Tribunus Plebis Marcus Arminius Maior Quiritibus SPD
Senate Voting Results, published on a.d. XV Kal.
Novembras MMDCCLIX A.U.C., or 18 october 2006 AD.
The Senate was called to order on 09/Oct/2006 (2759
AUC).
The Contio was held on agenda items until 12/Oct/2006.
Voting on the agenda items was then held from
13/Oct/2006, 02:00 pm, to 16/Oct/2006, 02:00 pm (time
of Rome).
On 16th of October, the latest session of the Senate
of Nova Roma was declared closed by the Consul Pompeia
Minucia Strabo, in which 29 of the 36 senatores voted,
fulfilling the quorum needed for the session.
It shall be noted that these items are for discussion
only, and are not currently being voted as
constitutional ammendments.
Here are the list of the voting Senators,
alfabetically listed by nomen:
[FAC] Franciscus Apulus Caesar
[MAM] Marcus Arminius Maior
[MBA] Marcus Bianchius Antonius
[MCJ] Marcus Cassius Julianus
[PC] Patricia Cassia
[CCS] Caius Curius Saturninus
[ECF] Emilia Curia Finnica
[GEM] Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
[LECA] Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
[GFBM] Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus
[CFBQ] Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
[QFM] Quintus Fabius Maximus
[CFD] Caius Flavius Diocletianus
[TGP] Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
[MIP] Marcus Iulius Perusianus
[GMM] Gaius Marius Merullus
[LMS] Lucius Minicius Sceptius
[MMA] Marcus Minucius Audens
[PMS] Pompeia Minucia Strabo
[AMA] Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
[MOG] Marcus Octavius Gracchus
[TOPA] Titus Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus
[GPL] Gaius Popillius Laenas
[GSA] Gnaeus Salvius Astur
[JSM] Julilla Sempronia Magna
[LSA] Lucius Sergius Australicus
[QSP] Quintus Suetonius Paulinus
[ATMC] Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato
[FVG] Flavius Vedius Germanicus
The vote of Senator Sextus Apollonius Scipio arrived
after the closing of the session for a few minutes,
and was not included in the results.
The following senatores failed to vote in this
session:
[LAF] Lucius Arminius Faustus
[LCSF] Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
[MCS] Manius Constantinus Serapio
[DIPI] Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus
[TLF] Titus Labienus Fortunatus
[GL] Gaia Livia
Just for the record, the changes in the Senate
involving Senator Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix occurred before this
report, but after this senate session.
The items for consideration were as follows:
- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
Item ONE: AMENDMENT I
Section II "Citizens and Gentes"
Clause 3 concerning the rights of citizens reads: "The
right to vote in elections as members of their various
comitia on matters brought before the People in such
manner as described in the Constitution. ..
Proposed Change: The rights of the Iura Publica:
i. The right to vote in elections as members of their
various comitia on matters brought before the People
in such manner as described in this constitution and
pursuant laws.
ii. The right to candidate for public office where
eligible, as determined by this constitution and
pursuant laws.
[FAC] I vote ABSTINEO to all items, unluckly I was
unable to follow the discussion
[MAM] Uti Rogas
[MBA] Uti Rogas
[MCJ] Uti Rogas
[PC] Uti Rogas
[CCS] Uti rogas
[ECF] Uti Rogas.
[GEM] Uti Rogas
[LECA] Uti Rogas
[GFBM] Uti Rogas
[CFBQ] Uti Rogas
[QFM] NO
It is obvious that Part (ii) has been included to
allow for a nota to remove this right to stand for
election. Reading AMENDMENT IV, it now includes the
power to stop a citizen from standing for election via
a nota restricting this newly specified right. This is
potentially dangerous. One sees it as the extension of
the restriction on the right to vote, BUT it removes
from the citizen affected the right to go before the
people. Example, A Citizen has a nota issued against
him for some moral transgression. He stands for
election to say Praetor and is elected by a huge
majority. So the People have sent a message to the
Censors that while they may consider Citizen X morally
bankrupt, the People do not. This would be a check
and balance to the power of the Censors. In effect it
is a right of appeal by virtue of candidacy. By
removing this right there is an increase of power of
the Censors to an unecessary degree. I call this the
Priscus Clause. But Conscript Fathers, we must forget
Priscus and his politics. Individual cases of such an
"extreme" case are irrelevant when laws are written.
