C. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori S.P.D.

Salve Marca Hortensia.

"Once an augur always an augur."

This is simply, factually, legally not true. As a student of law I'm
surprised that you would so casually kick it aside. I've shown that
the lex Constitutiva categorically denies this. Please don't simply
repeat platitudes, show the law which supports your position.

Vale bene,

Cato

Salve

Just returned from berlin, I did find the edict on augurship mails
flooding my mailbox and altho I haven't read them all yet, given there
i slittle time, I'd like to say one thing.

As a former tribunus, so just a private citizen but with maybe a bit
of insight in NR laws, i can't but agree with Tiberius Galerius
Paulinus.

More, not only legally a Consul has no power to issue an edict
nominating or re-instating someone in the augurship, which is
obviously a religious matter and thus constitutionally under the
oversee of the Collegium Pontificum, but I think that something like
this, if not stopped, would create a very dangerous precendet of a
civil authority meddling with Religio ones, and I'm saying that as a
christian catholic, figure.

Therefore, now that there is still time (a few hours, tho), I'd invite
the Tribunes to do their job and veto the edict (if that has not been
done yet, and the relative message is buried among teh hundred or so
of teh last week-end), or the consul to re-think his doing and
withdraw it.

After that, I'd be glad to have the Collegium Pontificum to issue an
edict which would produce the same result of the consular one. But by
its own right and power, and in accordance with the constitution, this
time.

Valete,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Former Tribunus Plebis (MMDCCLVIII a. U. c.)
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

Salve iterum

I just wanted to say regarding the debate that I did started, that I
had an incredibly busy week and a week-end abroad, but I've not
dropped or lost interest in that, not I'm ignoring the ones who
participated after my first reply.

I'll try to wrap up the posts and give a reply to everyone who dropped
his ideas later today or as soon as I can this week.

valete,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Former Tribunus Plebis (MMDCCLVIII a. U. c.)
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem X Kalendas Martias; haec dies fastus est.

"The one who had received the mortal wound died instantly, and the
other, who had been wounded in the thigh, was scarcely able to stand,
but limped and frequently leaned upon his shield. Nevertheless, he
still made a show of resistance and with his surviving brother
advanced against the Roman, who stood his ground; and they surrounded
him, one coming up to him from in front and the other from behind.
The Roman, fearing that, being thus surrounded by them and obliged to
fight with two adversaries attacking him from two sides, he might
easily be overcome — he was still uninjured — hit upon the plan of
separating his enemies and fighting each one singly. he thought he
could most easily separate them by feigning flight; for then he would
not be pursued by both the Albans, but only by one of them, since he
saw that the other no longer had control of his limbs. With this
thought in mind he fled as fast as he could; and it was his good
fortune not to be disappointed in his expectation. For the Alban who
was not mortally wounded followed at his heels, while the other, being
unable to keep going was falling altogether too far behind. Then
indeed the Albans encouraged their men and the Romans reproached their
champion with cowardice, the former singing songs of triumph and
crowning themselves with garlands as if the contest were already won,
and the others lamenting as if Fortune would never raise them up
again. But the Roman, having carefully waited for his opportunity,
turned quickly and, before the Alban could put himself on his guard,
struck him a blow on the arm with his sword and clove his elbow in
twain, and when his hand fell to the ground together with his sword,
he struck one more blow, a mortal one, and dispatched the Alban; then,
rushing from him to the last of his adversaries, who was half dead and
fainting, he slew him also. And taking the spoils from the bodies of
his cousins, he hastened to the city, wishing to give his father the
first news of his victory." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3.20



"Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their
generations...There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and were
men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding,
and proclaiming prophecies; leaders of the people in their
deliberations and in understanding of learning for the people, wise in
their words of instruction; those who composed musical tunes, and set
forth verses in writing; rich men furnished with resources, living
peaceably in their habitations -- all these were honored in their
generations, and were the glory of their times. There are some of them
who have left a name, so that men declare their praise. And there are
some who have no memorial, who have perished as though they had not
lived; they have become as though they had not been born, and so have
their children after them. But these were men of mercy, whose
righteous deeds have not been forgotten... Their posterity will
continue for ever, and their glory will not be blotted out. Their
bodies were buried in peace, and their name lives to all generations."
- The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 44:1-10, 13-14

Today is celebrated in the United States as Washington's Birthday, in
honor of the first president of the U.S. The original version of the
holiday was in commemoration of George Washington's birthday in 1796
(the last full year of his presidency). Washington, according to the
calendar that has been used since at least the mid-18th century, was
born on February 22, 1732. According to the old style calendar in use
back then, however, he was born on February 11.

By the early 19th century, Washington's Birthday had taken firm root
in the American experience as a bona fide national holiday. Its
traditions included Birthnight Balls in various regions, speeches and
receptions given by prominent public figures, and a lot of revelry in
taverns throughout the land. Then along came Abraham Lincoln, another
revered president and fellow February baby (born on the 12th of the
month). The first formal observance of his birthday took place in
1865, the year after his assassination, when both houses of Congress
gathered for a memorial address. While Lincoln's Birthday did not
become a federal holiday like George Washington's, it did become a
legal holiday in several states. Today is popularly known as
"Presidents' Day".

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Presidents' Day
(http://www.patriotism.org/presidents_day/)

Salve Romans

Even though his birthday is on Wednesday today is the official
birthday remembrance of that most Roman of America's founders George
Washington.

Happy birthday George Born February 22, 1732 (274)


This is a short portion of Lord Byron's ODE TO NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE
After you have read it you will understand why I choose it to honor
this great man.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

XVII.

There was a day --- there was an hour,
While earth was Gaul's --- Gaul thine ---
When that immeasurable power
Unsated to resign
Had been an act of purer fame
Than gathers round Marengo's name,
And gilded thy decline,
Through the long twilight of all time,
Despite some passing clouds of crime.

XVIII.

But thou forsooth must be a king,
And don the purple vest,
As if that foolish robe could wring
Remembrance from thy breast.
Where is that faded garment? where
Thy gewgaws thou wert fond to wear,
The star, the string, the crest?
Vain froward child of empire! say,
Are all thy playthings snatched away?

XIX.

Where may the wearied eye repose
When gazing on the Great;
Where neither guilty glory glows,
Nor despicable state?
Yes --- one --- the first --- the last --- the best ---
The Cincinnatus of the West,
Whom envy dared not hate,
Bequeath'd the name of Washington,
To make man blush there was but one!

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

I don't want to get into a technical discussion of
this question: it's enough to say that by and large I
agree with the analysis of C. Equitius, Ti. Galerius,
and Domitius Constantinus. I would like, however, to
make some general comments on a problem that this
argument reveals.

The consul justifies his latest action with reference
to his power of juris dictio, and power about whose
nature both our consules agree. Relying on the words
of the lex Arminia Equitia de imperio, which defines
juris dictio as "the power to interpret the law", they
assert that they have the power to state definitively
what the law is. Are they correct to do so?

The nature of juris dictio in the ancient republic is
quite clear and undisputed. It was a judicial power.
It was the power to hear disputes in the courts. It
was not a general power to issue authoritative rulings
on the meaning of the entire body of law. A magistrate
with juris dictio had the power to hear disputes in
court and rule on points of law relevant to those
cases. He did not have a general power to get up in
the morning and declare what the law said on any
matter which came into his mind. His power was
strictly limited.

It is obvious that such a power much be limited,
because an unfettered power to interpret the law is in
practice indistinguishable from a power to make law.
If a judge had the power to make authoritative rulings
on the interpretation of any point of law he took it
into his head to rule on, and if his rulings could not
be questioned or overturned, then he could declare the
law to be whatever he wished it to be. He would be a
one-man legislature.

The problem here, as always, is the underlying basis
of our constitution. We have a written constitutional
text which claims to be the ultimate source of all
legal authority. It requires interpretation. There is
no one with the competence or the power to interpret
it definitively. This leads to endless problems. Most
people who have thought hard about this now agree that
there are only two possible solutions. The first is to
do as the Romans did and scrap the very idea of having
a supreme constitutional document. The second is to
give some person or body the power to make definitive
rulings on the interpretation of the constitutional
document - in effect, to create a Constitutional
Court.

Neither option has much support. The second option is
so abominably un-Roman that most of us, quite rightly,
cannot bear to contemplate it. The first option,
despite having served the Romans well for some five
hundred years, strikes most people as intolerably
unstable. So we have a strange situation: almost
everyone acknowledges, and has acknowledged for the
last two or three years, that the current arrangement
is untenable; yet still no magistrate has yet had the
political nerve to actually propose either of the two
possible solutions.

It seems to me that this year's consules are
implementing the second option by stealth. They have
seized on the flimsy wording of the lex Arminia
Equitia and sought to widen the scope of the power of
juris dictio so that it empowers them to make
definitive rulings on the interpretation of all law,
including the constitutional document. They are in
effect claiming that they are the Constitutional
Court.

I don't suggest that they are doing this in any
deliberate or calculating way. They see a problem,
they are eager to solve it, they think they have found
a tool to solve it. Their solution to the problem of
legal uncertainty is to say "never fear, there is a
way to know what the law says - it says what we say it
says". It is similar to what the tribunes tried to do
last year, no doubt with equally good motives.

But, Quirites, we must say to them very clearly that
we cannot accept this solution, however
well-intentioned. The tribunes are not a
Constitutional Court. The consules are not a
Constitutional Court. There is no Constitutional
Court. If the consules would like to create one, and
make themselves its members, let them come forward
with proposals and let us vote on them. But as things
stand now they have no such power and their
interpretations of constitutional law are not
definitive. Their power of juris dictio is a power to
hear cases in the courts, not to make general and
binding declarations about any points of law which
come to their attention.

We do need a solution to the problem of constitutional
interpretation, but it must be a solution arrived at
openly and with the approval of the senate and people.
We must accept, and insist, that as things stand no
one has the power to make definitive and binding
interpretations of constitutional law, and no one will
have such power until a vote of the people says so.



___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

A. Apollonius pontificibus omnibusque sal.

Tomorrow it will be a dies FP according to the
official calendar. We have still not been told what a
dies FP is, or what a citizen should do or avoid doing
on such a day, or what a magistrate should do or avoid
doing on such a day.

Will the pontifices tell us what we should and should
not do tomorrow? If not, will they perform an
expiation on behalf of any citizens and magistrates
who, through no fault of their own, offend the gods
tomorrow by doing something which should not be done
or by omitting to do something which should be done?





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

A. Apollonius P. Omniviae omnibusque sal.

> My particular area of interest is Sulla and his
> relationship to the Sanctuary of Fortuna
> Primagenita. Can anyone direct me to any
> informational resources on this topic.

I can't remember anything immediately, but a good
place to start is Keaveney's biography "Sulla: The
Last Republican". It's biased in favour of Sulla, but
it should give you some indication of where to look
for more information.



___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

P. Memmius Albucius Consuli Buteoni omnibusque s.d.


On the edict issued by our Consul Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus, A.
Apollonius Cordus wrote:

> I don't want to get into a technical discussion of
> this question: it's enough to say that by and large I
> agree with the analysis of C. Equitius, Ti. Galerius,
> and Domitius Constantinus.

I will join my voice to these honorable ones.

Whoever the concerned citizen , I think this consular edict (below)
is unconstitutional and unuseful.

I would complete Cordus's opinion by stating 3 points :

1/ Lex Equitia Galeria, now a part of our constitution, speaks
of "penalty". This law notion is a criminal one, which enters in the
scope of, for example, lex Salicia poenalis. A "penalty" is a loss
that a civis must suffer because he has violated the law.
In our case, we have no such situation, but a simple *status*
question : once X was a citizen, then, having resigned, it is not
anymore. The loss of the augurship - if real - is not a "penalty",
but the consequence of one of our basic rules : citizenship.
So Lex Equitia Galeria is irrelevant here ;

2/ As Cordus has pointed it, consuls have no more power of
interpretation of our law than the other constitutional magistrates.
They may use them, but these other ones may use their in a different
way. What would happen if one our Praetors or Tribunes, would issue
an similar edict, but to say the opposite ?

3/ The previous question is hardly answerable. Not because we have
not a constitutional court, but because I think that all these high
magistrates have seen that either a consul or a praetor or tribune,
etc. may violate a clear disposal of our constitution which says :

"The Collegium Augurum shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the
Plebeian order and four from the Patrician order. They shall be
appointed by the *Collegium Pontificum*,(..)"

So please, dear Consul Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus, withdraw you
edict, for the previous reasons, and for a last one : if an augur is
supposed designated "for life" - even if he leave NR, which seems a
little bit strange, I know - he does not need to get the support of
a consular edictum to be part of the college of the augurs. He was,
he has stayed, and is still an augur, particularly when six
positions are open. The only difficulty would be if a magister
aranearius would have the strange idea denying him his inscription
in our web site. Then, the citizen concerned would need asking the
collegium pontificum to issue a decretum to have his name registered.

So please, dear Consul, withdraw this unuseful edict and, if
necessary - because I see that the concerned citizen is still
registered as augur - let the college of priests use his
constitutional powers.

Vale, Consul omnesque.

P. Memmius Albucius


-----------------------------------
EDICTUM CONSULARE

Regarding Flavius Vedius Germanicus as an Augur of Nova Roma.

Ex Officio

Flavius Vedius Germanicus, a Pater Patriae of Nova Roma, has
previously been an Augur of Nova Roma (March 1998 - March 2002). At
the time he resigned his citizenship, membership in the Collegium
Augurum was not automatically rescinded when citizenship was
renounced, in accordance with ancient tradition. With the authority
of
LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS (which states, "No one
shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject to a
penalty when the action was performed") and the authority to
interpret
Nova Roma Law (integral to Consular Imperium), based on the
application of the LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS to
this matter, I reinstate Flavius Vedius Germanicus as a full member
of
the Collegium Augurium.

