff. Those who read this article then go back and
look at the constitution will have a better understanding and
appreciation in my opinion.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

---


Salvete Hortensia Maior Tribuna et Omnes:

Please disregard, as more information has come to my attention
privately from other sources.

That and reading this original text while doing 6 other
things....Doh!

Doh! Po



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

> Salvete M. Hortensia Maior Tribuna et Omnes:
>
> Yes, this is indeed a terrible time of year to hold an election

like

> this...well, any election, actually.
>
> I do not understand the 'legalities' by how a veto is somehow
> being 'overturned' of D. Constantinus Fuscus. I realize that

there

> are those who want to go to comitia on this issue, but what is the
> technicality in doing so...
>
> Did Memmicus Tribunus change the wording in the

issuance/reissuance

> of this edictum?
>
> How can he call the comitia within a day, even with a revised
> edictum to call the comitia... when this doesn't allow the other
> tribunes the allotted time to look at it.
>
> Pompeia
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > M. Hortensia Maior A. Apollonio Spd;
> > Salve;
> > since you have more weight with our enigmatic colleague, please
> ask
> > him to postpone the Comitia to October so after all the dies
> nefasti
> > etc and the Conventus and all the Europeans and Americans on
> > holiday, we can group together the legislation we need to pass:
> > resignations, provocatio and others and discuss it with adequate
> > time and then only have to vote in one sitting.
> >
> > It's a matter of convenience for us all and simplicity; they can
> all
> > be the Leges Memmia for all I care....
> > bene vale
> > Marca Hortensia Maior TRP
> >
> >
> > > Could I persuade you to postpone, or at least extend,
> > > the voting period to the second half of August? In
> > > fact it might be better still to wait until September,
> > > since at other times in August many other people will
> > > be away on holiday.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________
> > > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> > > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

---Salutem Metellianus et Fabius Buteo Modianus:

Many thanks for the links.

Po


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

>
> Here is the link to the actual site that issued the award:
>
> _http://www.stupidityawards.com/_

(http://www.stupidityawards.com/)

>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> In a message dated 7/26/2005 3:04:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> metelliana@y... writes:
>
> Joey King (metelliana@y...) has sent you a news article.
> (Email address has not been verified.)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Personal message:
>
> Salvete,
> Here is the article I read.
> Valete,
> Metelliana
>
> Canada, U.S. vie for crown at World Stupidity Awards in Montreal -

Yahoo!

> News
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/laughs_stupidity_awards
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Modiane.

Its amazing how "placid" you can be when the matter doesn't concern
you. Of course when it is something that grips your interest or
offends your principles you are as capabale as anyone of filling
up "in-boxes".

As to the rest of your "political" analysis, you of course have
managed to deftly accuse Paulinus of being a puppet and everyone who
has been vocal in his support of pursuing a "political agenda. Nicely
done - as usual.

I wonder if a law were passed in one of the assemblies abolishing a
religious position, let us say for example that of the Rex and Regina
Sacrorum, whether you would be so relaxed about the issue of the
constitution? Your lack of dread is in direct proportion to the lack
of negative impact any of this has had on you, or the interest or
understanding you have of these matters.

If you read the constitution Modianus, closely, you will see that the
way it is written someone could pass such a law based on the
positions the Tribunes have cleaved to in this matter. Then you would
have to re-read all these posts, even more closely, to discover a
possible defence and rebuttal to such an action.

Ahhh - never mind - that position is vacant isn't it and it is
unlikely to be filled at any time in the future and thus unlikely to
become a battleground.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Domitio Constantino Fusco salutem dicit
>
> By flooding the main list with propaganda, some people seem to be
trying to
> inflict the rest of us with a sense of "dread" that this is a much

A. Apollonius homini sine nomine omnibusque sal.

Scripsisti:

> Hi, I want to kno more about Nova Roma, but, till
> now, I can't
> understand some things, and I need some help, can
> anyone help me? I
> have questions such as if there's an age limit to be
> a citizen, and
> how can a person be a for example portuguese and
> novaroman?

I think Cato has answered your main questons, but let
me suggest some more things you might find helpful.

Are you Portuguese? We have very few Portuguese
citizens, but many excellent citizens in Brazil who,
I'm sure, will gladly help you. Their provincial
website is
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/nrbrasil/frameset.htm
and their e-mail list is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nrbrasil - I'm sure they
will be happy to talk to you there.

Portugal itself is included in provincia Hispania, and
the citizens of Hispania are also very friendly and
helpful; several of them speak Portuguese. Their
website is http://www.nrhispania.org/ and their e-mail
list is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NRHispania/

You can also always ask questions here, and you will
always find someone who will try to help. :)





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.

I open contio on the following proposed Lex Popillia Senatoria. I
realize that there are several items being debated currently in the
Forum, and I hesitate to add to them. However, I also see the
calendar becoming quite crowded in the coming weeks and I have
promised to allow plenty of time for discussion of this proposal.

Accordingly, this contio will be open ended. I will call for the
Comitia Tributa Populi when, and if, it seems appropriate
(including, of course, the proper auspices).

Valete.

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



LEX POPILLIA SENATORIA

This lex follows the institutions of the kings in establishing a
maximum size for the senate, and the lex Ovinia of c.318 in setting
guidelines for the selection of new senatores.


I. After each census the censores shall declare a maximum number of
senatores.

a. This number shall be 15% of the total number of assidui at the
time, or the nearest whole number.

b. This number shall be the maximum number of senatores until the
number is revised by the censores after the following census.

c. This number shall never be lower than the number of senatores who
exist at the time of the declaration, regardless of the number of
assidui.

d. This number shall never exceed 300, regardless of the number of
assidui.

e. After they have declared the maximum number of senatores (and not
before), the censores shall revise the list of senatores.