What is at issue here is a principle, that of a very
Roman series of checks and balances. Now even if
Citizen X got elected that wouldn't compel the Censors
to remove the nota, but it still sends a message which
they should do well to ponder. Yes they are the
guardians of public morality but if the public does
not (through their vote for "X") feel that the
Censors' morality is in step with theirs, then perhaps
the Censors would do well to reassess their views? I
believe this could be used to politically silence a
citizen at some point in the future when/if the
Censors stray into the political arena. This is an
unecessary addition to their powers and a reduction of
the rights of a citizen to appeal to his peers for
vindication through election, a attempted vindication
removed by this clause. BTW Pursuant means pursuant to
the constitution, but the way this is written it could
mean pursuant to matters of election. Why not replace
it with "laws of Nova Roma". This is just badly
written.
[CFD] Uti Rogas
[TGP] VTI ROGAS
[MIP] VTI ROGAS.
[GMM] Nego
I vote not to amend the constitution as suggested
[LMS] VTI·ROGAS
[MMA] Uti Rogas
[PMS] UTI ROGAS
[AMA] VTI ROGAS
[MOG] UTI ROGAS
[TOPA] Uti rogas. Introducing and defining a
historical term.
[GPL] Uti Rogas
[GSA] VTI ROGAS.
This proposal would bring the wording of our laws
closer to Roman legal concepts, and it is inherently a
Good Thing.
[JSM] Uti Rogas
[LSA] Uti rogas
[QSP] VTI ROGAS
[ATMC] VTI ROGAS
[FVG] yes
Results of Item I: Uti Rogas, 27; Antiquo, 1;
Abstineo, 1.
Item TWO: AMENDMENT II
II 'Citizens and Gentes" Section B
Clause 5 concerning the right of Provocatio currently
reads "The right of provocatio: to appeal the
decision of a magistrate that has a direct negative
impact on that citizen to the Comitia Populi Tributa".
Proposed Change: The right of Provocatio ad populum:
to appeal a loss of citizenship (exactio) to the
Comitia Centuriata.
And in a separate clause...The right of Apellatio:
i) to appeal a magisterial decision which has a direct
negative impact on that citizen to the comitia populi
tributa, such appeal to be immune from intercessio by
the magistrate against whom the appeal is made.
ii) to appeal a court decision (sententia) not
involving loss of citizenship to the Comitia Populi
Tributa, or optionally in the case of a citizen of the
Plebian Order, to the Comitia Plebis Tributa.
[FAC] I vote ABSTINEO to all items, unluckly I was
unable to follow the discussion
[MAM] Uti Rogas
[MBA] Uti Rogas
[MCJ] Uti Rogas
[PC] Uti Rogas
[CCS] Uti rogas
[ECF] Uti Rogas.
[GEM] Uti Rogas
[LECA] Uti Rogas
[GFBM] Uti Rogas
[CFBQ] Uti Rogas
[QFM] NO
What has been left out is "upon that citizen".
This was a key part of the dispute over Galerius
Paulinus' attempts last year. Others (including
current Consul Modianus) claimed that there was no
impact on him. This appears to be an attempt to dupe
the Senate into forgetting that part of the current
phrase. This appears to have been addressed by one of
the Praetors but the phrase now has no real meaning.
So two rights are created here. Provocatio is
restricted to loss of citizenship and the new
Appellatio a decision by a magistrate that has a
direct negative impact. On who??? The whole citizenry,
and individual, non-citizens? Poor, in fact awful and
sloppy wording.
[CFD] Uti Rogas
[TGP] VTI ROGAS
[MIP] VTI ROGAS.
[GMM] Nego I vote not to amend the constitution as
suggested
[LMS] VTI·ROGAS
[MMA] Uti Rogas
[PMS] UTI ROGAS
[AMA] VTI ROGAS
[MOG] UTI ROGAS
[TOPA] Uti rogas.
The wording should be changed, though. Nobody can
issue intercessio against the acts of a private
citizen. Change "[...]such appeal to be immune from
intercessio by[...]" to "[...]such appeal cannot be
denied by[...]" or something similar.
[GPL] Uti Rogas
[GSA] ABSTINEO.
Although I agree that we need to re-define (or
rather define) what "provocatio ad populum" really
means, I am afraid that this piece of text does not
really define it well enough. It still looks as if a
private citizen had the power to call himself the
Comitia to order, which is something that goes against
Roman tradition and all the inner logic of the Roman
political system. Since this votation is merely a
preliminary "request for comments" from the Senate -
my congratulations on that line of action, consules -
I would suggest further tinkering with this item
before presenting it to the Comitia.