Dated XVIII February 11:30 AM Roman time, issued officially in the
consulship of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus and Pompeia Minucia Strabo

Q·FABIVS·VRANICVS·A·APOLLONIO·CORDO·OMNIBVSQVE·S·P·D

Ave!

I have tried to gather information on these dates of the calendar, but I don't have a solid conclusion. What does FP mean? Maybe Fastus Principlius or Fastus Publicus.


They are dies festus: festival for the citizens but not feriae dies. Three only survive in the whole year: februaty 21 (the Feralia), April 23th (Vinalia priora) and august 19th (Vinalia rustica)

It is possible that the day is fastus for the morning and nefastus in the afternoon.

They have the same religious character that the dies nefasti but in those that take place public religious rites.

Certain indispensable menial works are allowed for the cult ceremonies anda bsolutely forbbiden in a day nefastus: to yoke oxen to the car, to transport and to open the barrels of wine, to prune the stumps, to pick up the grapes and to squeeze the grape clusters (the two festivals of the Vinaliae in April and August).

I think that in the Feralia (February) it's celebrated the deceaseds, the only day of the year that is carried out public cult to the deads. This is the reason so that it is considered special this day and be not dies nefastus.


But Im not a expert in roman religion...


Vale bene.

Q·FABIVS·A·F·I·NEP·CLV·VRANICVS·CANT·SCRIPSIT


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

EDICTUM CONSULARE - CALL FOR CANDIDATES EDITOR COMMENTARIORUM

Candidatures shall be entertained for the following magisterial vacancy until March 6 2400 Roma Time, 2006, to wit, the position of Editor Commentariorum of the Nova Roma periodical "Aquila", said editor to serve the remainder of this year. Although candidates for this position are encouraged to place their resumes before the populace via public fora, -all- declarations of candidacy -must- be made in writing to Consuls@... to be considered official.

Said candidate will work in collaboration with the Editor Commentariorum Senioris, Marcus Minucius Audens, officially appointed by the Senate to serve until the end of this year, who is commissioned to oversee the administrational aspects entailed in this publication. For a complete description of his role please see
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2004-11-18-results.html


Qualifications:
Must be a full citizen of Nova Roma (as opposed to holding provisional citizenship)
Must be 21 years of age
Must have assidui (taxpayer) status at the time of delaring candidacy.
Please note that the Aquila is an electronic publication and so a knowledge and comfort level of editing and formating texts for web presentation is desirable.

After March 6, 2400 Roman Time, 2006, this call for candidates shall be officially closed. When omens and dates are deemed favourable, the Comitia Populi Tributa shall be called to hold contio and elections.

Given by my hand this 20 day February 2006 in the Consulship of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus and Pompeia Minucia Strabo

__________________________________________________
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]

Pompeia Minucia Strabo Quiritibus S.P.D.


EDICTUM OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CELEBRATION OF PROVINCIA DEITIES

By the will of the citizens of Canada Orientalis Provincia expressed in the past and in the present, this edictum is to reaffirm the Patron Deities of Canada Orientalis we have known as such since 2001. They are Ceres, Bacchus and Vulcanis. Ceres reminds us of our abundance in agricultural produce, particularily grains, Bacchus reminds of the vineyards of the Niagara region, and in the case of Vulcanis, our successes in the mines and in steel manufacture.

As of this day, we are, in addition, formally recognizing a fourth member of the Pantheon as Provincia Patron Deity: Neptunus. We are surrounded by an abundance of water, our greatest provincia resource, so how is it that we have not formally recognized Neptune as well? Well, as of this day, the humble recognition of the provincia populace is now an official reality.

Given by my hand this day, XX FEB MMDCCLIX AVC in the consulship of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus and Pompeia Minucia Strabo



__________________________________________________
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]

.M.Hortensia A. Apollonio spd;
actually I think the big issue isn't the conflict
between laws, but the underlying one:
is Vedius Germanicus an augur?
Now this is a tremendous issue, and to my mind when faced
with it the Consules looked at the conflicting laws, looked to the
ways of Roma Antiqua 'once an augur, always an augur' & then they
consulted with the tribunes before issuing an edict.

Now I don't see a Constitutional Court developing, as if the people
were outraged they'd all be posting in the forum and demanding
intercessio from the tribunes.

But notice the upset is from 4-5 mostly lawyers; Fuscus, Albucius
etc...

No one over at the Religio group is upset. The forum is peaceful.
They & I are happy to have an augur back, And I think that's how
most people really view this Corde. It it the mos of Nova Roma.
bene vale in pacem deorum
M. Hortensia Maior


There is

> no one with the competence or the power to interpret
> it definitively. This leads to endless problems. t.
>
>
>
> > implementing the second option by stealth. They are in
> effect claiming that they are the Constitutional
> Court.
>
> I

Salvete!
I absolutely agree with the arguments given by Cato, Paulinus and Fuscus.
They sound logic to me and I looked up every one of the mentioned laws and
though I´m not a law student (only a mere physician-soon-to-be) it looks
like they are right.
M. Hortensia Maior wrote: "vox populi, vox dei" - so I thought that as a
member of the populus I´d let my voice be heard.
Valete!
L.Flavia Lectrix

-------Originalmeldung-------

Von: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
Datum: 02/20/06 11:25:59
An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Urgent: Appeal for a veto

Salve

Just returned from berlin, I did find the edict on augurship mails
flooding my mailbox and altho I haven't read them all yet, given there
i slittle time, I'd like to say one thing.

As a former tribunus, so just a private citizen but with maybe a bit
of insight in NR laws, i can't but agree with Tiberius Galerius
Paulinus.

More, not only legally a Consul has no power to issue an edict
nominating or re-instating someone in the augurship, which is
obviously a religious matter and thus constitutionally under the
oversee of the Collegium Pontificum, but I think that something like
this, if not stopped, would create a very dangerous precendet of a
civil authority meddling with Religio ones, and I'm saying that as a
christian catholic, figure.

Therefore, now that there is still time (a few hours, tho), I'd invite
the Tribunes to do their job and veto the edict (if that has not been
done yet, and the relative message is buried among teh hundred or so
of teh last week-end), or the consul to re-think his doing and
withdraw it.

After that, I'd be glad to have the Collegium Pontificum to issue an
edict which would produce the same result of the consular one. But by
its own right and power, and in accordance with the constitution, this
time.

Valete,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Former Tribunus Plebis (MMDCCLVIII a. U. c.)
Aedilis Urbis Iterum



Yahoo! Groups Links







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

G. Iulius Scaurus Quirtibus SPD.

Salvete, Quirites.

I have convened the Collegium Pontificum as of February 25 to consider
a decretum establishing definitive legal authority in the matter of
leges sacrae pertaining to augural status and the sole authority of
the Collegium Pontificum to determine who is or is not an augur or a
member of the Collegium Augurum. Because of time requirements for
discussion and polling in the Collegium specified in the Decretum de
Ratione Pontificum Collegii and the observation of dies nefasti et
atri it will not be possible for the Collegium to vote on the matter
prior to March 6. While I am not a plebeian and may not therefore ask
the Tribuni Plebis to exercise intercessio, I strongly recommend that
a plebeian civis do so immediately.

Valete.

Scarus
Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Salve Tribunes

The CP is going to handle this issue. As a Plebian Nova Roman I ask
that the Tribunes invoke intercessio. The Consuls edict is
unconstitutional.

Please end this assault on the rule of law.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor

M. Hortensia Paulino spd;
Praetor I see 4-5 people, and now you grandstanding on the
ML, you can easily write to the tribunes.

But frankly the Consules see Vedius Germanicus for what he is an
augur. There is no constitutional assault. The Pontifex Maximus
Julianus Cassius was consulted and agreed that Vedius Germanicus has
been and always is an augur!
Now we have Scaurus and Cinninatus Augur who who loathe the Pater
Patriae trying to change even their own law. Pretty sad!
bene vale in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
producer "Vox Romana" podcast
cultrix deorum

> Salve Tribunes
>
> The CP is going to handle this issue. As a Plebian Nova Roman I

ask

> that the Tribunes invoke intercessio. The Consuls edict is
> unconstitutional.
>
> Please end this assault on the rule of law.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Praetor
>

Salvete Tribunes!
Yes, please do invoke intercessio!
Valete!
L.Flavia Lectrix

-------Originalmeldung-------

Von: Timothy P. Gallagher
Datum: 02/20/06 23:12:09
An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Tribuni Plebis please exercise intercessio

Salve Tribunes

The CP is going to handle this issue. As a Plebian Nova Roman I ask
that the Tribunes invoke intercessio. The Consuls edict is
unconstitutional.

Please end this assault on the rule of law.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor







Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:01:14 -0000
From: "Timothy P. Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
Subject: An appeal to the Collegium Pontificum


Salvete,

This issue, as I had stated previously, had been addressed by the College.
F Vedius had petitioned to assume an Augur position and was rejected not
long after he reapplied, again, for citizenship.
There you have it. Is everyone now pleased?
Nota Bene; The College has a tradition of NOT making public those petitions
and applications that are rejected or denied.
Someone disagrees and is wont to drag us all through public displays when
failing to achieve their desires, thus we have the Consul issuing his
blatant power grabbing "edict".
In addition, the College never appointed F Vedius in the first place. He
appointed himself, find his appointement in the Archives OR the Tabularium.
.
Also, If Nova Roma CONTINUES to fail to live up to it's own laws there is NO
hope of a future for it. These people make up laws and then ignore them, or
make specious arguments as if we cannot read for ourselves.
To think we have people wondering why Nova Rome is no longer thriving!?

Valete, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
Senator, Censorius et Consularis
Pontifex et Flamen Martialis
Lictor
Founder Gens Equitia


Salve Romans

This is my first post in the Forum on this issue of Augers. I hope it
will be my last.

I respectfully request that the Collegium Pontificum convene TODAY to
decided once and for all if F. Vedius Germanicus should again be an
Auger.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor

> This issue, as I had stated previously, had been addressed by the College.
> F Vedius had petitioned to assume an Augur position and was rejected not
> long after he reapplied, again, for citizenship.

He should not have had to "reapply". He was, is, and always will be
an Augur; his appointment was "for life", and no later laws or acts of
pontifices can change that. It is shameful that some members of the
Collegium Pontificum allowed the pursuit of personal vendettas to
interfere with what was clearly their duty.

> In addition, the College never appointed F Vedius in the first place. He
> appointed himself, find his appointement in the Archives OR the Tabularium.

Yes, he did. Is that appointment any less valid because of that? In 1998
Nova Roma pulled itself up by its bootstraps; if an appointment of an augur
by executive decision of the founders is to be questioned, then how can
you consider the early appointment of pontifices, made in exactly the
same manner, to be valid?

> Also, If Nova Roma CONTINUES to fail to live up to it's own laws there is NO
> hope of a future for it. These people make up laws and then ignore them, or
> make specious arguments as if we cannot read for ourselves.

A clear example of that is a priest who ejects another member of a priestly
college from the collegial mailing list and denigrates his title in the
presence of other priests.

> To think we have people wondering why Nova Rome is no longer thriving!?

Perhaps it will thrive now that the Collegium Augurium has been rendered
significantly less dysfunctional.

Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

G. Iulius Scaurus M. Hortensiae SPD.

Salve, M. Hortensia.

> Now we have Scaurus and Cinninatus Augur who who loathe the Pater
> Patriae trying to change even their own law. Pretty sad!

I do not loathe Fl. Vedius Germanicus, nor do I necessarily oppose his
reinstatement as an augur, a matter which I am happy for the Collegium
to consider. I have had quite pleasant exchanges with Germanicus and
I have no personal animus toward him whatsoever. What I do oppose
most strenuously is the notion that a consul may by edictum adlect any
person to the Collegium Augurum or to any other priesthood. This is
solely the responsibility of the Collegium Pontificum.

If Germanicus now approaches the Collegium for reinstatement, I expect
the matter to be determined solely on the merits of his petition and I
shall vigorously oppose any attempt to bring personal conflicts into
the decision by an Pontifex.

I would have thought that you'd give up trying to read my mind by now,
since you clearly have no aptitude for it.

Vale.

Scaurus

Salve Gai Iuli,

> What I do oppose most strenuously is the notion that a consul may by
> edictum adlect any person to the Collegium Augurum or to any other
> priesthood.

As we all do, of course. But this is not "any person"; this is a person
who previously was appointed to that position "for life". The consul
(and his colleague and supporters) is saying only that "for life" means
exactly that, and he is willing to use his imperium to enforce that.

The Tribunes are the mechanism we have to block abuses of power; the
Tribunes do not believe this to be such an abuse.

If he had appointed anyone else, even someone exceptionally well
qualified, then he would be vetoed, tarred and feathered.

Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

C. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Marca Hortensia et salvete omnes.

Legally, it is irrelevant what the consuls think of Vedius Germanicus'
position, as they have absolutely nothing to do with religious
appopintments. Please read the lex Constitutiva.

Legally, it is irrelevant what the Pontifex Maximus thinks privately,
as the appointment of augurs is a collegial decision, not the decision
of one member of the College of Pontiffs. Please read the lex
Constitutiva.

I have made it clear that I do not like a rigid, written lex
Constitutiva of the kind we have. It is unhistoric, and it is
unRoman. But while it exists, it is our law.