II. The censores may remove senatores from the list.

a. They shall begin with the list drawn up by the previous censores.

b. They shall first strike from the list those who have died or lost
their citizenship since the last list was drawn up.

c. They may also strike from the list any existing senatores whose
past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of the
senate. They shall make public explanation of their reason for doing
so.

d. An existing senator may only be removed from the list with the
agreement of both censores.


III. The censores shall add new senatores to the list.

a. After removing any senatores whom they wish to remove from the
list, the censores shall sublect (add) new senatores to the list
until the total number of senatores is equal to the maximum which
they have set, or as near to the maximum as the censores consider
reasonable.

b. They shall first sublect any dictatorii (citizens who have
completed terms as dictator) who have not already been sublected,
removed, or passed over for sublection.

c. They shall next sublect any censorii (citizens who have completed
terms as censor) who have not already been sublected, removed, or
passed over for sublection.

d. They shall next sublect any consulares (citizens who have
completed terms as consul) who have not already been sublected,
removed, or passed over for sublection.

e. They shall next sublect any praetores (citizens who have
completed terms as praetor) who have not already been sublected,
removed, or passed over for sublection.

f. They shall next sublect citizens at their discretion, giving due
weight to their past tenure of public office, to their seniority,
and to their good character. These may include citizens who were
passed over or removed from the senate by previous censores.

g. They may pass over for sublection any citizen qualified under
III.b, c, d, or e whose past conduct they consider would be
seriously harmful to the dignity of the senate. They shall make
public explanation of their reason for doing so.

e. A new senator may only be added to the list with the agreement of
both censores.


IV. Higher magistrates and ex-magistrates shall be entitled to
attend meetings of the senate.

a. Any flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, or praetor shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein; any
tribunus plebis shall be entitled to attend meetings of the senate
but not to vote therein.

b. No flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, praetor, or tribunus
plebis shall be counted toward the total number of senatores.

c. Any dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein,
except one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection.

d. No dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
counted toward the total number of senatores unless he or she has
already been sublected by the censores.


V. A decision of the censores to remove an existing senator, or of
either censor to pass over a citizen for sublection, is not subject
to any appeal or provocatio and cannot be used as grounds to
prosecute any current or former censor.


VI. The leges Vedia senatoria, Arminia senatoria, and Octavia de
senatoribus are repealed.

G. Equitius Cato G. Fabio Buteoni Modiano S.P.D.

Salve Gaius Buteo.

You wrote:

"My advice to our magistrates... ignore this call for Provocatio. Let
those who are going to fill our in-boxes up with e-mail drone on and
on, but use the delete key generously."

I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly: you are
advising the elected magistrates of the Republic to act in direct
violation of the most fundamental basis for governmental legitimacy
that exists, the Constitution. The document that gives the same
elected magistrates the foundation of their authority, and the
document which is the fullest embodiment of the will of the People.
The very document which allows you the rights and privileges to
practice the religio unhindered, even enhanced by your titles as
flamen &c. Interesting.

Vale,

Cato

G. Equitius Cato Q. Popillio Laeno Consule S.P.D.

Salve Consul.

I am happy to say that I wholeheartedly support your proposal. A good
job of cleaning up a messy situation.

Vale bene,

Cato

Salvete gentlemen,

Well lets look at things from a more positive perspective. I was
seriously concerned about the awful inactivity on the ML over the
last few months; if anything this issue has got the fires roaring
under our butts and some dormant names back in action!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus






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

> G. Equitius Cato G. Fabio Buteoni Modiano S.P.D.
>
> Salve Gaius Buteo.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "My advice to our magistrates... ignore this call for Provocatio.

Let

> those who are going to fill our in-boxes up with e-mail drone on

and

> on, but use the delete key generously."
>
> I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly: you are
> advising the elected magistrates of the Republic to act in direct
> violation of the most fundamental basis for governmental legitimacy
> that exists, the Constitution. The document that gives the same
> elected magistrates the foundation of their authority, and the
> document which is the fullest embodiment of the will of the

People.

> The very document which allows you the rights and privileges to
> practice the religio unhindered, even enhanced by your titles as
> flamen &c. Interesting.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato

---
P. Minucia Tiberia to G. Iulius Caesar et Omnes:

Salvete

Hmmm

I have been reading your analysis below Caesar. I *do* remember
another situation last year where a young lady appealed to comitia,
and, certainly although it could be argued that such was not
regarded on a placid note by Modianus Tribunis, nor any other
Tribune, nor the claimant, and several of us 'concerned citizens',
as it was a *serious* matter in itself, regardless of how one viewed
the legal aspects of the situation. Nobody discounts the
*seriousness* of the issue this year, and it has merited equal if
not more attention.

But did you think last year's matter was as serious and merited the
attention you are giving the Paulinus issue? Did you trouble
yourself to the same degree last year as you are doing now?

I enjoyed your satire on or about the 1 June of last year while last
year's matter was transpiring. "Coddleswap", I believe was the
title. I entertained your analyses....which is not to say that I
agreed with them. An excellent prose, Caesar, as always. But I was
somehow not *exactly* left with the impression, after reading this
delightfully written tale, that you were regarding the issue of the
appeal at hand by the claimant of last year with serious, 'sleep-
losing', mentally imprisoning lamentation. But, correct me if I'm
wrong.

Did you grieve, even in theory, the loss of someone who was 'not'
going to comitia for appeal...? Or was the notion totally
laughable....and prompted you to write a story about a fictitious
parallel scenerio?