[JSM] Uti Rogas
[LSA] Uti rogas
[QSP] VTI ROGAS
[ATMC] VTI ROGAS
[FVG] yes
Results of Item II: Uti Rogas, 26; Antiquo, 1;
Abstineo, 2.
Item THREE: AMENDMENT III
II Section B 'Comitia Centuriata"
From "3. (concerning the Comitia Centuriata) "to try
legal cases in which the defendant is subject to
permanent removal of citizenship"
Proposed Change: to render verdicts in appeals of
Provocatio ad populum in which the defendant (reus) is
subject to loss of citizenship.
Corresponding changes proposed to the Section III of
remaining comitia:
Clause 3 concerning Comitia Plebia Tributa reads: "To
try legal cases solely involving members of the
Plebian Order that do not involve permanent removal of
citizenship" ...
Proposed change: " to render verdicts in appeals of
court rulings (sententia) by members of the Plebian
Order which do not involve removal of citizenship.
Clause 3 concerning Comitia Populi Tributa reads: "
To try legal cases that do not involve permanent
removal of citizenship"
Proposed Change: To render verdicts in appeals which
do not involve removal of citizenship.
[FAC] I vote ABSTINEO to all items, unluckly I was
unable to follow the discussion
[MAM] Uti Rogas
[MBA] Uti Rogas
[MCJ] Uti Rogas
[PC] Uti Rogas
[CCS] Uti rogas
[ECF] Uti Rogas.
[GEM] Uti Rogas
[LECA] Absto
[GFBM] Uti Rogas
[CFBQ] Uti Rogas
[QFM] NO
This is a restriction of a right. Any law that is
created that has as its penalty loss of citizenship
should be automatically heard by the Comitia
Centuriata based on the Constitution. As written this
alteration will mean that citizenship could be removed
under penalty of some future law without referral to
the Comitia Centuriata. The only way that could happen
is if there is an appeal made to the people. Now of
course if a citizen is under a nota as well and at
risk of expulsion he won't be able to publically post
his claim to appeal on the ML or other NR lists
because he will be moderated by the Praetors.
(Remember Drusus?) Thus a magistrate so inclined in
concert with a compliant Censor could effectively
block a public claim for provocatio after trial and
sentence of exile, while the accused would be and who
would really know that citizen was requesting appeal.
Cases involving banishment should have to
automatically go before the people. It appears that
power has been shifted to the executive rather than
people. As this is written, a citizen of Nova Roma
could easily be gotten rid of in a rigged court and
through a nota stiffling any call for appeal. While
one may sneak the appeal through friends onto the ML,
what about others not so fortunate? Conscript
Fathers I believe this is potentially dangerous. The
new amendment also restricts the rights of the Comitia
Plebia Tributa to only try cases of exile as a
sentence on appeal. Once the Constitution places a
limit on what the CPT or the CC can do that is final
and binding. The people will never have a voice in
serious trials only appeals. Again too dangerous.
[CFD] Uti Rogas
[TGP] VTI ROGAS
[MIP] VTI ROGAS.
[GMM] Nego
I vote not to amend the constitution as suggested
[LMS] VTI·ROGAS
[MMA] Uti Rogas
[PMS] UTI ROGAS
[AMA] VTI ROGAS
[MOG] UTI ROGAS
[TOPA] Uti rogas.
A more accurate statement of how the judical
power of the Comitia worked.
[GPL] Uti Rogas
[GSA] VTI ROGAS.
These changes would be an improvement over the
current text.
[JSM] Uti Rogas
[LSA] Antiquo
I don't see the value of these changes. I think
we spend too much time playing with moving words
around. If that's all we have to do, let's plan more
picnics.
[QSP] VTI ROGAS
[ATMC] VTI ROGAS
[FVG] yes
Results of Item III: Uti Rogas, 25; Antiquo, 2;
Abstineo, 2.
Item FOUR: AMENDMENT IV
IV Magistrates 1. 'Censor'
1. f. 1. reads "A nota against an ordinary
individual is sufficient to deprive that individual of
the right to vote until such time as it is removed;
Proposed Change: A nota against a citizen is
sufficient to deprive him of the Iura Publica
(corresponds with C-2 under "Citizen Rights above),
defined as the right to vote and the right to
candidate for public office until such time as the
nota is removed.