When you start throwing out the accusation that the view that the
consular edict was illegal is based solely on a "loath[ing]" of Vedius
Germanicus, you do yourself, those who believe the edict to be
illegal, and Vedius Germanicus himself an enormous disservice.

Marca Hortensia, showing concern that the law is being violated is not
"grandstanding". The subject of the law may be stultifyingly dull to
some citizens, and I apologize if this argument has put anyone off,
but without some kind of foundation, a set of laws which are obeyed
for the good of the Republic, we have nothing but smoke and air.

A very wise Person once said that there was a "foolish man, who built
his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great
was the fall of it." Without some kind of foundation, we are building
a house on sand; no matter how complex an edifice we build on top of
it, if the fundamentals are weak the whole structure is unsound. The
law is perhaps the greatest gift the Romans have left as a legacy; we
have written our own law, and yet some of us seem to choose to ignore
it when it is uncomfortable or unpopular. It were better we should
not write any law at all than to write it and cast it away when we do
not like its consequences.

You repeatedly cry out to the "mos maiorum" of Nova Roma --- but the
law is our mos maiorum. Yes, in many ways it is different from the
mos of the ancients, and that can be considered either bad or good or
a mixture of the two. We claim to constantly strive to bring
ourselves closer to the ancient mos, and in many ways our own history
fails. But it *is* our mos maiorum; it is the collective will of the
People, unfolding slowly but surely in an attempt to nurture our
romanitas --- and all of us, from the Patres Patriae to the capiti
censi, are subject to it.

You repeatedly cry out for respect and honor for the religio. How can
the religio be respected and honored if a part of our law which gives
it its self-determining authority is trampled upon? We have a process
of law --- religious law --- which sets out the path by which the
sacred boundaries of the Republic are marked. The civil authority has
crossed that sacred pomerium in violation of that law.

Perhaps Vedius Germanicus *should be* an augur. But he is not. The
consuls cannot make him one. The praetors cannot make him one. The
censors cannot make him one. The only body in our Republic authorized
to make him one is the College of Pontiffs. That is the law.

Vale et valete,

Cato

---Salve Praetor:

The CP may handle a new policy as part of its internal affairs,
which, for want of any jurisdiction, the civil authorities may not
trifle with, by means of either imperium or potestas.

The trouble is, they may not 'back date' their new policies because
of existing ex post facto legislation carved into the constitution.
Legislation promulgated by you, cowritten by you. And passed in the
Comitia Centuriata.

If Vedius was 'rejected' a position he already holds as an augur, as
determined by virtue of Constitutional ex post facto legislation
immunizing him from any punitive exingensies legislated at a time
down the road, well then I venture to say that our Collegium fathers
are refusing to acknowledge an "existing" augur position, as opposed
to turning down a 'new' application. I daresay this isn't entirely
legal and above board. Because it is not 'acknowledged' does not
mean that said status is nonexistent. Such would be like shutting
one's eyes and saying 'I don't want to see', 'I don't want to
see'...this does not make the issue 'go away', nor does it make the
issue of the current status of Vedius' augury without legal validity.

As such has been deemed as legally valid and pallitable, by Consul
Modianus, and upon consultation and careful consideration by myself
and, given the rarity of such a legal application the Tribunes were
asked of their counsel. Why? Because for a Consul to
independently issue an edict affirming an outstanding magisterial or
religious status, would place Tribunes in the awkward position of
having to veto it, if they did not agree, and it would also put the
individual in question in an embarrasing and somewhat 'false-hope'
position. This is hardly a fair way of treating anyone, although,
for some, the lack of drama is an eyesore I suppose.

Please keep within the confines of the legislation you penned when
you were Tribune, Praetor Galerius. If you didnt think of the
longterm ramifications of this legislation it is not the fault of
Vedius, Modianus, the Tribunes or anyone. If you wish to lobby for
changes, by all means do so. But we cannot pick and chose to whom
we assign its application, and regard same as 'justice'.

Vedius resigned without penalty. Augury being determined for life.
A penalty was put in place after he resigned, restricting his
practise in NR as an augur. He is back, and is excused from
penalizing affects of subsequent policy...the constitution says so.
The ex post facto language was put in place by yourself in 2004.
It is 2006. Vedius and potentially a couple of other augurs are
entitled to be recognized as augurs under these provisions. I doubt
they will be back, but the legal applications do not exactly apply
to a multitude, if this settles anyone's mind regarding lingering
concerns of dangerous precedents. It doesn't matter anyway..we
can't 'not' do it because of this. We can lobby for changes to the
law, if such is deemed necessary, but we can't ignore its language
if it prevails.

This affair is external to the Collegium as their internal policies
are already established with respect to augurs. They may change
them...they may not backdate them.

And you cannot selectively "backpeddle" on ex post facto ordinances
which you carved in stone yourself, and expect your claims to be
respected. Make up your mind. But know that once your mind is
made up, if said mindset is to breed justice,it must be a respector
of all situations and persons to whom it effects.

I am wondering by the degree of escalating emotion over this issue
on the part of a few, if there isn't something more beneath the
surface than one man's existing augury being affirmed, which has
nothing to do with a 'new' appointment to the CP whatsoever.
A 'Tempest in the Teapot' I can see...but I think it is for some
a 'dragon in the lake'. But of course this is subjective
speculation, which does not give me pause to waive my current
position on this matter.

I am sorry that you have behaved so drastically in this Praetor. I
find it fascinating that you act as though you had nothing to do
with these ex post facto laws in the various facets of your argument.

Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul Minor


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

>
> Salve Tribunes
>
> The CP is going to handle this issue. As a Plebian Nova Roman I

ask

> that the Tribunes invoke intercessio. The Consuls edict is
> unconstitutional.
>
> Please end this assault on the rule of law.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Praetor
>

C. Equitius Cato P. Tiberiae Straboni quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Pompeia Strabo et salvete omnes.

Once again, the timeline:

1. 2752: Vedius Germanicus is appointed, by the College of Pontiffs,
to the office of augur.

2. March 2755: Vedius Germanicus resigns his citizenship and all his
offices. The lex Constitutiva, at that time, did in fact say that
augurs were appointed "for life, with no exceptions". I would assume
that "no exceptions" meant exactly what it said, and that Vedius
Germanicus was placed in the somewhat interesting position of not
being a citizen of Nova Roma yet still an augur of Nova Roma, whether
he wanted to be or not.

3. December 2756: the lex Fabia Labiena de Iure Augurum is passed,
which amends the lex Constitutiva; augurs who have resigned their
citizenship or their office are no longer considered augurs, and have
forfeited their appointment "for life". They now need to be treated
as if they are not augurs at all; though their persons remain "sacer",
they can neither perform the functions of an augur nor be "accounted
members of the College of Augurs".

Since Vedius Germanicus resigned his citizenship, the lex Constitutiva
now strips him of his augurship, in accordance with the amendment.
Vedius Germanicus is no longer an augur. At the time the amendment to
the lex Constitutiva (the lex Fabia Labiena &c.) is passed and becomes
law, there is *no* law which protects anyone "ex post facto".

Since Vedius Germanicus is not an augur, the only body authorized to
make him one is the College of Pontiffs (lex Const. VI.B.1.b &
VI.B.2). It is not an issue of process of civil law, it is a matter
of religious appointment.

Vale et valete,

Cato

As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint citizens to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they convene to settle this issue.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribune of the Plebs


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

G. Iulius Scaurus M. Octavio Germanico SPD.

Salve, Germanice.

I have tried to make this clear on the Collegium list and I shall try
again to do so here. I am not opposed to Vedius Germanicus resuming
his augurship. If he asks me to do so (I literally have not heard
from Vedius Germanicus on the issue since the consular edictum), I
shall put a decretum before the Collegium Pontificum to that effect.
My position is that his reinstatement is constitutionally a matter
for the Collegium Pontificum. When Vedius Germanicus returne to
citizenship, the Collegium deferred a decision on his reinstatement to
the Collegium Augurum on the grounds that it was inappropriate to
elevate someone to one of the highest priesthoods who had just
returned to NR after he had previously abjured the Religio Romana for
Germanic polytheism, even if he were a Pater Patriae; it was made
clear that the Collegium would reconsider after enough time had passed
to determine that his return to citizenship was permanent. A
significant amount of time has passed since that decision and I
entirely favour the Collegium reconsidering its decision. What I
oppose absolutely is a consul interfering in a matter which the
Collegium has taken under its jurisdiction. The consular edictum is
legally insufficient and constitutionally inappropriate. Action by
the Collegium Pontificum is required, regardless of how worthy the
individual is.

Vale.

Scaurus

> As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the
> edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.
>
> Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint citizens
> to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they convene to
> settle this issue.

I am very disappointed in your action. Vedius already was appointed; his
appointment was "for life". He never laid down his position of augurship
(he could not), and he has been prevented from being listed as an active
augur only due to personal vendettas by other priests.

It is a sad day when a Tribune attempts to block a citizen from reassuming
a role that is his by right.

Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

SALVE TRIBUNE AGRIPPA !

I salute your decision.
Our concern it isn't about the hon.Vedius reinstatement but about the extention of imperium represented by Consul Modianus' edictum.
I'm agree that is the CP job.

VALE,
IVL SABINVS
Curule Aedile


Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:
As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint citizens to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they convene to settle this issue.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribune of the Plebs


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



SPONSORED LINKS
Roman empire Ancient history Citizenship test 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.


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







NOVA ROMANI !
Add the new logo and link for the Magna Mater Project support page to your websites.
http://www.dacia-novaroma.org/draft.htm

"Every individual is the arhitect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

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

Salve Tribune Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa

Thank you for standing up for the rule of law.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
<canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:

>
> As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the

edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

>
> Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint

citizens to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they
convene to settle this issue.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribune of the Plebs
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete omnes,

Can ex post facto laws ever be just? The constitutions all over the world, forbid the passing of any ex post facto laws. Intuitively, one recognizes that it is ethically wrong to impose punishment for morally neutral acts before just authority has forbidden them. Nulla crimens sine lege, as the Romans said. The essentiality of a right to protection from retroactive law has generally been accepted without argument. Societies as a whole, and individuals, have such a right. The principle has been enunciated in various declarations of human rights from 1789 until the present. Then, why should F.Vedius Germanicus lose the rights guaranteed to him by the lex Constitutiva of Nova Roma in March, 2755, as a result of an amendment passed in December, 2756? I am not taking sides with anybody, just asking as a concerned Nova Roman citizenÂ…

M•IVL•SEVERVS

ROGATOR
INTERPRETER
SCRIBA•CENSORIS•GEM
MVSÆVS•COLLEGII•ERATOVS•SODALITATIS•MVSARVM
SOCIVS•CHORI•MVSARVM

--
_______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.

Powered by Outblaze

Salve Gaius Vipsanius Agripa et salvete

Excelent Decision.
Congratulations.

Vale et Valete

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T•MARCIVS•FELIX
LEGATVS•PROVINCIAE•BRASILIAE
QUAESTOR•NOVAE•ROMAE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> escreveu:
As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint citizens to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they convene to settle this issue.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribune of the Plebs


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



SPONSORED LINKS
Roman empire Ancient history Citizenship test 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.


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage.

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

> Salve Gaius Vipsanius Agripa et salvete
>
> Excelent Decision. Congratulations.

However, as another Tribune has already announced support for
the reaffirmation of Vedius's status, we can expect this
intercessio to soon be nullified.

Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

---Salvete Marcus Octavius Germanicus et Omnes:

I understood the Tribunes were consulted, and I get this from a
Tribune (I don't know why he would state otherwise on a list in the
presence of other Tribunes) that they were all on the same page.
And the reason, with respect to the Tribune, for his sudden
intercessio is in total disagreement to what he apparently was asked
as Tribune to evaluate in the first place, and seemingly had no
difficulties with.

It is unfortunate that Vedius would have to be put through this, if
there were objections from any one of the Tribunes. Hopefully the
remaining Tribunes will consider this intercessio in light of the
Lex Labienia de Intercessio (see constitution also).

But, with the Praetor et al running all over crying 'foul', in
response to application of constitutional language 'he' himself
wrote, I suppose that the Tribune could, like anyone, second guess
himself. Plus I'm aware there is a certain 'egging on'of sorts,
being staged in another forum by a disgruntled Senator, which is
fueling the fire... said Senator is apparently not 'exactly' a 'fan'
of Vedius. Often those who bite this bait are, to their own
detriment, feeding the insatiable appetite of others who thrive on
this sort of thing. And,aside from this and in itself, I guess
perhaps a controversy is just plain good for one's political
career.

I maintain there is far more going on here, given the vociferous
manner in which this is being approached. I am wondering if some of
the 'me too' affirmations in response to this Intercessio are from
those who are not entirely sure what is going on from a legal
standpoint, from inception of the whole affair until now. I've seen
people in this forum today who are never here to debate anything
political. Although they are likely concerned about political
current events, they usually are quite temperate in their approach.
Hopefully they've been given an objective and comprehensive briefing
of the matters at hand upon which to base their opinions, which in
themselves, I do appreciate.

Valete
Pompeia Minucia Strabo


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
> > As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the
> > edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.
> >
> > Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint

citizens

> > to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they convene to
> > settle this issue.
>
> I am very disappointed in your action. Vedius already was

appointed; his

> appointment was "for life". He never laid down his position of

augurship

> (he could not), and he has been prevented from being listed as an

active

> augur only due to personal vendettas by other priests.
>
> It is a sad day when a Tribune attempts to block a citizen from

reassuming

> a role that is his by right.
>
> Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.
>
> --
> hucke@...
> http://www.graveyards.com
>
> "The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
> voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887
>

M Moravius Piscinus Horatius Tribunus Plebis Quiritibus SPD:

I dispute this intercessio of my colleague Gaius Vispanius Agrippa,
Tribunus Plebis.