Getting back to the 'real' case last year, Galerius Paulinus then
Tribunis not supporting the idea of a comitia visit... using his
authority as Tribune, a measure which,like it or no, appears to
have some backing in law, despite the ramifications of the fate of
citizen rights....same scenerio as today...we don't have to like it
but it looks like its law.....to me....looks to me like it was law
last year, and it looks the same way today.

If Fusce is unlawful today, Galerius was unlawful back then. One or
the other, but not both, when the question of citizen rights is
analyzed, and indeed when Tribune authority is analyzed. They are
both out of line, or their decisions are both such to be lawfully
upheld. Otherwise, our judgement could be questioned as having a
morsel or two of partisanship.

I feel that Modianus, then Tribunis, is atleast being consistent in
his analysis....otherwise he disputes the lawful actions of his own
authorities as Tribune last year. He is not turning tail like
another Tribune and seeking legal avenues he closed the doors to for
someone else. Two *wrongs* don't make a *right*, granted, depending
on what you think is right and wrong, but I admire consistency.
Modianus is being very consistent, but I am 'perceiving' a rather
marked difference in your approach to the current claimant's pleas,
as opposed to last year's pleas to appeal. Again, do correct me, if
need be.

Using the same yardsticks of legislation with no dramatic amendments
in the law in this matter:

The tribunes did/do have the same exercize of authority last year/
this year.....or they 'don't'

The tribunes did/do have the authority to administer the law and
interpret it according to what they feel is the letter and spirit of
the consitution, in the best interests of the Roman
people,entertaining legally binding pursuant, noncontradictory laws
of comitia in administering same last year/this year......or they
don't...

All or nothing....

Which is it, Caesar? pray tell?

Valete,
Pompeia




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:

> Salve Modiane.
>
> Its amazing how "placid" you can be when the matter doesn't

concern

> you. Of course when it is something that grips your interest or
> offends your principles you are as capabale as anyone of filling
> up "in-boxes".
>
> As to the rest of your "political" analysis, you of course have
> managed to deftly accuse Paulinus of being a puppet and everyone

who

> has been vocal in his support of pursuing a "political agenda.

Nicely

> done - as usual.
>
> I wonder if a law were passed in one of the assemblies abolishing

a

> religious position, let us say for example that of the Rex and

Regina

> Sacrorum, whether you would be so relaxed about the issue of the
> constitution? Your lack of dread is in direct proportion to the

lack

> of negative impact any of this has had on you, or the interest or
> understanding you have of these matters.
>
> If you read the constitution Modianus, closely, you will see that

the

> way it is written someone could pass such a law based on the
> positions the Tribunes have cleaved to in this matter. Then you

would

> have to re-read all these posts, even more closely, to discover a
> possible defence and rebuttal to such an action.
>
> Ahhh - never mind - that position is vacant isn't it and it is
> unlikely to be filled at any time in the future and thus unlikely

to

> become a battleground.
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> >
> > C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Domitio Constantino Fusco salutem dicit
> >
> > By flooding the main list with propaganda, some people seem to

be

> trying to
> > inflict the rest of us with a sense of "dread" that this is a

much

C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Quinto Lanio Paulino salutem dicit

Controversy does seem to pull people out of hiding... sad to say.

As a side note... it would be nice if everyone in Nova Roma would put our
energies into building community, instead of building legal codes. Do "we" do
this for fun, enjoyment, and spirituality? Or do we do it because we have
nothing better to do, or because playing politics is our enjoyment?

We have to ask ourselves... is 200+ tax payers a good thing? What can we do
to make things different, and promote positive growth... instead of fighting
the same battles.

Vale;

C. Fabius Buto Modianus

In a message dated 7/26/2005 12:44:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mjk@... writes:

Salvete gentlemen,

Well lets look at things from a more positive perspective. I was
seriously concerned about the awful inactivity on the ML over the
last few months; if anything this issue has got the fires roaring
under our butts and some dormant names back in action!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus






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

Salve C. Fabi Buto,

I'll get back to you on this later today but alas my wife is howling
for me to hit the road and do some errands. Now I'm the boss... but
squeeek - my wife gives the orders!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Quinto Lanio Paulino salutem dicit
>
> Controversy does seem to pull people out of hiding... sad to say.
>
> As a side note... it would be nice if everyone in Nova Roma would
put our
> energies into building community, instead of building legal
codes. Do "we" do
> this for fun, enjoyment, and spirituality? Or do we do it because
we have
> nothing better to do, or because playing politics is our enjoyment?
>
> We have to ask ourselves... is 200+ tax payers a good thing? What
can we do
> to make things different, and promote positive growth... instead
of fighting
> the same battles.
>
> Vale;
>
> C. Fabius Buto Modianus
>
> In a message dated 7/26/2005 12:44:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mjk@d... writes:
>
> Salvete gentlemen,
>
> Well lets look at things from a more positive perspective. I was
> seriously concerned about the awful inactivity on the ML over the
> last few months; if anything this issue has got the fires roaring
> under our butts and some dormant names back in action!
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve;

I told my wife once that since I was the "Pater Familias" of our family that
I needed to sit at the head of the table. She rolled her eyes, and said,
"OK, but Mr. Pater Familias can do the dishes when he's done." She tells me
that I wear the pants, but she picks them out :)

Vale;

C. Fabius Buteo

In a message dated 7/26/2005 1:16:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mjk@da
tanet.ab.ca writes:

Salve C. Fabi Buto,

I'll get back to you on this later today but alas my wife is howling
for me to hit the road and do some errands. Now I'm the boss... but
squeeek - my wife gives the orders!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





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

G. Equitius Cato C. Fabio Buteo Modiano S.P.D.

Salve Gaius Buteo.