2. A nota against a member of the Senate is
sufficient to remove that individual from the Senate
until such time as it is removed.
3. Proposed Change: In addition to f-1. above, a
nota against a member of the Senate is sufficient to
remove that individual from the Senate until such time
as it is removed.
[FAC] I vote ABSTINEO to all items, unluckly I was
unable to follow the discussion
[MAM] Uti Rogas
[MBA] Antiquo
I like the idea of a minimum standard as well
[MCJ] Antiquo
I agree that a minimum standard is needed
[PC] Antiquo
[CCS] Uti rogas
[ECF] Uti Rogas.
[GEM] Uti Rogas
[LECA] Antiquo.
I want standards as well
[GFBM] Uti Rogas
[CFBQ] Uti Rogas
[QFM] NO
Badly written. To what purpose? Needs rewriting.
[CFD] Antiquo
[TGP] ANTIQUO (No).
[MIP] VTI ROGAS.
[GMM] Nego
I vote not to amend the constitution as suggested
[LMS] VTI·ROGAS
[MMA] Uti Rogas
[PMS] UTI ROGAS
[AMA] ANTIQUO (No).
[MOG] UTI ROGAS
[TOPA] Uti rogas.
Another historical change. Remove the parenthesis
and the definition, though.
[GPL] Antiquo
I repeat the need for standards.
[GSA] VTI ROGAS.
This proposal does not follow Roman tradition
strictly. But then, we currently lack the kind of
social pressure that made a censorial nota effective
in the Roman Republic. Therefore, I consider this
departure from historical practice a temporary
necessary evil, until the conditions are met for the
instauration of historical notae.
[JSM] Uti Rogas
[LSA] Antiquo
I do not see value in this change. I am
suspicious of increasing the power of one branch of
government over another.
[QSP] ANTIQUO.
[ATMC] ANTIQUO
I agree that there should be some minimum
standards.
[FVG] yes
Results of Item IV: Uti Rogas, 16; Antiquo, 12;
Abstineo, 1.
Item FIVE: AMENDMENT V
The following amendment has been approved by the
Collegium Pontificum and is placed here for voting and
consideration. There is a second proposed Lex that
"goes with" this one but the second one is not a
constitutional amendment and I can, if requested, be
posted for the senates review. The constitutional
amendment proposal is as follows:
Lex Fabia de Quattuor Collegiis Summis Sacerdotalibus
PROOEMIVM (Preamble)
The objective of this legislative proposal is to amend
the Constitution of Nova Roma in order to provide a
framework for a more faithful reconstruction of the
religious institutions of the Roman Republic.
The first paragraphs deal with the elimination of
"priestly decrees" as a source of law in Nova Roma.
The last one substitutes the current paragraphs of the
Consitution that define the religious institutions of
Nova Roma.
-------
I. Paragraph I.A. of the Constitution of Nova Roma
shall be amended to read as follows:
"A. This Constitution shall be the basic authority for
all decision-making within Nova Roma and shall limit
the authority of all magistrates and bodies, and all
leges (laws) passed by the comitia, magisterial edicta
(edicts) and Senatus consulta shall be subject to it
except as provided by the following three provisos:
[...]"
II. Paragraph I.B. of the Constitution of Nova Roma
shall be amended to read as follows:
"B. Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the
highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from
edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It
shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by
edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus
consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one
of the comitia, Senatus consulta, and magisterial
edicta (in order of descending authority as described
in section IV of this Constitution) , in that order.
Should a lower authority conflict with a higher
authority, the higher authority shall take precedence.
Should a law passed by one of the comitia contradict
one passed by another or the same comitia without
explicitly superseding that law, the most recent law
shall take precedence."
III. Paragraph III.A. of the Constitution of Nova Roma
shall be amended to read as follows:
"A. The Comitia Curiata (Assembly of Curiae) shall be
made up of thirty lictores curiati (lictors of the
Curia), appointed to their position by the Senatus
following a responsum from the Collegium Pontificum
(College of Pontiffs). It shall be called to order by
the Pontifex Maximus, who shall set the rules by which
the Comitia Curiata shall operate internally following
the pertinent responsa from the Collegium Pontificum.
It shall have the following responsibilities:
[...]"