1. His effort does not abide with the leges of Nova Roma,
specifically Lex Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia that lays out
what is required to be included by a Tribunus Plebis when issuing
such an intercessio as ius auxilli ferendi. He has not presented
a "reasoned exposition" nor offered the articles of the Constitution
or leges on which his decision was based. He does not state on
whose behalf he was requested to take this action.

2. The rationale behind the edictum consularis was previously
presented in the original edictum and in later discussion, citing
the Lex Equitia Galeria de Legibus ex post Factis and Lex Equitia de
Civitate Eiuranda as it applied in the particular case, subject of
the edictum, and with relation to the Constitution. The basis for
which G. Vipsansius Agrippa, Tribunus Plebis, has made his
intercessio, being the authority of the Collegium Pontificum to
appoint Augures, does not adress the issue of the edictum consularis
that he seek to over turn, nor does it address the legal baisis
presented in the edictum.

3. Senator Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Pater Patria, was previously
appointed to his office of Augur. Under the Constitution at that
time, Augures were recogonized as appointed for life. This
provision of the Constitution followed the Decretum Pro Qui In
Collegium Pontificum et Collegium Augurum Section X that
states "Augures shall hold their positions for life, with
no exceptions." Later a lex was introduced amending the Constitution
to cover the situation where an Augur might resign his or her office
and/or citizenship, including a punitive measure. However, that
provision was not introduced until after the fact in the case of
Senator Vedius' own resignation. Under Lex Equitia Galeria de
Legibus ex post Factis and the Constitution I.A.3.a and b. no
punitive measures may be imposed upon a civis ex post facto.
Therefore the original understanding of the law at the time that
Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Pater Patria, was appointed an Augur is
still effect, "appointed for life, with no exceptions."

4. Under the LEX EQVITIA DE CIVITATE EIVRANDA 2. "As offices are de
facto resigned when Citizenship is resigned, no public offices held
at the time of resignation automatically carry over to the returning
citizen, with the exception of any religious title and corresponding
century points that may be specified by the Collegium Pontificum."
The wording of this lex makes it so that, where public offices are
not regained when a person has resigned Citizenship and later
returns to Citizenship, religious offices held at the time of
resigination are automatically to be carried over when a person
regains Citizenship. The Lex Equitia de Civitate Eiuranda, in
addition to the conditions under which Senator Falvius Vedius
Germanicus, Pater Patria, was originally appointed an Augur makes it
so that he had never lost his office of Augur.

Therefore, a great injustice has been done to our Pater Patria,
Senator Flavius Vedius Germanicus, that has seen him denied his
rightful place within the Collegium Augurum. The edictum consularis
issued by Consul Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus, Pontifexe et Augur, by
which this matter was addressed, correcting the wrong done
previously to Augur Vedius Germanicus, was justified and legally
proper in reinstating Augur Vedius Germanicus to his office of Augur
in the Collegium Augurum. I therefore do not support, and I do
hereby dispute the intercessio of my colleague Gaius Vipsanius
Agrippa, Tribunus Plebis, at the request and on behalf of Consul
Gaius Fabius Buteao Modianus.

ab manu M Moravii Piscini Hortiani, Tribuni Plebi, X Kalendae
Martiae, Fabio Buteoni Minuciae Straboni consilibus






--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
<canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:

>
> As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the

edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

>
> Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint

citizens to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they
convene to settle this issue.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribune of the Plebs
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

G. Iulius Scaurus M. Iulio Severo SPD.

Salve, Severe.

In fact Roman law permitted ex post facto prosecution routinely.
However, ex post facto legislation applies only to criminal law.
Since the matter of Fl. Vedius Germanicus and the augurship is a
matter of civil (in particular of lex sacra) rather than criminal law,
it is difficult to imagine how legislation pertaining to ex post facto
criminal sanctions apply to the case. No one has done a tort to Fl.
Vedius Germanicus since the augurship was vacated by resignation of
citizenship. This is a matter on which the Collegium Pontificum has
been convened to rule and I anticipate that it will be resolved in
such a way as to render justice to Fl. Vedius Germanicus as well as
making it clear that no consul can intervene on a mattter of lex sacra
by edictum.

Vale.

Scaurus

Salve Consul Po et al

If it was thought a good idea to run it by the Tribunes to see if it
would fly why was the same courtesy not show to the Praetors of Nova
Roma.? Or was the courtesy extended to one but not both Praetors?

PMS "It is unfortunate that Vedius would have to be put through
this, if there were objections from any one of the Tribunes.
Hopefully the remaining Tribunes will consider this intercessio in
light of the Lex Labienia de Intercessio (see constitution also)."

TGP Yes it is and Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus should not have put
him through this.

PMS "But, with the Praetor et al running all over crying 'foul', in
response to application of constitutional language 'he' himself
wrote "

TGP

So maybe you should listen to the author on a point of law?

and yes Consul that is why I am "running all over crying 'foul"

Because the constitutional amendment applies to criminal cases not
the resignation of citizenship and the retention or lack thereof of
offices or century points. A crime has a penalty for breaking the
law and upon conviction in a Nova Roman court. The consequences of
resigning ones citizenship are just that consequences. They are not
of the same nature as a criminal penalty if for no other reason as
they are self imposed.

Nova Roman magistrates are honor and oath bound to defend the
constitution and the laws of the republic. I am doing my job.

PMS "Senator is apparently not 'exactly' a 'fan' of Vedius.'

TGP

The fact that two of the main actors in this do not like each other
is to me interesting but not a point of law.

I am concerned, as you should be with THE LAW. A number, a large
number of legal points that I and others have made have still not
been addressed and it is most interesting that the author of the
edict in question has not defended it to any great extent.

PMS "Often those who bite this bait are, to their own detriment,
feeding the insatiable appetite of others who thrive on this sort of
thing. And, aside from this and in itself, I guess perhaps a
controversy is just plain good for one's political career. I
maintain there is far more going on here, given the vociferous
manner in which this is being approached."

TGP

Consul the record of both the magistrates list and the Nova Roma
forum will show I have spend most of my time "running all over
crying 'foul" on the magistrates list and was one of the last to
discuss this in the forum. I would suggest that if you want to
confine these issue to the magistrates list then some on the other
side of these issues needs to do it first.

And yes there is more going on than meets the eye Consul.
It called standing up for the rule of law. Of asking citizens to
abide by a decision of the CP until they choose to revisit it.

PMS "I am wondering if some of the 'me too' affirmations in response
to this Intercessio are from those who are not entirely sure what is
going on from a legal standpoint, from inception of the whole affair
until now. I've seen people in this forum today who are never here
to debate anything political."

TGP

So now if someone ventures into the forum to say yea or nay to the
controversy de jour it must be a conspiracy. Is that what you are
saying ?

PMS "Although they are likely concerned about political current
events, they usually are quite temperate in their approach.
Hopefully they've been given an objective and comprehensive briefing
of the matters at hand upon which to base their opinions, which in
themselves, I do appreciate.

TGP

Yes Consul it is nice when people are "temperate in their approach"
but it is even better when magistrates obey the constitution and
the laws of Nova Roma.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor

M. Hortensia T.Galerio salutem dicit;
Praetor , this is twice you have been disrespectful to our
Consules. Since you are able to address Tribune Vipsanius Agrippa
properly by his full name, you are able to address Consul Pompeia
Strabo properly. She is not 'Consul Po'.
As praetor it behooves you to be an example to us all in the
forum and disrespect only lessens your own dignitas.
bene vale in pacem deorum
M. Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
producer "Vox Romana" podcast
cultrix deorum

I sug>> Salve Consul Po et al

>
> >
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Praetor
>

I pronounce intercessio against the EDICTUM CONSULARE - Regarding Flavius Vedius Germanicus as an Augur of Nova Roma as issued by Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

This intercessio is pronounced ex officio. The edictum violates Article VI.B.2 which grants exclusive authority over these appointments to the Collegium Pontificum. This does address the matter as the Consul has assumed for himself the rights of the Collegium to appoint someone to a religious office.

The LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS does state that no penalty shall be imposed upon a cives for an action that is later against the law. This does not apply in this case as it is not a criminal matter. Senator Vedius Germanicus resigned his citizenship. He did not commit a criminal offence that was not illegal at the time.

My colleague stated in his disputation of my intercessio that:

"As offices are de facto resigned when Citizenship is resigned, no public offices held at the time of resignation automatically carry over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any religious title and corresponding century points that may be specified by the Collegium Pontificum" (LEX EQVITIA DE CIVITATE EIVRANDA). (my bolding).

He further states that "religious offices held at the time of resigination are automatically to be carried over when a person regains Citizenship". I disagree. The last phrase in bold again reserves for the Collegium the right to specify what titles are re-awarded to returning citizens.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribune of the Plebs





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

M Moravius Piscinus, Tribunus Plebis, G. Vipsanio Agrippae, Tribuno
Pleii, et Quiritibus SPD:

I recognize that my colleague Tribunus Plebis Agrippa has more
properly issued his intercessio in accordance with Lex Didia Gemina,
and that by doing so he affirms his earlier intercessio, even though
he is not required to under Lex Labiena de Intercessioni IV.c. I
commend my colleague for his diligence and independence of thought
in the performance of his duty in accordance with his own conscious.

I likewise reissue and affirm my dispute of my colleague's
intercessio.

Senator Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Pater Patria, was appointed into
the office of Augur in accordance with the Dictatorial Decretum Pro
Qui In Collegium Pontificum et Collegium Augurum Section X
states "Augures shall hold their positions for life, with no
exceptions." According to the Constitution, Article I.B, on Legal
Precedence, "This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority
within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed
dictator." The decretum under which Augur Vedius was appointed to
office is on the same par as the Constitution itself. At the time
that he left citizenship he was not and could not be removed from
his office as Augur. Neither the Collegium Pontificum or any other
legal authority ever attempted to remove Augur Vedius from his
office by process of law. The amendment to the Constitution that
was later enacted applied to those who resigned from office and/or
citizenship AFTER the date of enactment. Article VI.B.2 of the
Constitution reaffirms that Augures are appointed for life. Its
exception in the case of an augur resigning from office and/or
citizen did not apply to Augur Vedius since it was enacted after he
had already resigned. That measure was punitive in nature and
cannot be posed against Augur Veius ex post facto. My colleague
wishes to offer the argument limiting the Lex Equitia Galeria de
Legibus ex post Factis applies only in the case of criminal
prosecutions. The law, however, does not make any such limitation.
The Constitution, Article I.A.3 states, "No one shall suffer a
penalty for an action which was not subject to a penalty when the
action was performed." Depriving Augur Vedius of his office now is
a penalty and it would be imposed ex post facto, therefore it is
illegal. Upon returning to citizenship, Augur Vedius should have
received his century points for the office he holds. Lex Equita de
Civitate Eiuranda states tham as, "corresponding century points that
may be specified by the Collegium Pontificum." It does not state
that the Collegium Pontificum is to review whether an Augur
appointed for life is to be reappointed. The Lex Equita
specifically makes exception for religious offices in its wording
that, unlike public offices, religious offices held at the time of
departure are carried over upon returning to citizenship. And this
would especially be the case for a religious office that appointed
for life, without any exceptions."

An injustice has been done to our Pater Patria Flavius Vedius
Germanicus, Augur et Senator. He has been denied his right under
the Constitution. The edictum consularis issued by Consul Gaius
Fabius Buteo Modianus corrected what was an administrative error
that had failled to abide by the laws of Nova Roma. As consul,
charged with administering the law, it was within his perogative to
correct this injustice. The counter argument that sees the
authority of the Collegium Pontificum to appoint new augures as
being somehow denied by the edictum consularis is false. The
provisions of the Constitution, Article VI.B.2 for the Collegium
Pontificum to appoint new augures is upheld and has no bearing in
this case of an Augur who had been previously appointed in
accordance with the law at the time of his appointment.

I therefore once more dispute my colleague's intercessio against the
edictum consularis, issued by Consul G. Fabius Buteo Modianus on XII
Kal Mart, 2759 (18 Feb. 2006).

ab manu M Moravii Piscini Horatiani, Tribuni Plebii,
IX Kal Mart MMDCCLIX Fabio Buteoni Minuciae Straboni consulibus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
<canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:

>
> I pronounce intercessio against the EDICTUM CONSULARE - Regarding

Flavius Vedius Germanicus as an Augur of Nova Roma as issued by
Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.

>
> This intercessio is pronounced ex officio. The edictum violates

Article VI.B.2 which grants exclusive authority over these
appointments to the Collegium Pontificum. This does address the
matter as the Consul has assumed for himself the rights of the
Collegium to appoint someone to a religious office.

>
> The LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS does state

that no penalty shall be imposed upon a cives for an action that is
later against the law. This does not apply in this case as it is
not a criminal matter. Senator Vedius Germanicus resigned his
citizenship. He did not commit a criminal offence that was not
illegal at the time.

>
> My colleague stated in his disputation of my intercessio that:
>
> "As offices are de facto resigned when Citizenship is resigned,

no public offices held at the time of resignation automatically
carry over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any
religious title and corresponding century points that may be
specified by the Collegium Pontificum" (LEX EQVITIA DE CIVITATE
EIVRANDA). (my bolding).