You wrote:

"As a side note... it would be nice if everyone in Nova Roma would put
our energies into building community, instead of building legal codes."

Good idea. How about supporting the foundations of that community?
Like, oh, say...the Constitution? Dunno, just an idea. Call me crazy.

Vale bene,

Cato

G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. S.P.D.

Salve senatrix.

You wrote:

"If Fusce is unlawful today, Galerius was unlawful back then....Two
*wrongs* don't make a *right*, granted..."

So if we see a wrong being committed but somebody else has already
done it before, we should turn a blind eye?

Does it matter that there is a serious Constitutional question here?
This is not a parlor-game of political partisanship. We are
discussing the fundamental rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the
Republic. You are a senatrix because the magistrates using authority
granted them by the Constitution declared you to be. As long as it
exists, it is our law. Are you willing to protect it or would you
rather play with it, using the bits you like and ignoring the
inconvenient parts, as Gaius Buteo has suggested our magistrates do?

Provocatio is "guaranteed."

I am still waiting for an answer from Memmius Albucius regarding the
hearing of my client's appeal. This is day 4.

Vale bene,

Cato

G. Equitius Cato Consules Praetores Tribunes Plebibusque Novae Romae
S.P.D.

Salvete illustri.

WHEREAS, TIBERIUS GALERIUS PAULINUS has claimed the right of
provocatio guaranteed under the Nova Roman Constitution, to whit:

"II.Citizens and Gentes

B. The following rights of the Citizens who have reached the age of
18 shall be guaranteed, but this enumeration shall not be taken to
exclude other rights that citizens may possess:

5. The right of provocatio; to appeal a decision of a magistrate that
has a direct negative impact upon that citizen to the comitia populi
tributa.", and

WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma do not contain any
description or definition of any part of the phrase "direct negative
impact" whatsoever, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which allow any magistrate whosoever to create such
definitions on their own, and

WHEREAS, there are no provisions in the Constitution or laws of
Nova Roma which would give any magistrate whosoever the authority to
deny the right of provocatio, and

WHEREAS, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, a citizen above the age of 18,
believes that a decision made by DOMITIUS CONSTANTINUS FUSCUS,
tribunus plebis, acting "on behalf" of the tribunes of the plebeians
in his official capacity, did cause a "direct negative impact" upon him,

THEREFORE I, Gaius Equitius Cato, call upon a magistrate with the
power to call the comitia populi tributa do so in order to answer this
citizen's appeal in obedience to the Constitution of Nova Roma.

No tribune is empowered to exercize their right of intercessio: the
Constitution does not allow it. The provocatio must be heard: the
Constitution guarantees it.

Valete,

G. Equitius Cato
Advocatus in re provocatio Ti. Galerium Paulinum

G. Popillius Laenas G. Equitio Cato salutem dicit,

Thank you, your support is valuable and much appreciated.

Valete.



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

> G. Equitius Cato Q. Popillio Laeno Consule S.P.D.
>
> Salve Consul.
>
> I am happy to say that I wholeheartedly support your proposal. A

good

> job of cleaning up a messy situation.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato

Salve Romans

would have liked to have had a definition as to what this statement means

"whose past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of the senate."

I believe that a definition would help keep to a minimum arguments over what it means.

I will nevertheless be be voting for Lex Popillia Senatoria as it is a good move toward a more historic
selection process and reflects the hard work of the Consuls and their staffs.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen



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

Salve Senator.

---From your post (snipped):

>But did you think last year's matter was as serious and merited the
>attention you are giving the Paulinus issue? Did you trouble
>yourself to the same degree last year as you are doing now?

CAESAR: Firstly then as now it doesn't matter what I think about the
seriousness of the matter. The then Fabia Vera thought it was so,
just as today Paulinus thinks it so.

---From your post:

>I enjoyed your satire on or about the 1 June of last year while last
>year's matter was transpiring. "Coddleswap", I believe was the
>title. I entertained your analyses....which is not to say that I
>agreed with them. An excellent prose, Caesar, as always. But I was
>somehow not *exactly* left with the impression, after reading this
>delightfully written tale, that you were regarding the issue of the
>appeal at hand by the claimant of last year with serious, 'sleep-
>losing', mentally imprisoning lamentation. But, correct me if I'm
>wrong.

CAESAR: You are correct.

---From your post:

>Did you grieve, even in theory, the loss of someone who was 'not'
>going to comitia for appeal...? Or was the notion totally
>laughable....and prompted you to write a story about a fictitious
>parallel scenerio?

CAESAR: Not for an instant.

---From your post:

>Getting back to the 'real' case last year, Galerius Paulinus then
>Tribunis not supporting the idea of a comitia visit... using his
>authority as Tribune, a measure which,like it or no, appears to
>have some backing in law, despite the ramifications of the fate of
>citizen rights....same scenerio as today...we don't have to like it
>but it looks like its law.....to me....looks to me like it was law
>last year, and it looks the same way today.

CAESAR: No, it is not the same scenario. Firstly there were two
appeals made by Fabia Vera, the first to the Tribunes and the second,
at your prompting I believe, to Section II.B.5 of the constitution
(provacatio). Since the issue at hand is the similarity or not
between both claims of provocatio let us examine them both.