IV. Paragraph VI. of the Constitution of Nova Roma
shall be amended to read as follows:
"VI. Public Religious Institutions
A. The Cultus Deorum Romanorum, the worship of the
Gods and Goddesses of Rome, shall be the official
religion of Nova Roma. All magistrates and senators,
as officers of the State, shall be required to
publicly show respect for the Cultus Deorum and the
Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great, and to
perform the public religious rites and ceremonies
established by the law. Magistrates, senators, and
citizens need not be practitioners of the Cultus
Deorum in the their private lifes, but may not engage
in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or
defames the Gods, the Cultus Deorum, or its
practitioners.
B. The priesthoods of the Gods of Rome shall be
organized as closely as practical on the ancient Roman
model. The institutions of the Cultus Deorum shall
have authority over religious matters on the level of
the State only, maintaining the religious rites of the
State and providing resources pertaining to the Cultus
Deorum which citizens may make use of if they so
choose. Nova Roma shall approach all other religions
with a syncretistic outlook, offering friendship to
all paths which acknowledge the right of those who
practice and honor the Cultus Deorum to do so and
respect the beliefs thereof. Only citizens of Nova
Roma may be members of the public institutions of the
Cultus Deorum.
C. The four major priestly colleges of Nova Roma shall
be, in order of precedence:
1. The Collegium Pontificum
2. The Collegium Augurum
3. The Collegium Decemvirorum Sacris Faciundis
4. The Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum
Besides these four colleges, there shall be other
religious collegia, sodalitates and sacerdotes, both
public and private.
D. Each Collegium shall have a particular area of
responsibility, authority and expertise. Consultations
formulated to a given Collegium may be referred to a
different Collegium if, according to a majority of the
members of the Collegium expressing their opinion,
they do not correspond to the sphere of that
Collegium.
1. The Collegium Pontificum shall have the following
duties and responsibilities:
a. To respond, upon the request of the magistrates,
the Senate, or private citizens, to consultations
about the sacra publica, the sacra privata, burial
practices and all the religious practices that do not
explicitly fall in the sphere of a different
Collegium.
b. To issue and maintain the official religious
calendar, indicating all religious festivals, dies
fasti, nefasti, comitiales and endotercisi.
c. To take care of the festivities and the temples
that do not have a specific priest assigned to them.
2. The Collegium Augurum shall have the following
duties and responsibilities:
a. To respond, upon the request of the magistrates,
the Senate, or private citizens, to consultations
about divination public divination practices and the
consecration of spaces and magistrates (jus augurum).
b. To celebrate the Augurium Salutis in times of peace
for the well-being of the Roman people.
c. To perform the inauguratio of cities, temples,
priests and magistrates.
d. To oversee and advise the magistrate (auspex) with
jus auspicium when he takes the auguries upon calling
a comitia to assemble, upon taking office as a
magistrate, at the erection of a temple, and on other
occasions, seeing that the rite was done correctly and
that nothing might invalidate it. They shall not take
the auspices themselves, nor determine how the signs
should finally be read.
3. The Collegium Decemvirorum Sacris Faciundis shall
have the following duties and responsibilities:
a. To maintain the Libri Sibyllini. To propose to the
Senate the inclusion of new texts into the Libri
Sibyllini. To maintain other officially approved
prophetic texts.
b. To consult, at the request of the Senate, the Libri
Sibyllini in order to discover the religious
observances necessary to avert extraordinary
calamities and to expiate ominous prodigies.
c. To verify the application of the Sibylline oracles.
To preside over the religious practices prescribed by
them.
d. To preside over the cleaning of the Black Stone of
Pesinunte.
e. To celebrate the games of Apollo and the Ludi
Saeculares.
4. The Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum shall have the
following duties and responsibilities:
a. To organize the banquets of public festivals and
games, especially the Epulum Jovis.
E. Whenever a conflict concerning jurisdiction occurs
between two Collegia, the Senate of Nova Roma shall,
through senatus consultum, be the ultimate judge on
which Collegium should be consulted."
F. The various Collegia shall have the following
maximum number of members:
1. In the Collegium Pontificum there shall be a
maximum of nine (9) Pontifices, including one (1)
Pontifex Maximus.
2. In the Collegium Augurum there shall be a maximum
of nine (9) Augures.
3. In the Collegium Decemvirorum Sacris Faciundis
there shall be a maximum of ten (10) Decemviri Sacris
Faciundis.
4. In the Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum there shall
be a maximum of seven (7) Septemviri Epulones.
G. Each Collegium shall be responsible in front of the
Senate and the Comitia of recruiting and providing the
means to instruct prospective new members, so that the
maximum number of members for each Collegium is kept
at all times.