>
> He further states that "religious offices held at the time of

resigination are automatically to be carried over when a person
regains Citizenship". I disagree. The last phrase in bold again
reserves for the Collegium the right to specify what titles are re-
awarded to returning citizens.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribune of the Plebs
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

EX OFFICIO PROPRAETORIS THULES

Edictum propraetoricum 2759-III about collection of taxes in
Provincia Thule

It is again time to pay taxes (membership fees) in Nova Roma. Those
who have paid taxes will be counted as assidui and their votes will
be "worth" more than those who don't pay taxes. Only assidui will be
able to hold central offices. Provincial positions will still be open
to all.

It has shown to be a quite complicated task to send taxes to the USA,
where the central treasury is. In accordance with the tradition in
Provincia Thules I have decided to give the citizens of Nova Roma
living in Provincia Thule the possibility that is decsribed in this
edictum.

Please observe that this year's taxes are, for the countries that
make up Provincia Thules:

Denmark 61.95 DMK
Finland 7.50 EURO
Iceland 632.54 ISK
Norway 84.89 NOK
Sweden 68.28 SEK

Please also observe the following:

* according to law half of the taxes will be kept (or retrieved back
to Thule from USA for a separate cost) in the Provincial Treasury for
use in the Provincia.

* all taxes (Annual Membership Fee) shall be in the central Treasury
by April 30th! This means that they must be in the hands of the
Legati at least by April 24th.

* any citizen that pay their taxes later than the 30th of April will
have to pay a increased amount of +50% according to the law (persons
who have become citizens this year are excempted).

1. Every citizen that would like to pay their taxes should contact
their Legatus and send their taxes to the Legatus, as the cost of
sending the taxes directly to the Central Treasury is very high for
those without a PayPal account, and by using the Legatus to collect
the money, each Regio (country) will pay just one transfer fee.

2. The Legati will send the collected taxes of the Regio to the
Propraetor no later than the 24th of April. Each Legatus shall also
send a notification at the same time to the Propraetor with the
(Roman and real) name and e-mail address (or snail mail address) of
each citizen for which he has paid taxes.

3. The Propraetor will after that send these collected taxes by
PayPal to the central Treasury and inform the officials in charge the
names of the citizens who have paid by this method.

4. All account numbers of the Legati that are needed will be sent
privately, as soon as possible, to each citizen that require such by
the Legatus of the Regio in question.

5. Each citizen, who follows the recommendations in this edict, will
get confirmations that her/his taxes are paid from the Propraetor and
from the central treasury.

6. Citizens may also handle the payment of their taxes for themselves
(even though that is more expensive). In such cases the Central
Treasury is asked to pay back 50% to the Provincial
Aerarium after 30th of April. In the Regions without appointed
Legati, the only option is to pay directly to Central Treasury.

GIVEN A.D. IX KAL MAR (21ST OF FEBRUARY 2759 AUC, IN THE YEAR OF THE
CONSULSHIP OF GAIUS FABIUS BUTEO MODIANUS AND POMPEIA MINUCIA STRABO,
IN HELSINKI.

Caius Curius Saturninus

Propraetor Provinciae Thules
Rector Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova

e-mail: c.curius@...
www.academiathules.org
gsm: +358-50-3315279
fax: +358-9-8754751

EX OFFICIO PROPRAETORIS THULES

Edictum propraetoricum 2759-II about provincial administration
appointments

1. I Hereby appoint Gallus Minucius Tiberius Iovinus as the
representative for Provincia Thule in the Collegium Interprovinciale
for the year 2759 to 2760.

GIVEN A.D. IX KAL MAR (21ST OF FEBRUARY 2759 AUC, IN THE YEAR OF THE
CONSULSHIP OF GAIUS FABIUS BUTEO MODIANUS AND POMPEIA MINUCIA STRABO,
IN HELSINKI.


Caius Curius Saturninus

Propraetor Provinciae Thules
Rector Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova

e-mail: c.curius@...
www.academiathules.org
gsm: +358-50-3315279
fax: +358-9-8754751

EX OFFICIO PROPRAETORIS THULES

Edictum propraetoricum 2759-I about provincial administration
appointments

1. Publius Rubelius Catulus is hereby recognized to be resigned from
his post as Legatus Regionis Norvegicae, (Legate of the Norwegian
Region) (a 2nd rank Official).


GIVEN A.D. IX KAL MAR (21ST OF FEBRUARY) 2758 AUC, IN THE YEAR OF THE
CONSULSHIP OF GAIUS FABIUS BUTEO MODIANUS AND POMPEIA MINUCIA STRABO,
IN HELSINKI.


Caius Curius Saturninus

Propraetor Provinciae Thules
Rector Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova

e-mail: c.curius@...
www.academiathules.org
gsm: +358-50-3315279
fax: +358-9-8754751

Quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae uoluntatis S.P.D A. Tullia
Scholastica

Is there someone here who could possibly illuminate what in the world
Œpro qui in collegium pontificum,¹ etc., is supposed to mean? Qui looks
suspiciously like a nominative, whereas pro takes the ablative, not to
mention that Œin collegium,¹ is more likely to be Œin collegio pontificum et
in collegio augurum.¹ The accusatives aren¹t impossible, but perhaps less
likely‹but any way you cut it, Œpro qui¹ makes zero sense. Either it¹s a
nominative, or it¹s the old adverbial form, but neither worketh in this
context.

If someone would care to give me the authority to make the corrections
to these decreta, I do have the relevant software, though not all the
products of its operation have made it into the civil law section of the
Tabularium, and there seems to be some delay in getting scribae approved for
the purpose and for uploading corrected items.

Note that I decline to comment on the legal issues which brought this
matter to our attention...

Valete,

A. Tullia Scholastica
Interpres Linguae Latinae


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

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Tulliae Scholasticae SPD.

It means that there was some serious Latinate illiteracy in the early
days of the Collegium. I'd be happy to suggest to the Collegium that
you make the necessary corrections to the decreta, although it would
probably also be useful to have one of the Pontifices involved as well
to provide theological and sacral legal interpretations as needed.

I've convened the Collegium to resolve another matter and can draft
the relevant decretum if you would like to proceed with this.

Vale.

Scaurus

> A. Tullia Scholastica G. Iulio Scauro quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae
> uoluntatis S.P.D.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus A. Tulliae Scholasticae SPD.
>
> It means that there was some serious Latinate illiteracy in the early
> days of the Collegium.
>
> ATS: And the CP was hardly the only place in which that occurred.
>
> I'd be happy to suggest to the Collegium that
> you make the necessary corrections to the decreta, although it would
> probably also be useful to have one of the Pontifices involved as well
> to provide theological and sacral legal interpretations as needed.
>
> ATS: Indeed, it would be necessary to have at least one of the Pontifices
> involved. The software I have, and which I used for the Tabularium
> corrections (not all of which have been uploaded, and some which have been
> uploaded haven¹t been linked to the index) displays the HTML coding, and
> therefore allows easy correction and easy uploading of the finished product,
> thus sparing the webmaster the torment of having to insert the corrections one
> at a time into the text.
>
>
> I've convened the Collegium to resolve another matter and can draft
> the relevant decretum if you would like to proceed with this.
>
> ATS: I can do this, albeit more slowly than I had to do the Tabularium
> corrections, so if you would like to draft something to that effect, I would
> be agreeable to proceeding. I believe that there are also some sacerdotal
> titles which may need improvement, or at least need it as used by the holders
> of these titles (errors of Latin grammar I have spotted in the Album, etc.).
>
> It is good to see you posting here, and on Latinitas, sharing your
> expertise in palaeography and other matters.
>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus

Vale, et ualete,

A. Tullia Scholastica



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

Salvete


Here are my considerations about the most recent
novaroman controversy.
My apologies to everyone for submitting the eventual
reader to another (small) dose of very boring
legalese.

Fl. Vedius is a Augur since the official founding of
Nova Roma, at 01/mar/2751 (1998 AD); an Augur
"archetypum", self-appointed, like the first Senatores
of Nova Roma. The Collegium Pontificum was created
later, in 08/aug/2751, it seems.

According with the old Constitution, Art. VI.4,
"Augurs shall hold their positions for life, with no
exceptions". With base in it, Fl. Vedius believes that
he never ceased to be an Augur of Nova Roma, since his
augurship was based in this legislation.

However, according with the Lex Fabia Labiena de Iure
Augurum, approved in 29/jan/2756 (2003 AD) and now
part of our Constitution, an Augur "shall hold their
offices for life, excepting in cases of resignation of
office, resignation of citizenship [..]", and so,
since Fl. Vedius resigned in 14/mar/2755

But, then we have the Lex Equitia Galeria De Legibus
Ex Post Factis, approved in 15/out/2757 (2004 AD), and
too part of our Constitution, "No one shall suffer a
penalty for an action which was not subject to a
penalty when the action was performed".
So, the Lex Fabia Labiena does not apply, Fl.Vedius
being protected against his penalities by Lex Equitia
Galeria.

Because of this, i believe that Flavius Vedius is
still an Augur.


Valete
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis



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

Salvete


I declare that i share the opinion of my colleague, Marcus Moravius
Piscinus, and join him in this question.


Valete
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M Moravius Piscinus, Tribunus Plebis, G. Vipsanio Agrippae, Tribuno
> Pleii, et Quiritibus SPD:
[..]
> I likewise reissue and affirm my dispute of my colleague's
> intercessio.
[..]

C. Equitius Cato P. Tiberiae Straboni quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve consul et salvete omnes.

Consul, this post shows two things:

1. you apparently, even if shown a convincing argument, have never
changed your mind.

2. in the face of an argument you either do not, or refuse to,
understand, you revert once more to bullying and ad hominem attacks.

Brava.

Vale et valete,

Cato


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

>
> ---Salvete Marcus Octavius Germanicus et Omnes:
>
> I understood the Tribunes were consulted, and I get this from a
> Tribune (I don't know why he would state otherwise on a list in the
> presence of other Tribunes) that they were all on the same page.
> And the reason, with respect to the Tribune, for his sudden
> intercessio is in total disagreement to what he apparently was asked
> as Tribune to evaluate in the first place, and seemingly had no
> difficulties with.
>
> It is unfortunate that Vedius would have to be put through this, if
> there were objections from any one of the Tribunes. Hopefully the
> remaining Tribunes will consider this intercessio in light of the
> Lex Labienia de Intercessio (see constitution also).
>
> But, with the Praetor et al running all over crying 'foul', in
> response to application of constitutional language 'he' himself
> wrote, I suppose that the Tribune could, like anyone, second guess
> himself. Plus I'm aware there is a certain 'egging on'of sorts,
> being staged in another forum by a disgruntled Senator, which is
> fueling the fire... said Senator is apparently not 'exactly' a 'fan'
> of Vedius. Often those who bite this bait are, to their own
> detriment, feeding the insatiable appetite of others who thrive on
> this sort of thing. And,aside from this and in itself, I guess
> perhaps a controversy is just plain good for one's political
> career.
>
> I maintain there is far more going on here, given the vociferous
> manner in which this is being approached. I am wondering if some of
> the 'me too' affirmations in response to this Intercessio are from
> those who are not entirely sure what is going on from a legal
> standpoint, from inception of the whole affair until now. I've seen
> people in this forum today who are never here to debate anything
> political. Although they are likely concerned about political
> current events, they usually are quite temperate in their approach.
> Hopefully they've been given an objective and comprehensive briefing
> of the matters at hand upon which to base their opinions, which in
> themselves, I do appreciate.
>
> Valete
> Pompeia Minucia Strabo
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the
> > > edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.
> > >
> > > Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint
> citizens
> > > to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they convene to
> > > settle this issue.
> >
> > I am very disappointed in your action. Vedius already was
> appointed; his
> > appointment was "for life". He never laid down his position of
> augurship
> > (he could not), and he has been prevented from being listed as an
> active
> > augur only due to personal vendettas by other priests.
> >
> > It is a sad day when a Tribune attempts to block a citizen from
> reassuming
> > a role that is his by right.
> >
> > Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.
> >
> > --
> > hucke@
> > http://www.graveyards.com
> >
> > "The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
> > voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887
> >
>

Salvete omnes.

So here we are again, the Constitution, a title (what a surprise),
and political expediency. This seems to be becoming a pattern.

Rarely is anything to do with the Constitution simple. Sometimes it
isn't simple because of muddled, contradictory, undefined and
disconnected sections. Sometimes it is simple but it becomes a mess
because of actions taken, or not taken.

The Senior Consul issued an edict about a matter that directly
concerns the Collegium Augurum, namely membership. Only the
Collegium Pontificum shall appoint an Augur (Sections VI.B.1-2 of
the Constitution refer). Of course one might say that it wasn't an
appointment as such, but merely an edict relating to reversing a
penalty, however the consequence resulted in an alteration to the
membership of the Collegium Augurum.

Therefore, despite the best efforts to dress this particular wolf up
as a sheep, this edict meddled in matters that are the preserve of
the Collegium Pontificum. Even if you think that Section I.A.3.a
applies, the Senior Consul had no right to issue an edict concerning
a matter that directly related to membership of the Collegium
Augurum. The Collegium Pontificum can only address that, for to do
otherwise is unconstitutional.

As to the question of whether a "penalty" has been inflicted on
Flavius Vedius Germanicus, at the time of his resignation the
Constitution stated that he could keep his office of Augur for life.
What therefore, under the old constitution was his status when he
resigned? Was he still an Augur? Does Nova Roman law allow a non-
citizen to hold an office of any sort, let alone a religious office?
The Constitution in force at the time of Vedius's resignation stated

(snipped)
"Only Citizens of Nova Roma may be members of the public
institutions of the Religio Romana,.."
(snipped)
Section VI.b

The current Constitution states that as well. Therefore the
preceding section qualifies the statement that a person is an Augur
for life. We can therefore state comfortably that a person is an
Augur for life, whilst a citizen of Nova Roma. Once they cease to be
a citizen by virtue of Section VI.b they can no longer hold any
religious office.