CAESAR: Provocatio requires that a decision causing negative impact
should have been made by a magistrate, so now we have to turn to the
constitution for a definition of "magistrate". Without quoting it all
refer to Section IV of the constitution. The decision that was made
that had a negative impact on Fabia Vera was made by the collegium
pontificum. That is a religious institution as defined under Section
VI Public Religious Institutions. Provocatio only relates to those
offices listed under Section IV. The collegium and the pontifices are
not listed or defined in that section, so you cannot claim provocatio
against an act of a religious body, because its members are not
magistrates. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The
provocatio today is in relation to the acts of the Tribunes, who are
magistrates as defined under S.IV.A.7.

CAESAR: We are dealing with apples and oranges here Senator. Paulinus
can claim provocatio, the then Fabia Vera could not.

---From your post (snipped):

>If Fusce is unlawful today, Galerius was unlawful back then.

CAESAR: Apples and oranges Senator. Fuscus is acting unlawfully.
Galerius was not.

---From your post (snipped):

>One or the other, but not both, when the question of citizen rights

is

>analyzed, and indeed when Tribune authority is analyzed. They are
>both out of line, or their decisions are both such to be lawfully
>upheld. Otherwise, our judgement could be questioned as having a
>morsel or two of partisanship.

CAESAR: No – quite incorrect. Fuscus is acting illegally and Galerius
was not. There is no linkage because the older incident dealt with
the actions of pontifices (not subject to provocatio) and this one
deals with the actions of magistrates who are subject to provocatio.

---From your post (snipped):

>I feel that Modianus, then Tribunis, is atleast being consistent in
>his analysis....otherwise he disputes the lawful actions of his own
>authorities as Tribune last year.

CAESAR: I have no idea what runs through the head of Modianus. I
think it is fairly self-evident from his comments that he advocates
ignoring the constitution and acting illegally. As to last year,
maybe he actually was motivated to give that matter some study since
it concerned him. Maybe, instead, he just took a wild guess at what
to do and why, and by sheer luck got it right. Who knows? Maybe even
he doesn't know. What Modianus did and didn't do is utterly
irrelevant to the issue at hand today anyway, but as you raised it I
thought I'd deal with it in passing.

---From your post (snipped):

>He is not turning tail like
>another Tribune and seeking legal avenues he closed the doors to for
>someone else. Two *wrongs* don't make a *right*, granted, depending

on what you think is right and wrong, but I admire consistency.

CAESAR: I am so glad you do Senator, for now you must admire Galerius
Paulinus, who is being consistently correct today as he was then. Can
he count on your support now?

---From your post (snipped):

>Modianus is being very consistent,

CAESAR: Yes – consistently emotive, sharp tongued and incorrect.
Possibly when he realises it we will all have to go to the Peace List
to listen to some long drawn out apology, or perhaps it will get shut
down again? Who knows?

---From your post (snipped):

>but I am 'perceiving' a rather
>marked difference in your approach to the current claimant's pleas,
>as opposed to last year's pleas to appeal. Again, do correct me, if
>need be.

CAESAR: I am indeed happy to correct you. Apples and oranges Senator –
see above.

---From your post (snipped):

>The tribunes did/do have the same exercize of authority last year/
>this year.....or they 'don't'

CAESAR: Last year we had two routes of appeal. I have concentrated on
the provocatio route, but there was the appeal to the Tribunes. That
was made on all sorts of grounds that Fabia Vera felt aggrieved over,
lack of notice, no chance of input, said sorry – no one listening,
didn't really mean it, it was just a joke etc etc. Were the Tribunes
entitled to ignore that? Well Tribune Fuscus seems set on ignoring
the constitution, the highest legal authority in the land so back
then if the then Tribunes ignored Fabia Vera (who isn't in the
constitution) then they appear to be acting consistently.

CAESAR: If you mean were they entitled then to ignore the appeal to
provocatio, of course they were Senator, for that can only be made in
respect of a magistrate and the pontifices are not defined as
magistrates. Apples and oranges again.

---From your post

>The tribunes did/do have the authority to administer the law and
>interpret it according to what they feel is the letter and spirit of
>the consitution, in the best interests of the Roman
>people,entertaining legally binding pursuant, noncontradictory laws
>of comitia in administering same last year/this year......or they
>don't...

>All or nothing....

>Which is it, Caesar? pray tell?

CAESAR: Indeed I will. The Tribunes cannot interpret the
constitution, they can only read it, and act strictly in accordance
with what it says or doesn't say. Our Tribunes of last year read it
and no doubt decided that as pontifices were not classified as
magistrates the claim to provocatio fell at the first hurdle since
the situation did not fulfil the requirements – pontifices not being
magistrates.

CAESAR: The tribunes can interpret the law only in so far as it does
not stray into the territory of the constitution. Say for instance a
law on the price of apples and oranges. Now a tribune could interpret
that law to his or her hearts content, because we have a law that
says they can. If however there was a clause in the constitution
about apples and oranges, then they could not interpret the law in a
way that contradicted the constitution since the constitution is
higher in the sacle of legal authority than a law (lex).

CAESAR: As to the rest about being in the best interests of the Roman
people, no they cannot do that if it involves the constitution,
however sensible, practical and fully supported it maybe. Why?
Because the constitution does not give them the right to do so.

CAESAR: Now for the benefit of those with poor memories or who
weren't here last year when Fabia Vera's case arose, there was also a
lot of minor issues concerning the timing of the intercesio; was her
appeal inside or outside of the time limit. I have not addressed
those issues since they are not pertinent to the two issues of
provocatio, which can be summoned up asÂ…..apples and oranges.

Vale
Caesar

Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.

Since the resignation of Alexander Iulius Caesar Probus Macedonicus we
have had an opening for the position of Diribitore.

Anyone wishing to stand for this position should contact me privately.

The duties and requirements for the position can be found here:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2004-10-07-vi.html

Valete.