H. Whenever a new member has to be co-opted into one
of the Quattuor Summa Collegia, with that Collegium
having at least three current members, two members of
that Collegium shall be selected by all the current
members and, between them, the two selected members
shall draw up a shortlist of three candidates. All the
members shall then elect a candidate from the
shortlist. The candidate receiving the most votes
shall then be inaugurated as member of the Collegium
within one month, with all the duties and privileges
associated with the position.
I. Should at any time one of the Quattuor Summa
Collegia, excluding the Collegium Pontificum, have
fewer than three (3) members, the following process
shall be followed:
1. The members of the Collegium Pontificum shall issue
a responsum indicating their recommendations to the
Senate on who might be adlected to the other collegia.
2. The Senate shall appoint through a senatus
consultum the members necessary to reach three (3)
members in the specific collegium.
3. The consules shall call the Comitia Populi Tributa
to order to confirm the Senate's selections.
J. Should the Collegium Pontificum at any time have
fewer than (3) members, Senate shall appoint the
members necessary to reach that number, and the
consules shall call the Comitia Populi Tributa to
order to confirm the Senate's selections.
K. The members of each one of the Quattuor Summa
Collegia shall have the duty to respond, upon request
from the magistrates or private citizens, to questions
about Roman ritual practice. These responses shall be
called "decreta" (sing. "decretum") or "responsa"
(sing. "responsum") . For an official responsum to be
issued, the consultation must be officially presented,
either by the consultor or by a member of the
Collegium, to all the members of that Collegium as a
whole through the public mailing list indicated for
this purpose by the internal rules of the Collegium
Itself.
L. Responsa shall not state any conclusions about
particular facts or situations, but shall only state
general rules of religious law. It shall not be the
task of the members of the Quattuor Summa Collegia to
apply these rules to specific situations.
M. No responsum shall be given within the first
seventy-two (72) hours from the time when the
consultation is presented to the members of a given
Collegium. During that time any member of the
Collegium may request, on the same mailing list, a
delay so that the question can be discussed by all the
members of the Collegium who wish to discuss it.
N. If, after the seventy-two (72) hours have passed,
no member of the Collegium has requested a delay, any
member of the Collegium may issue a responsum.
O. If, within the seventy-two (72) hours, any member
of the Collegium requests a delay, a discussion shall
take place among those members who wish to discuss the
issue. Together they shall formulate a responsum. Once
that responsum has been agreed by a majority of those
members of the Collegium involved in the discussion,
that responsum shall be issued formally and
collectively by all the members of the Collegium
involved in the discussion.
P. Responsa are interpretations of jus sacrum (sacred
law) that pre-exists the decision of a Collegium and
are immanent. Therefore, previous responsa issued by
at least three members of a Collegium shall not be
contradicted by later responsa. However, it is
possible that a Collegium may occasionally make
mistakes in its interpretation of jus sacrum. If, as a
result of further research, at least three members of
that Collegium consider that a previous responsum was
mistaken, the Collegium shall reconsider the responsum
using the same procedure stated in section E above. If
they conclude that the previous responsum was
mistaken, they shall formulate a new responsum and it
shall be issued collectively by all the Pontifices
involved in the discussion. The Collegium shall
perform expiation for its mistake, and shall declare
the appropriate expiation for any private individual
who has acted improperly on the basis of the mistaken
responsum.
Q. Each Collegium shall maintain a collection of
previously delivered responsa to consultations on
religious issues. All the information contained in
those books shall be readily available to the public
through the Nova Roma web site.
R. The members of each Collegium shall be entitled to
wear, during the celebration of sacra publica, the
insignia that mark them as members of each one of the
Quattuor Summa Collegia. These insignia shall be:
1. For the Collegium Pontificum: the tunica praetexta.
2. For the Collegium Augurum: the toga trabea, the
capis and the lituus.
3. For the Collegium Septemvirorum Epulonum: the toga
praetexta and the patera."
[FAC] I vote ABSTINEO to all items, unluckly I was
unable to follow the discussion
[MAM] Uti Rogas
[MBA] Abstineo
[MCJ] Antiquo
I'll explain my vote for Consul Modianus and
others. This proposal would remove a huge amount of
power from the Collegium Pontificum. While it would
probably solve some serious problems in the short
term, I feel it would probably be detrimental in the
long term. Solving current problems in the CP cannot
guarantee equal or more serious problems coming from a
future Senate that might not be supportive of the
Religio.