Therefore when Vedius resigned he did so against a Constitution that
clearly stated only citizens of Nova Roma can hold a religious
office. This places a prohibition on non-citizens retaining their
titles. Therefore at the moment of resignation Vedius lost his title
of Augur.

If the Constition in force at the time of his resignation had
remained intact what would have been Vedius's position on his
return? Would he have still be an Augur? Clearly under Section VI.b
he had lost his title. It therefore no longer existed. It was as if
he had never possessed it. Could Section VI.b.2 have overridden
that? It stated that one remained an Augur with "no exceptions".
Well clearly there has to be an exception provided for by Section
VI.b, else both sections void each other out. As his title no longer
existed then Section VI.b.2 could not have applied. Therefore had
Vedius rejoined Nova Roma it seems he would not have regained his
title of Augur.

Since then the Constitution was amended with the result that he
still could not be an Augur, but it does grant him the right
to "...remain sacri in their persons but may exercise no augural
powers or functions, nor shall they be accounted members of the
Collegium Augurum..." (Section VI.B.2 of the current Constitution).
Thus he gained not a penalty from this amendment but a benefit -
something he would not have had before.

Therefore Section I.A.3.a of the current Constitution does NOT
apply. There was not penalty, as under the Constitution in force at
the time Vedius lost everything. Under the amendment he gained, not
lost, a benefit.

Therefore the Senior Consul had no grounds, even allowing for the
flimsy excuse of righting a wrong, to issue this edict. He had none
in the first place as it is a matter for the Collegium Pontificum,
but if that doesn't satisfy and one insists on trying to peddle this
nonsense of a penalty, then there never was one incurred as a result
of the amendment.

I really hope that one day some of you actually learn how to read
this Constitution - wretched document as it is - and understand it,
instead of making up whatever seems expedient to do so in the
moment. Every time you do so you just reinforce the case to scrap
it. As long as it remains in force however, it is the supreme legal
document and should be abided by, not aborted for the sake of
political gain or personal point scoring.

Valete
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M Arminius Maior <marminius@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete
>
>
> Here are my considerations about the most recent
> novaroman controversy.
> My apologies to everyone for submitting the eventual
> reader to another (small) dose of very boring
> legalese.

C. Equitius Cato M. Iulio Severo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Iulius Severus et salvete omnes.

Iulius Severus, I agree with you entirely regarding punishment "ex
post facto" in and of itself; it is a valuable protection against the
whim of autocratic fancy.

However, I would like to make this point:


Vedius Germanicus resigned while the lex Constitutiva still held that
augurs were appointed for life "with no exceptions". This is
absolutely correct.

However, *while he was no longer a citizen*, the lex Fabia Labiena
&c., which amended the lex Constitutiva, was passed --- which changed
that fact. The law changed, and when Vedius returned, he became
subject once more to Nova Roman law as it stood when he returned. And
that law said (as it does now) that if a citizen has resigned, they
forfeit the right to hold their office as augur.

The lex Fabia Labiena de Iure Augurum was passed on a.d. IX Kalendas
Ianuarius 2756 A.U.C. (24 December A.D. 2003). This amended the lex
Constitutiva.

Five months later, on a.d. XV Kalendas Iunius 2757 A.U.C. (18 May A.D.
2004), Vedius Germanicus' return was announced by this post:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Salvete Quirites!

The Censors have decided to allow former citizen Flavius Vedius
Germanicus to re-enter Nova Roma as a Patrician citizen. He will be
allowed to retake his name: Flavius Vedius Germanicus as a tribute to
the work he did as one of the founders of Nova Roma.

But as he have left the Res Publica twice before Lex Cornelia et
Maria de civitate eiuranda
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2001-05-20-iii.html fully
apply, especially V and VI.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator"

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

The sections of the lex Maria &c. to which Quintilianus makes a
specific effort to refer include the statement:

"No public offices, titles or century points carry over to the
returning citizen, with the exception of any religious titles and
corresponding century points that MAY BE specified by the Collegium
Pontificum." (sec. V, my emphasis)


The lex Constitutiva to which he became subject states that anyone who
has resigned an augurship has lost their lifetime appointment. The
lex Maria &c. to which he became subject states that only the College
of Pontiffs can decide whether or not he will be an augur again.

Vedius Germanicus was not re-admitted to the same Nova Roma he had
left; the law, the lex Constitutiva, had changed, and as a newly
re-instated citizen, he became subject to the law of the Republic as
it stood. This was not a "penalty", it was not a violation of "ex
post facto" (which, for the legal purposes of the Republic *did not
exist*) --- he was simply in the same place that every single person
who was given citizenship was in at that time. Another hallmark of
civilization is absolute equality under the law.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

I reaffirm the issuance of the below Edictum.

The edictum was vetoed by Tribune Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa (Message
41965). However, his veto was disputed by Tribune M Moravius Piscinus
(Message 41966), and Tribune Marcus Arminius Maior (Message 41974).

The Edictum stands. Flavius Vedius Germanicus, a founder of Nova
Roma, is reinstated into the Collegium Augurium as an Augur.

Valete:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

On 2/18/06, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> EDICTUM CONSULARE
>
> Regarding Flavius Vedius Germanicus as an Augur of Nova Roma.
>
> Ex Officio
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus, a Pater Patriae of Nova Roma, has
> previously been an Augur of Nova Roma (March 1998 - March 2002). At
> the time he resigned his citizenship, membership in the Collegium
> Augurum was not automatically rescinded when citizenship was
> renounced, in accordance with ancient tradition. With the authority of
> LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS (which states, "No one
> shall suffer a penalty for an action which was not subject to a
> penalty when the action was performed") and the authority to interpret
> Nova Roma Law (integral to Consular Imperium), based on the
> application of the LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS to
> this matter, I reinstate Flavius Vedius Germanicus as a full member of
> the Collegium Augurium.
>
> Dated XVIII February 11:30 AM Roman time, issued officially in the
> consulship of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus and Pompeia Minucia Strabo.
>

A. Apollonius M. Moravio omnibusque sal.

Just to clarify, M. Moravi, though I think I can guess
the answer: are you saying merely that you don't agree
with your colleague's veto (i.e. you wish it to be
overruled by a majority of the tribunes including
yourself), or are you saying that you do not consider
that it is a legally valid veto at all? The word
'dispute' is rather ambiguous.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius M. Hortensiae omnibusque sal.

> actually I think the big issue isn't the
> conflict
> between laws, but the underlying one:
> is Vedius Germanicus an augur?

I agree that this is important, but I wanted to
examine a question which I think is more important in
the long term, namely whether the consules have the
absolute and unfettered power to make legally
definitive rulings on the meaning of the lex
constitutiva. If we allow them to assume this power
the repurcussions will be felt long after this
particular controversy has been forgotten.

As for the matter in hand, I confess that I do find it
contrary to the principles of natural justice that
Vedius should be deprived of his position by virtue of
an act which, at the time he took that act, he had
every right to believe would not deprive him of it;
and I also regret that our current law is in such a
state that we can arrive at the grossly unhistorical
situation of an augur losing his augurate as a result
of anything short of his death. I would add that it is
not even very satisfactory for the pontifices to be
appointing augures - historically the augures co-opted
their own colleagues. However, I am of the opinion
that our current law, in spite of offending against
natural justice and against Roman tradition, does not
justify the consul's edictum, which is ultra vires.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Salve

With all due respect, Consul, the other two tribunes have 72 hours from the
original correct intercessio to state if they support or dispute it and
untill then the edictum should be considered suspended, which means roughly
another two days right now.

Incidentally, I wonder what would happen if the CP would isse a decretum
rejecting your decretum, considering there is no hierarchical subordination
of the CP to the consul and it's expressely stated that they can issue
decreta on matters relevant to the Religio Romana, as this obviously is.

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

Founder of Gens Constantinia
Former Tribunus Plebis (MMDCCLVIII a. U. c.)
Aedilis Urbis Iterum

On 2/21/06, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> I reaffirm the issuance of the below Edictum.
>
> The edictum was vetoed by Tribune Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa (Message
> 41965). However, his veto was disputed by Tribune M Moravius Piscinus
> (Message 41966), and Tribune Marcus Arminius Maior (Message 41974).
>
> The Edictum stands. Flavius Vedius Germanicus, a founder of Nova
> Roma, is reinstated into the Collegium Augurium as an Augur.
>
> Valete:
>
> Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>


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

Salve Consul Pompeia Strabo

My Apologies. no offence was intended.

M. Hortensia Maior the Consuls are breaking the LAW and you are
concerned about etiquette?

You need to get you priorities straight

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia T.Galerio salutem dicit;
> Praetor , this is twice you have been disrespectful to our
> Consules. Since you are able to address Tribune Vipsanius Agrippa
> properly by his full name, you are able to address Consul Pompeia
> Strabo properly. She is not 'Consul Po'.
> As praetor it behooves you to be an example to us all in the
> forum and disrespect only lessens your own dignitas.
> bene vale in pacem deorum
> M. Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
> producer "Vox Romana" podcast
> cultrix deorum
>
> I sug>> Salve Consul Po et al
> >
> > >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Praetor
> >
>

C. Equitius Cato A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque sal.

Salve Cordus et salvete omnes.

Cordus, the fact is that Vedius Germanicus was not "deprived" of
anything. He resigned, and the loss of his augurship is a direct
result of his having chosen to abandon the Republic. When he came
back, he became subject to the law, just as all citizens are subject
to the law --- whether or not the law was the same when he came back
or not.

Why should Vedius Germanicus be portrayed as the aggrieved party? He
left the Republic of his own free will; he abandoned his offices and
his citizenship. He is being affected by the repercussions of his own
choice. That the Republic kept going, amending and creating law, is
not an evil act designed to punish anyone.


Vale et valete bene,

Cato

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

>
> A. Apollonius M. Hortensiae omnibusque sal.
>
> > actually I think the big issue isn't the
> > conflict
> > between laws, but the underlying one:
> > is Vedius Germanicus an augur?
>
> I agree that this is important, but I wanted to
> examine a question which I think is more important in
> the long term, namely whether the consules have the
> absolute and unfettered power to make legally
> definitive rulings on the meaning of the lex
> constitutiva. If we allow them to assume this power
> the repurcussions will be felt long after this
> particular controversy has been forgotten.
>
> As for the matter in hand, I confess that I do find it
> contrary to the principles of natural justice that
> Vedius should be deprived of his position by virtue of
> an act which, at the time he took that act, he had
> every right to believe would not deprive him of it;
> and I also regret that our current law is in such a
> state that we can arrive at the grossly unhistorical
> situation of an augur losing his augurate as a result
> of anything short of his death. I would add that it is
> not even very satisfactory for the pontifices to be
> appointing augures - historically the augures co-opted
> their own colleagues. However, I am of the opinion
> that our current law, in spite of offending against
> natural justice and against Roman tradition, does not
> justify the consul's edictum, which is ultra vires.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new

Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

>

Ex Officio Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Praetor

M. Tullius Cicero once said

"And if a state has no law, is it not for that reason to be reckoned
no state at all"?

He would most likely agree that a state that ignores it own laws
will soon cease to be a state.

Censor Marinus stated in part

"M. Octavius Germanicus acting on my authority updated the census
record of F. Vedius Germanicus to reflect today's consular
edictum."Â….

In order to fulfill my oath of office to "defend the constitution
of Nova Roma" and to carryout the constitutionally mandated
requirement to "advance the mission and function of Nova Roma"Â… and
to "administer the law"

I herby pronounce intercessio against the actions of M. Octavius
Germanicus and order him to restore the census record of F. Vedius
Germanicus to reflect the fact that he is not an Augur under the
Nova Roman constitution.

The Constitution reads in part: Article VI Section B 2

"The Collegium Augurum (College of Augurs) shall be the second-
highest ranked of the priestly Collegia. The eldest member of the
Collegium shall be the Magister Collegii. The Collegium Augurum
shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four
from the Patrician order."

"They shall be appointed by the Collegium Pontificum, and shall hold
their offices for life, excepting in cases of resignation of office,
resignation of citizenship, or loss of Assidui citizenship by
process of law. Â…

F. Vedius Germanicus resigned his citizenship on March 14 2002
and became a former citizen . He became a former Augur with the
adoption and ratification of the LEX FABIA LABIENA DE IVRE AVGVRVM
passed by Comitia on the 24th of December MMDCCLVI and passed by
unanimous vote of the Senate on January 28th 2757 (01/28/2004).

The LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS does not apply as
it pertains to criminal maters and penalties.

If or when the Collegium Pontificum issues a Decreta on the
appointment of F. Vedius Germanicus as an Augur, M. Octavius
Germanicus may again list that information in the census record of
F. Vedius Germanicus

Given this the 21st day of February 2759 a.u.c (2006 C.E.) at
12:46 PM Roman time

In the consulship of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus and Pompeia Minucia
Tiberia

Ex Officio Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

As a Consul of Nova Roma I issue intercessio against the below command
of Praetor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.