Salvete omnes,

I have gone over this proposal which my colleague Tiberius Paulinus
mentions. As he says, the move toward a more historic selection
process will be a move in the right direction and I too appreciate
the work of our Consuls and their staffs. I certainly plan to vote
in its favour.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




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

> Salve Romans
>
> would have liked to have had a definition as to what this

statement means

>
> "whose past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity

of the senate."

>
> I believe that a definition would help keep to a minimum

arguments over what it means.

>
> I will nevertheless be be voting for Lex Popillia Senatoria as it

is a good move toward a more historic

> selection process and reflects the hard work of the Consuls and

their staffs.

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

G. Popillius Laenas Ti. Galeri Paulino salutem dicit,

The proposal gives the authority to make that determination to the
Censores acting in concert rather than trying to incorporate a
complete definition of all possibilities within the lex itself. The
proposal does indeed enhance the powers of the Censores making the
peoples choice of these magistrates even more important.

Of course I am most pleased by and grateful for, your suppoprt.

Vale bene.

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

> Salve Romans
>
> would have liked to have had a definition as to what this

statement means

>
> "whose past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity

of the senate."

>
> I believe that a definition would help keep to a minimum

arguments over what it means.

>
> I will nevertheless be be voting for Lex Popillia Senatoria as it

is a good move toward a more historic

> selection process and reflects the hard work of the Consuls and

their staffs.

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

G. Popillius Laenas Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit,

Thank you for your support as well.

Vale bene.

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have gone over this proposal which my colleague Tiberius

Paulinus

> mentions. As he says, the move toward a more historic selection
> process will be a move in the right direction and I too appreciate
> the work of our Consuls and their staffs. I certainly plan to vote
> in its favour.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
> <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > would have liked to have had a definition as to what this
> statement means
> >
> > "whose past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the

dignity

> of the senate."
> >
> > I believe that a definition would help keep to a minimum
> arguments over what it means.
> >
> > I will nevertheless be be voting for Lex Popillia Senatoria as

it

> is a good move toward a more historic
> > selection process and reflects the hard work of the Consuls and
> their staffs.
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes,

I am back again. Well as mentioned before, I have belonged to
various organizations over the years. I have to say that experience
has taught me that most of the members are there for the music,
parties, great food, drink etc. Just a handful really want to get
involved in actually running the organization and worry about
stautes, bookeeping, finances, promotions etc.

Now the hard thing to do is raising money to achieve our dreams and
goals. Like our Mexican association here, it is always a struggle to
get volunteers to help with fund raising events so sometimes we have
to cut back on our festivities. That action of course is a double
edged sword since you do not go in the red but do lose many members
through bordome. Also we find it harder to do events when people do
not pay for their memberships which like NR only cost 15.00 a year.
We are confined to one city here but Nova Roma is spread all over
the world which makes things more complex. As mentioned before
perhaps we need to be a little less in cyberspace and more in the
field with face to face meetings or at least phone calls once and a
while. In my province I tried and would like to have members over to
my house for some great ancient food and drink but coordinating all
our different scheduals is no easy task; we do make it for lunches
though and personal contact seems to give a new lease on life.
Perhaps we should be promoting our re-enactment legions far better
than we do since they are great ambassadors for promoting Rome.

I would certainly agree that in promoting Nova Roma to the public we
should push things from great general knowledge to food, drink,
philosophy and education whilst putting legal battles on the back
burner. Legal arguments and battles are very impressive, good
rehtoric and all but they do not pay the bills or put the food on
the table so to speak.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> C. Fabius Buteo Modianus Quinto Lanio Paulino salutem dicit
>
> Controversy does seem to pull people out of hiding... sad to say.
>
> As a side note... it would be nice if everyone in Nova Roma would
put our
> energies into building community, instead of building legal
codes. Do "we" do
> this for fun, enjoyment, and spirituality? Or do we do it because
we have
> nothing better to do, or because playing politics is our enjoyment?
>
> We have to ask ourselves... is 200+ tax payers a good thing? What
can we do
> to make things different, and promote positive growth... instead
of fighting
> the same battles.
>
> Vale;
>
> C. Fabius Buto Modianus
>
> In a message dated 7/26/2005 12:44:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mjk@d... writes:
>
> Salvete gentlemen,
>
> Well lets look at things from a more positive perspective. I was
> seriously concerned about the awful inactivity on the ML over the
> last few months; if anything this issue has got the fires roaring
> under our butts and some dormant names back in action!
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---Salve C. Equitius Cato:

You quoted me as saying in my last post: "If Fusce is unlawful
today, Galerius was unlawful back then....two wrongs don't make a
right, granted....."

And your argument to this statement is an incomplete one, Equitius
Cato....because it is based on only a sentence of what I wrote, not
the entire context of what I had to say.

Caesar did the same thing last night, but he was tired, he stated,
and clarified his intentions. No prob.

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

As for your approach to communication, Cato:

Aside from not indicating that you snipped from my post, which is in
itself is often a cosmetic boo boo, the nittygritty is, that you
have extracted a fragment of what I have said and are basing a
rebuttal on that....cutting to half a statement. Even if you want
to address one statement and cut the rest of my stuff, fine, but
kindly address the whole point atleast. Not a half-point which
appears in itself pointless. And it is courteous to indicate you've
snipped.

You have described the very thing you are doing to me by some
verbage in this post of yours, the text of which is below, although
this was not your intent in writing it, I acknowledge

You write below, Cato, in speaking of constitutional/lawful
authority matters, right wrong etc.......


"Are you willing to protect it (in this case the proper treatment of
my post) or would you rather play with it, using the bits you like
and ignoring the inconvenient parts?"