[PC] Antiquo
[CCS] Uti rogas
This is very important step forward in bringing
NR into more historical state. Honoured senator T.
Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus has already voiced the same
concern I have, but othervise I welcome this change
with many thanks for those who have worked hard to
make it. Please consules, let's have this in the
comitia soon!
[ECF] Uti Rogas.
A very welcome improvement to the historical
accuracy of the Nova Roma.
[GEM] Uti Rogas
[LECA] Antiquo.
"This places the CP at the mercy of magistrates
who may be non-practioners. "
[GFBM] Uti Rogas
[CFBQ] Uti Rogas
I think the deadlock within the Collegium
Pontificium and Augurum must be broken, As far as I
can see the power over the Religio will be kept among
the citizens that actually are the priesthood, but
both the structure and civil power will be restored to
its historical base. The present structure of the
priesthood is a joke and not at all close to the
historical state. If I by voting for this item can
open the Religio up for a more active service to the
Gods I will do it. The only place were this "terrible"
Senate will have any influence is in appointing a new
Augur after the recommendation of the Pontifex
Collegium to the Collegium Augur. This needs to be
done as its two members haven't been able to agree
about new members (i.e. Vedius). When it is done the
Collegium Augurum will be able to make all cooptions
itself without the "terrible" Senate interfering.
[QFM] NO.
It strips the CP of the right to issue decreta
that have the value of law, by removing that section
from para 1.B of the Constitution. This places the CP
at the mercy of magistrates who may be
non-practioners.
I never voted for this in the CP. I know at least
four Pontiffs who did not as well, one who was the PM.
Our biggest argument as I recall was beside the
decreta, was the unecessary rights and obligations,
most of which cannot be carried out practically.
Cleaning the black stone for instance. Roleplaying at
its worst. Anyone not knowing better and reading this
right now, would be convinced that NR Religio was a
game.
[CFD] Antiquo
[TGP] Antiquo
[MIP] VTI ROGAS.
[GMM] Nego
I vote not to adopt this amendment.
[LMS] VTI·ROGAS
[MMA] Abstineo
[PMS] UTI ROGAS.
I am in agreement with the basic principles and
objectives of this proposal, and I welcome its
advancement to comitia for consideration of the
people.
[AMA] VTI ROGAS
[MOG] UTI ROGAS
[TOPA] Uti rogas.
Again, the wording should be changed somewhat, as
the part cited above causes some problems with
magistrates and senators of non-inclusive faiths. My
suggestion would be changing "[...] to perform the
public religio us rites and ceremonies established by
the law. [...]" to "[...] to ensure that the public
religious rites and ceremonies established by law are
performed. [...]", thus leaving the option of proxies
open.
[GPL] Antiquo.
My stance has always been that the practitioners
need to be in control of the Religio.
[GSA] VTI ROGAS.
I wrote the text of this proposal, so I won't
enumerate its merits. Let me say, however, that those
who are speaking against it seem to be speaking about
completely different things that have absolutely
nothing to do with this proposal, so I simply invite
whomever is in doubt to read it carefully and to make
up their own minds.
[JSM] Uti Rogas
[LSA] Antiquo
Even "fuzzy bunny lovers, treehuggers and
Christians" who are guardians of a Roman state must
understand that Roman spirituality is central to the
Res Publica and cannot be set aside or quarantined
from the Res Publica in the manner of that other Nova
Roma - the U.S.A., any more than the health of the
body can be ignored or de-prioritized in a private
life. If the Religio is not healthy and at the core of
public affairs, then government becomes a bloated,
destructive malignancy that ultimately leads to the
death of the state. That is what happened to Roma
Antiqva. I will defer comment on current macronational
affairs. We should not let it happen to Nova Roma.
Deleting the authority of pontifical decreta et edicta
is not in the interest of the Res Publica.
[QSP] ANTIQUO.
[ATMC] ANTIQUO.
I also believe that the practitioners of Cultus
Deorum Romanorum should be in control.
[FVG] no
Results of Item V: Uti Rogas, 15; Antiquo, 11;
Abstineo, 3.
- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
Salvete
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis
_______________________________________________________
Você quer respostas para suas perguntas? Ou você sabe muito e quer compartilhar seu conhecimento? Experimente o Yahoo! Respostas !
http://br.answers.yahoo.com/