Valete:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

On 2/21/06, Timothy P. Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
> Ex Officio Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Praetor
>
> M. Tullius Cicero once said
>
> "And if a state has no law, is it not for that reason to be reckoned
> no state at all"?
>
> He would most likely agree that a state that ignores it own laws
> will soon cease to be a state.
>
> Censor Marinus stated in part
>
> "M. Octavius Germanicus acting on my authority updated the census
> record of F. Vedius Germanicus to reflect today's consular
> edictum."….
>
> In order to fulfill my oath of office to "defend the constitution
> of Nova Roma" and to carryout the constitutionally mandated
> requirement to "advance the mission and function of Nova Roma"… and
> to "administer the law"
>
> I herby pronounce intercessio against the actions of M. Octavius
> Germanicus and order him to restore the census record of F. Vedius
> Germanicus to reflect the fact that he is not an Augur under the
> Nova Roman constitution.
>
> The Constitution reads in part: Article VI Section B 2
>
> "The Collegium Augurum (College of Augurs) shall be the second-
> highest ranked of the priestly Collegia. The eldest member of the
> Collegium shall be the Magister Collegii. The Collegium Augurum
> shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four
> from the Patrician order."
>
> "They shall be appointed by the Collegium Pontificum, and shall hold
> their offices for life, excepting in cases of resignation of office,
> resignation of citizenship, or loss of Assidui citizenship by
> process of law. …
>
> F. Vedius Germanicus resigned his citizenship on March 14 2002
> and became a former citizen . He became a former Augur with the
> adoption and ratification of the LEX FABIA LABIENA DE IVRE AVGVRVM
> passed by Comitia on the 24th of December MMDCCLVI and passed by
> unanimous vote of the Senate on January 28th 2757 (01/28/2004).
>
> The LEX EQVITIA GALERIA DE LEGIBVS EX POST FACTIS does not apply as
> it pertains to criminal maters and penalties.
>
> If or when the Collegium Pontificum issues a Decreta on the
> appointment of F. Vedius Germanicus as an Augur, M. Octavius
> Germanicus may again list that information in the census record of
> F. Vedius Germanicus
>
> Given this the 21st day of February 2759 a.u.c (2006 C.E.) at
> 12:46 PM Roman time
>
> In the consulship of Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus and Pompeia Minucia
> Tiberia

Salve Praetor Tiberi Galeri,

> Ex Officio Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Praetor

My my... a praetorian edictum, is it?

> Censor Marinus stated in part

In a message posted to the Magistrate's mailing list. Not here in the forum.
You'd do well to stay within your remit Praetor.

> "M. Octavius Germanicus acting on my authority updated the census
> record of F. Vedius Germanicus to reflect today's consular
> edictum."Â….

That's correct. Note that he's my scribe, and he acted on my authority.

> I herby pronounce intercessio against the actions of M. Octavius
> Germanicus and order him to restore the census record of F. Vedius
> Germanicus to reflect the fact that he is not an Augur under the
> Nova Roman constitution.

You have no authority over my scribe, Praetor.

Gn. Equitius Marinus
Censor

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS

A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.

I don't honestly think it's very useful to get into a
strenuous debate over whether the legal position is
just or unjust. You and I agree that in law Vedius is
not an augur and you and I agree that the consul has
no power to change that. That's the important thing.

If you really want to argue with me about whether it
is a good thing or a bad thing that Vedius is not an
augur, I'm happy to argue about it, but I do suggest
that it would add an unnecessary and indeed
counterproductive extra dimension to what is already a
reasonably complex argument about the legal position.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Salve

On 2/21/06, CN�EQVIT�MARINVS (Gnaeus Equitius Marinus) <gawne@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
> > I herby pronounce intercessio against the actions of M. Octavius
> > Germanicus and order him to restore the census record of F. Vedius
> > Germanicus to reflect the fact that he is not an Augur under the
> > Nova Roman constitution.
>
> You have no authority over my scribe, Praetor.
>

Well, technically, it depends.

The Constitution says the Praetor has the right to issue those edicta
(edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks which advance the mission and
function of Nova Roma and to administer the law

So, depending the meaning you give to "administering" the law, for instance
reconstructing it as having every law (especially the Constitution)
respected, he might very well have. A bit extreme, maybe, but not totally
unfounded.

DCF


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

A. Apollonius Q. Fabio omnibusque sal.

Thank you for your answer. I think you will agree,
though, that we need rather more certainty than you
are able to provide, and for that we need an official
responsum from the pontifices.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

C. Equitius Cato A. Apollonuo Cordo quiritibusque sal.

Salve Corde et salvete omnes.

You are correct.

Vale et valete,

Cato

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

>
> A. Apollonius C. Equitio omnibusque sal.
>
> I don't honestly think it's very useful to get into a
> strenuous debate over whether the legal position is
> just or unjust. You and I agree that in law Vedius is
> not an augur and you and I agree that the consul has
> no power to change that. That's the important thing.
>
> If you really want to argue with me about whether it
> is a good thing or a bad thing that Vedius is not an
> augur, I'm happy to argue about it, but I do suggest
> that it would add an unnecessary and indeed
> counterproductive extra dimension to what is already a
> reasonably complex argument about the legal position.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new

Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

>

M. Lucretius Agricola G. Equitio Catoni Omnibusque S.P.D.


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

>

[SNIP]

> Vedius Germanicus resigned while the lex Constitutiva still held that
> augurs were appointed for life "with no exceptions". This is
> absolutely correct.
>
> However, *while he was no longer a citizen*, the lex Fabia Labiena
> &c., which amended the lex Constitutiva, was passed --- which changed
> that fact. The law changed, and when Vedius returned, he became
> subject once more to Nova Roman law as it stood when he returned. And
> that law said (as it does now) that if a citizen has resigned, they
> forfeit the right to hold their office as augur.
>

[SNIP]

Amice, I think you are wrong here. As always, I am no legal mind, and
on that I defer to you, but there is a language issue here that I
think needs clearing up.

We have to decide, does the law talk about resignation as an ACT or as
a STATE? I think it talks about an ACT and that act (resignation)
happened at a point in time.

I don't think that the law should be read to mean "if a citizen has
resigned" (that is, the state of having resigned) because if we read
laws like that then we automatically get retroactive penalties.

If person A commits the act of theft, that person pays the penalty
stipulated by the law. If the law changes, the changed law does not
reach out to exact a heavier penalty from those who "have commited an
act of theft" and paid the penalty that was due at the time of the
act. Rather, the changed law touches only those who commit the act
after the change.

So when we say "he resigned", we are saying something that is always
true, that is, that state is part of his history. But it also means
that he commited an act at a point in time. I think that confusion of
this distinction is giving us trouble. I'm quite sure that from a
legal point of view we have to focus on the ACT and not on the STATE.

Optime vale et valete

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem IX Kalendas Martias; haec dies fastus publicus est.

"And the grave must be honoured. Appease your fathers'
Spirits, and bring little gifts to the tombs you built.
Their shades ask little, piety they prefer to costly
Offerings: no greedy deities haunt the Stygian depths.
A tile wreathed round with garlands offered is enough,
A scattering of meal, and a few grains of salt,
And bread soaked in wine, and loose violets:
Set them on a brick left in the middle of the path...
And hide the gods, closing those revealing temple doors,
Let the altars be free of incense, the hearths without fire.
Now ghostly spirits and the entombed dead wander,
Now the shadow feeds on the nourishment that's offered.
But it only lasts till there are no more days in the month
Than the feet that my metres possess.
This day they call the Feralia because they bear [ferunt]
Offerings to the dead: the last day to propitiate the shades." - Ovid,
Fasti II


Today is the celebration of the Feralia, ending the Parentalia, and is
held in honor of Iuppiter Feretrius and the infernal powers.
"Feretrius" is one of Iuppiter's titles, and in this capacity Iuppiter
was called upon to witness the signing of contracts and marriages. An
oath was taken that asked Iuppiter to strike down the person if they
swore the oath falsely. Spirits (manes) of the dead were said to
hover above graves on this day, and provisions were put out for them.
Some sources believe that the Roman contact with the Celtic
observances of a feast of the dead combined to create the foundations
of the holiday we now celebrate as All Hallows' Eve, or Hallowe'en.
Today is the last day of the Roman year in which to placate ghosts;
tomorrow, the living are appeased. Today the temples would be opened
at noon, and the time of religious devotion, the "tempus religiosum",
came to a close. Magistrates would lay down their insignia of office
and offer up prayers on behalf of the State.

The mysterious meaning of "FP", which Apollonius Cordus mentioned
yesterday, may have its roots in the observance of the Feralia as a
"fastus (or 'feria') publicus" during the Republic; Republican
calendars are marked with "FP" for this day, but after Augustus they
are marked simply "F", for "fastus". Because the actual rites
involved in the observance of the Feralia can only be guessed at, we
do not know why this change was made.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Ovid, Feralia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feralia) and
(http://www.musesrealm.net/rome/festivalsinfo.html) and
(http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/feralia)

--Salve Domitius Constantinus Fuscus et Salvete Quiritibus:

I think in theory such an intercessio is doable, but is not commonly
practised, and I think its because to pronounce intercessio on the
scribe of a Censor who is acting under the instruction of the Censor
is like pronouncing intercessio against the Censor himself. So, the
magistrates' actions are usually vetoed, not that of his scribe.
Now I suppose a scribe could and should be vetoed if he is acting in
manner that is known to be contrary and independent of the
magistrate for whom he works.

The point in this case is moot anyway, as Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Praetor has exceeded the 72 margin he should abide by for veto
issuance in a comitia lex discussing intercessios of magistrates
other than Tribunes. It is a lex Vedia and I honest don't have time
to look it up...but its in the tabularium. I'm sure the Praetor has
lots of time.

Pompeia



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

>
> Salve
>
> On 2/21/06, CN•EQVIT•MARINVS (Gnaeus Equitius Marinus) <gawne@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I herby pronounce intercessio against the actions of M.

Octavius

> > > Germanicus and order him to restore the census record of F.

Vedius

> > > Germanicus to reflect the fact that he is not an Augur under

the

> > > Nova Roman constitution.
> >
> > You have no authority over my scribe, Praetor.
> >
>
> Well, technically, it depends.
>
> The Constitution says the Praetor has the right to issue those

edicta

> (edicts) necessary to engage in those tasks which advance the

mission and

> function of Nova Roma and to administer the law
>
> So, depending the meaning you give to "administering" the law, for

instance

> reconstructing it as having every law (especially the Constitution)
> respected, he might very well have. A bit extreme, maybe, but not

totally

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

C. Equitius Cato M. Lucretio Agricolo quiritibusque sal.

Salve Agricole et salvete omnes.

I see what you are saying. One reason I would disagree is that the
act of theft is a criminal offense, and resignation is not :-)

But seriously, the act of resigning is tied inextricably with the
state of being of having resigned; resignation is an act which by its
very nature changes the state of being in which the resigner exists.

Vedius Germanicus resigned his citizenship and offices. When speaking
of him after that fact, you would say that he had resigned; the state
of being in which he existed was that of someone who had committed
that particular act. As a matter of course, he is still in that
state: he is a citizen who has resigned (actually in fact not once,
but twice). That he is a citizen once more (or for the third time, as
it were) does not erase the fact that he has, in fact, resigned ---
any more than a thief, even after having paid the penalty for his
crime, can erase the fact that he is, in fact, a thief.

The lex in question amended the lex Constitutiva to read:

"and shall hold their offices for life, excepting in cases of
resignation of office, resignation of citizenship...Augurs who have
resigned their office, resigned their citizenship...may exercise no
augural powers or functions, nor shall they be accounted members of
the Collegium Augurum."

This must, by definition, refer to those augurs who have resigned in
the past. Has Vedius Germanicus resigned his office? Yes, he has.
Does the lex Constitutiva speak specifically about augurs who have
resigned? Yes, it does. Crucially, did the lex Constitutiva speak
specifically about the resignation of an augur *before* the
implementation of the "ex post factis" amendment? Yes, it did.

And that is not even taking into account the fact that to be returned
to citizenship is an honor, and not a penalty, and therefore the "ex
post factis" amendment cannot be applied.

I hope this makes my thinking clearer.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Friends and fellow citizens,

It is in general my rule to post rarely, but I think an interesting
point is raised here.


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

>
> C. Equitius Cato A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque sal.
>
> Salve Cordus et salvete omnes.
>
> Cordus, the fact is that Vedius Germanicus was not "deprived" of
> anything. He resigned, and the loss of his augurship is a direct
> result of his having chosen to abandon the Republic. When he came
> back, he became subject to the law, just as all citizens are subject
> to the law --- whether or not the law was the same when he came back
> or not.
>

At the time he was appointed it was "for life". What does "for life"
mean? If resigning ends a kind of 'pseudo-life" I think we have a big
problem. If we are playnig a game, sure, our "life" here ends with the
game play.

If we are as serious as I think many of you are, then "life" means
"life" in the ordinary way.

It strikes me as right and fitting that this position especially
should be "for life". How else can they be free from pressure?

It strikes me as right and fitting that this position especially
should be "for life". How else can we claim that the Religio is not
part of a game?


Peace to you all

M. Lucretius Agricola

---Salve Equitius Cato et Salvete Omnes:

<sign> Would you mind defining 'ad hominem attack' for the benefit
of all here, myself included? Your definition might vary from
convention.

Pompeia Minucia Strabo




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

>
> C. Equitius Cato P. Tiberiae Straboni quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve consul et salvete omnes.
>
> Consul, this post shows two things:
>
> 1. you apparently, even if shown a convincing argument, have never
> changed your mind.
>
> 2. in the face of an argument you either do not, or refuse to,
> understand, you revert once more to bullying and ad hominem

attacks.

>
> Brava.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@> wrote:
> >
> > ---Salvete Marcus Octavius Germanicus et Omnes:
> >
> > I understood the Tribunes were consulted, and I get this from a
> > Tribune (I don't know why he would state otherwise on a list in

the

> > presence of other Tribunes) that they were all on the same

page.