Cato, I hadn't finished my statement at that point. You may argue
that it was a complete sentence, but not a complete representation
of my point. So you have quoted a half-statement and any argument,
expansion, etc. of yours based on that half-quote can only be
regarded as a half-truth in itself.




So in your remarks to me regarding my approach to law and
constitutional affairs I in turn ask you to apply with respect to
common courtesy, and proper debate.

With respect to my posts do not **play with it, using the bits you
like (especially half statements), and ignoring the parts you would
so choose to regard as inconvenient.*****

One fellow I know calls this methodology 'slip and fall' style of
debating. And I am sure you are very capable of proper debate.


If you feel you have a firm argument which merits no discussion,
differing opinion, query, whatever, there would be no need to
succumb to this method of solidifying your *point*.

I stated Friday evening that I will not be party to the use of
portions of my posts to produce "senselessness", so that others
could provide themselves grounds to furnish some rebuttal they feel
they need to. I ask you to take note of this please.

Vale,
PMTS (Who reminds you that I have stated ad nauseum that we need to
give the constitution an overhaul, and match the pursuant laws more
closely to the language of the constitution)





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

> G. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae-Tiberiae Straboni sen. S.P.D.
>
> Salve senatrix.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "If Fusce is unlawful today, Galerius was unlawful back then....Two
> *wrongs* don't make a *right*, granted..."
>
> So if we see a wrong being committed but somebody else has already
> done it before, we should turn a blind eye?
>
> Does it matter that there is a serious Constitutional question

here?

> This is not a parlor-game of political partisanship. We are
> discussing the fundamental rights guaranteed to us as citizens of

the

> Republic. You are a senatrix because the magistrates using

authority

> granted them by the Constitution declared you to be. As long as it
> exists, it is our law. Are you willing to protect it or would you
> rather play with it, using the bits you like and ignoring the
> inconvenient parts, as Gaius Buteo has suggested our magistrates

do?

>
> Provocatio is "guaranteed."
>
> I am still waiting for an answer from Memmius Albucius regarding

the

> hearing of my client's appeal. This is day 4.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato

---P. Minucia Tiberia G. Popillio Laeno Consul Salutem:

Thank you for calling this contio.

Just a quick note to let you know that I, too, am giving this
legislation my earnest attention.

Vale,
PMTS



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

> Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
>
> I open contio on the following proposed Lex Popillia Senatoria. I
> realize that there are several items being debated currently in

the

> Forum, and I hesitate to add to them. However, I also see the
> calendar becoming quite crowded in the coming weeks and I have
> promised to allow plenty of time for discussion of this proposal.
>
> Accordingly, this contio will be open ended. I will call for the
> Comitia Tributa Populi when, and if, it seems appropriate
> (including, of course, the proper auspices).
>
> Valete.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

-

>
>
>
> LEX POPILLIA SENATORIA
>
> This lex follows the institutions of the kings in establishing a
> maximum size for the senate, and the lex Ovinia of c.318 in

setting

> guidelines for the selection of new senatores.
>
>
> I. After each census the censores shall declare a maximum number

of

> senatores.
>
> a. This number shall be 15% of the total number of assidui at the
> time, or the nearest whole number.
>
> b. This number shall be the maximum number of senatores until the
> number is revised by the censores after the following census.
>
> c. This number shall never be lower than the number of senatores

who

> exist at the time of the declaration, regardless of the number of
> assidui.
>
> d. This number shall never exceed 300, regardless of the number of
> assidui.
>
> e. After they have declared the maximum number of senatores (and

not

> before), the censores shall revise the list of senatores.
>
>
> II. The censores may remove senatores from the list.
>
> a. They shall begin with the list drawn up by the previous

censores.

>
> b. They shall first strike from the list those who have died or

lost

> their citizenship since the last list was drawn up.
>
> c. They may also strike from the list any existing senatores whose
> past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of the
> senate. They shall make public explanation of their reason for

doing

> so.
>
> d. An existing senator may only be removed from the list with the
> agreement of both censores.
>
>
> III. The censores shall add new senatores to the list.
>
> a. After removing any senatores whom they wish to remove from the
> list, the censores shall sublect (add) new senatores to the list
> until the total number of senatores is equal to the maximum which
> they have set, or as near to the maximum as the censores consider
> reasonable.
>
> b. They shall first sublect any dictatorii (citizens who have
> completed terms as dictator) who have not already been sublected,
> removed, or passed over for sublection.
>
> c. They shall next sublect any censorii (citizens who have

completed

> terms as censor) who have not already been sublected, removed, or
> passed over for sublection.
>
> d. They shall next sublect any consulares (citizens who have
> completed terms as consul) who have not already been sublected,
> removed, or passed over for sublection.
>
> e. They shall next sublect any praetores (citizens who have
> completed terms as praetor) who have not already been sublected,
> removed, or passed over for sublection.
>
> f. They shall next sublect citizens at their discretion, giving

due

> weight to their past tenure of public office, to their seniority,
> and to their good character. These may include citizens who were
> passed over or removed from the senate by previous censores.
>
> g. They may pass over for sublection any citizen qualified under
> III.b, c, d, or e whose past conduct they consider would be
> seriously harmful to the dignity of the senate. They shall make
> public explanation of their reason for doing so.
>
> e. A new senator may only be added to the list with the agreement

of

> both censores.
>
>
> IV. Higher magistrates and ex-magistrates shall be entitled to
> attend meetings of the senate.
>
> a. Any flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, or praetor shall

be

> entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein; any
> tribunus plebis shall be entitled to attend meetings of the senate
> but not to vote therein.
>
> b. No flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, praetor, or

tribunus

> plebis shall be counted toward the total number of senatores.
>
> c. Any dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
> entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein,
> except one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection.
>
> d. No dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
> counted toward the total number of senatores unless he or she has
> already been sublected by the censores.
>
>
> V. A decision of the censores to remove an existing senator, or of
> either censor to pass over a citizen for sublection, is not

subject

> to any appeal or provocatio and cannot be used as grounds to
> prosecute any current or former censor.
>
>
> VI. The leges Vedia senatoria, Arminia senatoria, and Octavia de
> senatoribus are repealed.