> > And the reason, with respect to the Tribune, for his sudden
> > intercessio is in total disagreement to what he apparently was

asked

> > as Tribune to evaluate in the first place, and seemingly had no
> > difficulties with.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that Vedius would have to be put through this,

if

> > there were objections from any one of the Tribunes. Hopefully

the

> > remaining Tribunes will consider this intercessio in light of

the

> > Lex Labienia de Intercessio (see constitution also).
> >
> > But, with the Praetor et al running all over crying 'foul', in
> > response to application of constitutional language 'he' himself
> > wrote, I suppose that the Tribune could, like anyone, second

guess

> > himself. Plus I'm aware there is a certain 'egging on'of sorts,
> > being staged in another forum by a disgruntled Senator, which

is

> > fueling the fire... said Senator is apparently not 'exactly'

a 'fan'

> > of Vedius. Often those who bite this bait are, to their own
> > detriment, feeding the insatiable appetite of others who thrive

on

> > this sort of thing. And,aside from this and in itself, I guess
> > perhaps a controversy is just plain good for one's political
> > career.
> >
> > I maintain there is far more going on here, given the vociferous
> > manner in which this is being approached. I am wondering if

some of

> > the 'me too' affirmations in response to this Intercessio are

from

> > those who are not entirely sure what is going on from a legal
> > standpoint, from inception of the whole affair until now. I've

seen

> > people in this forum today who are never here to debate anything
> > political. Although they are likely concerned about political
> > current events, they usually are quite temperate in their

approach.

> > Hopefully they've been given an objective and comprehensive

briefing

> > of the matters at hand upon which to base their opinions, which

in

> > themselves, I do appreciate.
> >
> > Valete
> > Pompeia Minucia Strabo
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > As Tribune of the Plebs, I pronounce intercessio against the
> > > > edictum of Consul Fabius Buteo Modianus.
> > > >
> > > > Only the Collegium Pontificum has the authority to appoint
> > citizens
> > > > to any priesthood. I would respectfully ask that they

convene to

> > > > settle this issue.
> > >
> > > I am very disappointed in your action. Vedius already was
> > appointed; his
> > > appointment was "for life". He never laid down his position

of

> > augurship
> > > (he could not), and he has been prevented from being listed as

an

> > active
> > > augur only due to personal vendettas by other priests.
> > >
> > > It is a sad day when a Tribune attempts to block a citizen

from

> > reassuming
> > > a role that is his by right.
> > >
> > > Vale, M. Octavius Germanicus.
> > >
> > > --
> > > hucke@
> > > http://www.graveyards.com
> > >
> > > "The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than

the

> > > voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887
> > >
> >
>

C. Eqyuitius Cato P. Tiberiae Straboni quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

Certainly. "Ad hominem" simply means "to the man", and is defined in
debate as the use of attacks against an individual or individuals
rather than the argument they are putting forth.

Examples might include:

"I'm aware there is a certain 'egging on' of sorts, being staged in
another forum by a disgruntled Senator..."

"...said Senator is apparently not 'exactly' a 'fan'..."

"But, with the Praetor et al running all over crying 'foul'..."

It is an attempt to draw the focus away from the merits of the actual
argument by use of personal attack or innuendo.


Another example might be:

"For someone who pretends to not know what 'ad hominem' means, you are
certainly an expert in putting it into practice."

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salve Consul

First of all, there is no tim elimit for a pretorian intercessio that i
remember of, given all the NR laws i can remember (by now much less than the
complete number, obviously) talk about tribunician intercessio, not
praetorian one.

Secondly, let's set aside intercessio, about which, as a second thought, I
may agree the praetor was not entitled, but concentrate on Edicta. Taking a
broad concept of "law administering", if it's found that correcting the act
of a magistrate made in violation of the law (and thus, even more, in
violation of the constitution) an edict of the praetor is needed, then he
would be entitled to issue it as an act, no matter who this act would be
directed to.

Then I suppose a Consul might as well intercede against such an edictum and
make it void. Since it seems you and the other consul share the same feeling
about this matter, for how outrageously erroneous that is, I suppose the
matter is pretty moot.

I'm actually astounded to find myself sharing the perception that at least
legally you two are wrong with Cordus, Scaurus, Iulius Caesar, Cato,
Paulinus and other with whom more or less often (depending who we are
cosnidering) I found myself agreeing with from time to time, but with all
of them at the same time, never.

It could also be argumented that by blatantly breeching the Constitutio of
Nova Roma by assuming a power (the one of dealing with teh composition of
the Collegium Augurum, be it by appointing, reinstaing, removing, meddling
in any way with its composition) you evidently do not have nor were ever
meant to, you are basically relinquishing your primary obligation of
defending the Constitution and therefore being derelicting in your duties
and giving a case for any of the tribunes or praetores tocall the Comitia
and proposing a law to remove both of you from your position.

Theoretically speaking, of course. Frankly, I have no idea of what possessed
the two of you, but I hope you shall get back to yoru proper senses soon.

I do not know what would had happen back then if a Consul or two would had
stormed in the Collegium's house and pretended to impose upon pontifices the
name of an Augur, but I'm sure nothing nice would had followed. I suppose we
can be happy our Collegium seem to be pretty relaxed and the pontifices much
less belligerant that they have been in the past when both of us, if I
remember, were threathened with.. quite harsh consequences for much less
intrusive behaviours.

Vale

DCF

On 2/21/06, pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...>
wrote:

>
> --Salve Domitius Constantinus Fuscus et Salvete Quiritibus:
>
> I think in theory such an intercessio is doable, but is not commonly
> practised, and I think its because to pronounce intercessio on the
> scribe of a Censor who is acting under the instruction of the Censor
> is like pronouncing intercessio against the Censor himself. So, the
> magistrates' actions are usually vetoed, not that of his scribe.
> Now I suppose a scribe could and should be vetoed if he is acting in
> manner that is known to be contrary and independent of the
> magistrate for whom he works.
>
> The point in this case is moot anyway, as Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Praetor has exceeded the 72 margin he should abide by for veto
> issuance in a comitia lex discussing intercessios of magistrates
> other than Tribunes. It is a lex Vedia and I honest don't have time
> to look it up...but its in the tabularium. I'm sure the Praetor has
> lots of time.
>
> Pompeia
>
>
>
>

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

A. Apollonius M. Lucretio omnibusque sal.

I agree with your concern about distinguishing between
reality and games-playing, as I think most citizens
would. And indeed I think it is commonly understood
that when a lex of our republic says 'life' it means
the physical life of the human being concerned, not
merely that person's length of citizenship. That is as
it should be.

The amendment to the lex constitutiva which, in
effect, deprived Flavius Vedius of his augurate was
not seeking to redefine 'life' as 'duration of
citizenship', it simply and explicitly says that
augurates are not for life but are terminated by
termination of citizenship.

This is unhistorical and should, in my view, be
reversed, but it is the law as it currently stands.

It's also worth saying, in this connexion, that there
is nonetheless some link between life and citizenship.
In Roman law they were in some ways treated as
equivalent. The 'caput' of a citizen was not merely
his physical head but also his legal personality and
status as a citizen of full right (optimo jure).
Accordingly a 'capital penalty' might be one which did
not in fact remove the citizen's head but merely
removed, or diminished, his status. This is what the
XII tables mean when they say that only the comitia
centuriata has the power to make decisions concerning
the 'caput' of a citizen.

In a sense, at the most basic level of Roman law, loss
of citizenship was something akin to legal death
because it entailed loss of legal personality. In its
earliest days Roman law simply did not recognize the
existence of non-citizens. A non-citizen had no legal
standing in a Roman court and had no rights under
Roman law. He was a non-person, effectively the same
as if he did not exist. Therefore loss of citizenship
was, as far as the law was concerned, effectively the
same as cessation of existence.

The mature Roman law did, of course, modify this
extreme doctrine and recognize non-citizens as having
a certain legal personality, though lesser than that
of a citizen. But the doctrine remained of underlying
importance, and the distinction between someone who
had lost his citizenship and someone who was legally
dead was not as clear as we might expect, because
someone who had lost his citizenship was always, in a
sense, dead in the eyes of the strict core of Roman
law - the law which bound and protected Roman citizens
alone.

That's by way of background; I don't think it is
relevant to this case.





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

C. Equitius Cato M. Lucretio Agricolo quiritibusque sal.

Salve et salvete.

Agricole, again you raise an interesting point. The key to my answer
is where you wrote:

"At the time he was appointed it was 'for life'."

It was indeed, *at the time he was appointed*. And under what
authority was he appointed for life? The authority granted to the
College of Pontiffs --- by the lex Constitutiva. That same authority
was then amended, to redefine the circumstances under which an
appointment "for life" might be forfeited. Vedius Germanicus put
himself in the position to be affected by that amendment.

The fact that we are discussing the violation of the law by this
consular edict should show the seriousness in which this is held; if
it were a game, none of us would care. But we are all trying to build
something here, and to ignore or put aside the law strikes at the
foundations of the Republic itself.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salvete mi Corde et Quirites

It is quite clear that I do not agree with my colleague Aggrippa's
intercessio and dispute his arguments when making it. My colleague
Arminius Maior has joined in my disagreement with this intercessio.
My colleague Suetonius Paulinus had publicly stated earlier that he
supports the edictum consularis, and thus would disagree with the
intercessio. The intercessio is nullified.

The majority of the Tribuni Plebis support and uphold the edictum
consularis. Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Pater Patria, Augur et
Senator, is recognized in his office as originally appointed and
restored to the Collegium Augurum, fully authorized to conduct
public auguria. As senior Augur, he should also be recognized as
Magister collegii as provided under the Constitution.

Valete optime

M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
Tribunus Plebis
Flamen Carmentalis

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

>
> A. Apollonius M. Moravio omnibusque sal.
>
> Just to clarify, M. Moravi, though I think I can guess
> the answer: are you saying merely that you don't agree
> with your colleague's veto (i.e. you wish it to be
> overruled by a majority of the tribunes including
> yourself), or are you saying that you do not consider
> that it is a legally valid veto at all? The word
> 'dispute' is rather ambiguous.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all

new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

>

Salve

On 2/21/06, A. Apollonius Cordus <a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:

> The amendment to the lex constitutiva which, in
> effect, deprived Flavius Vedius of his augurate was
> not seeking to redefine 'life' as 'duration of
> citizenship', it simply and explicitly says that
> augurates are not for life but are terminated by
> termination of citizenship.
>
> This is unhistorical and should, in my view, be
> reversed, but it is the law as it currently stands.
>
>
Which would be nice indeed, but technically unfeasible for practical
reasons. Romans didn't have the concept of reignation of citizenship and the
very idea of an Augur leaving permanently the country would had been
unthinkable. We do have both.

Should we make people Augures "for life" and really mean that, there is the
quite tangible possibility of ending up with a collegium of Augur depleted
or totally wiped out in a matter of years if something happens to make the
Augures, one by one or collectively, leave. Nor we could ever replace them
as we wouldn't know if the person holding the title would be dead or alive.

Vale,

DCF


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

Salve Tiberi Galeri Praetor,

> In order to fulfill my oath of office to "defend the constitution
> of Nova Roma" and to carryout the constitutionally mandated
> requirement to "advance the mission and function of Nova Roma"Â… and
> to "administer the law"
>
> I herby pronounce intercessio against the actions of M. Octavius
> Germanicus and order him to restore the census record of F. Vedius
> Germanicus to reflect the fact that he is not an Augur under the
> Nova Roman constitution.

I hereby refuse. I acted under the authority of Consul and Censor, and
you have no ability whatsoever to override either of them.

Vale, Octavius.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

Salvete Quirites

Earlier I posted that "The intercessio is nullified." That
statement is not correct. At the moment it would appear that my
colleague Agrippa's intercessio will become nullified as of 24 Feb
at 12:04 AM, 72 hours from when he reissued his intercessio. The
reissue of Agrippa's intercessio was made within the 72 hours from
whence the edictum consularis was issued, and it was then that made
his intercessio in proper form. I therefore recognize the time of
his reissuing his intercessio as the begining of the period of 72
hours for the other Tribuni Plebis to announce their agreement or
disagreement with my colleague's intercessio.

Valete optime

M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
Tribunus Plebis




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <mhoratius@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete mi Corde et Quirites
>
> It is quite clear that I do not agree with my colleague Aggrippa's
> intercessio and dispute his arguments when making it. My

colleague

> Arminius Maior has joined in my disagreement with this

intercessio.

> My colleague Suetonius Paulinus had publicly stated earlier that

he

> supports the edictum consularis, and thus would disagree with the
> intercessio. The intercessio is nullified.
>
> The majority of the Tribuni Plebis support and uphold the edictum
> consularis. Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Pater Patria, Augur et
> Senator, is recognized in his office as originally appointed and
> restored to the Collegium Augurum, fully authorized to conduct
> public auguria. As senior Augur, he should also be recognized as
> Magister collegii as provided under the Constitution.
>
> Valete optime
>
> M Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> Tribunus Plebis
> Flamen Carmentalis
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@> wrote:
> >
> > A. Apollonius M. Moravio omnibusque sal.
> >
> > Just to clarify, M. Moravi, though I think I can guess
> > the answer: are you saying merely that you don't agree
> > with your colleague's veto (i.e. you wish it to be
> > overruled by a majority of the tribunes including
> > yourself), or are you saying that you do not consider
> > that it is a legally valid veto at all? The word
> > 'dispute' is rather ambiguous.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all
> new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> >
>