G. Popillius Laenas P. Minucia-Tiberia Straboni salutem dicit.

Excellent, that is gratifying. I do believe it is important and
that is one reason I have left the contio open ended.

Vale bene.



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

> ---P. Minucia Tiberia G. Popillio Laeno Consul Salutem:
>
> Thank you for calling this contio.
>
> Just a quick note to let you know that I, too, am giving this
> legislation my earnest attention.
>
> Vale,
> PMTS
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
> <gaiuspopillius@g...> wrote:
> > Gaius Popillius Laenas Consul Quiritibus Salutem Plurimam Dicit.
> >
> > I open contio on the following proposed Lex Popillia Senatoria.

I

> > realize that there are several items being debated currently in
> the
> > Forum, and I hesitate to add to them. However, I also see the
> > calendar becoming quite crowded in the coming weeks and I have
> > promised to allow plenty of time for discussion of this proposal.
> >
> > Accordingly, this contio will be open ended. I will call for

the

> > Comitia Tributa Populi when, and if, it seems appropriate
> > (including, of course, the proper auspices).
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------

--

> -
> >
> >
> >
> > LEX POPILLIA SENATORIA
> >
> > This lex follows the institutions of the kings in establishing a
> > maximum size for the senate, and the lex Ovinia of c.318 in
> setting
> > guidelines for the selection of new senatores.
> >
> >
> > I. After each census the censores shall declare a maximum number
> of
> > senatores.
> >
> > a. This number shall be 15% of the total number of assidui at

the

> > time, or the nearest whole number.
> >
> > b. This number shall be the maximum number of senatores until

the

> > number is revised by the censores after the following census.
> >
> > c. This number shall never be lower than the number of senatores
> who
> > exist at the time of the declaration, regardless of the number

of

> > assidui.
> >
> > d. This number shall never exceed 300, regardless of the number

of

> > assidui.
> >
> > e. After they have declared the maximum number of senatores (and
> not
> > before), the censores shall revise the list of senatores.
> >
> >
> > II. The censores may remove senatores from the list.
> >
> > a. They shall begin with the list drawn up by the previous
> censores.
> >
> > b. They shall first strike from the list those who have died or
> lost
> > their citizenship since the last list was drawn up.
> >
> > c. They may also strike from the list any existing senatores

whose

> > past conduct they consider seriously harmful to the dignity of

the

> > senate. They shall make public explanation of their reason for
> doing
> > so.
> >
> > d. An existing senator may only be removed from the list with

the

> > agreement of both censores.
> >
> >
> > III. The censores shall add new senatores to the list.
> >
> > a. After removing any senatores whom they wish to remove from

the

> > list, the censores shall sublect (add) new senatores to the list
> > until the total number of senatores is equal to the maximum

which

> > they have set, or as near to the maximum as the censores

consider

> > reasonable.
> >
> > b. They shall first sublect any dictatorii (citizens who have
> > completed terms as dictator) who have not already been

sublected,

> > removed, or passed over for sublection.
> >
> > c. They shall next sublect any censorii (citizens who have
> completed
> > terms as censor) who have not already been sublected, removed,

or

> > passed over for sublection.
> >
> > d. They shall next sublect any consulares (citizens who have
> > completed terms as consul) who have not already been sublected,
> > removed, or passed over for sublection.
> >
> > e. They shall next sublect any praetores (citizens who have
> > completed terms as praetor) who have not already been sublected,
> > removed, or passed over for sublection.
> >
> > f. They shall next sublect citizens at their discretion, giving
> due
> > weight to their past tenure of public office, to their

seniority,

> > and to their good character. These may include citizens who were
> > passed over or removed from the senate by previous censores.
> >
> > g. They may pass over for sublection any citizen qualified under
> > III.b, c, d, or e whose past conduct they consider would be
> > seriously harmful to the dignity of the senate. They shall make
> > public explanation of their reason for doing so.
> >
> > e. A new senator may only be added to the list with the

agreement

> of
> > both censores.
> >
> >
> > IV. Higher magistrates and ex-magistrates shall be entitled to
> > attend meetings of the senate.
> >
> > a. Any flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, or praetor shall
> be
> > entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein;

any

> > tribunus plebis shall be entitled to attend meetings of the

senate

> > but not to vote therein.
> >
> > b. No flamen Dialis, dictator, censor, consul, praetor, or
> tribunus
> > plebis shall be counted toward the total number of senatores.
> >
> > c. Any dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall

be

> > entitled to attend meetings of the senate and to vote therein,
> > except one who has been deliberately passed over for sublection.
> >
> > d. No dictatorius, censorius, consularis, or praetorius shall be
> > counted toward the total number of senatores unless he or she

has

> > already been sublected by the censores.
> >
> >
> > V. A decision of the censores to remove an existing senator, or

of

> > either censor to pass over a citizen for sublection, is not
> subject
> > to any appeal or provocatio and cannot be used as grounds to
> > prosecute any current or former censor.
> >
> >
> > VI. The leges Vedia senatoria, Arminia senatoria, and Octavia de
> > senatoribus are repealed.