> I don't personally know any of the people involved here. I'm just
> uncomfortable with something being declared illegal because the law
> intended it to be or presumed it would not happen without clearly >stating that fact.

> You put forward the reason for its invalidity as ancient Roman custom,

>> and yet you choose not to follow the ancient Roman custom that says even questionable actions by magistrates are upheld?

>
> C. Petronius T. Regulo s.p.d.,
>
> > You put forward the reason for its invalidity as ancient Roman custom,
>
> Not only, in the case of this edictum we have the Popillia Senatoria lex, it is very clear. I added the ancient customs to explain the meaning of the plurial used in the Popillia Senatoria lex.
>
> >> and yet you choose not to follow the ancient Roman custom that says even questionable actions by magistrates are upheld?
>
> Where I choose that? What questionable actions are upheld by magistrates? If the action is outlaw, it is outlaw.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

> At the end of the edictum we have:
>
> Datum sub manibus nostris pr. Kal. Mai. MMDCCLXII a.u.c.
> Given by my hand this 30th day of April 2762 A.U.C.
>
> If the Latin phrase has "sub manibus nostris", the plurial because of both censores, the English version has "by my hand"... as alone censor. So the English signature is not acceptable, because of the collegial decision involved in the Latin plurial, so this is an outlaw act.>>>

Very good analysis! In the language of our ancestors is the truth.

VALE BENE,
T. Iulius Sabinus

On 5/1/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

C. Petronius Fl. Lucillae Merulae s.p.d.,


In the Popillia senatoria law, if you read it, you see the words written. "Censores", "they" and "both censores". The law is clear enough to demonstrate that the edictum of Paulinus is outlaw. It is signed under his hand, not under the hand of the both censores.

Yes but I've been told that applied when two censors were in office. We apparently have no laws to cover the situation when only one censor is in office. I've also very kindly had it explained to me what the writers of the law intended and presumed. Unfortunately they don't seem to have clearly stated that.  This leaves the law open to interpretation. You are interpreting it one way, which is quite logical. I can also see another way of interpreting it which appears to me also to be logical. Perhaps at some point it could be rewritten to clarify the situation.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

>>> And I say that the lex Popillia was obviously written assuming that there would be two censors. There are not right now. <<<

> So if we look to ancient mos to determine he should not have acted
> unilaterally, how can we not also consider the ancient practice
> that his actions and person are inviolate regardless of legality
> until after his term?

>
> L. Livia Plauta omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Really, it should even be superfluous to spend words about interpretations. This is one of the few cases where NR law is crystal clear. It takes two censors to appoint senators. No "but"s, no "if"s.
>
> Optime valete omnes,
> Livia
>
> >
> > Well, in the case of the current Edictum about the senatorial appointments, our law is not even silent: the lex Popillia senatoria (III.H) explicitly states that:
> >
> > "A new senator may only be added to the list with the agreement of both censores."
> > http://novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Popillia_senatoria_(Nova_Roma)
> >
> > This is the only paragraph in our laws where it is explicitly, clearly and definitely stated that a magistrate may act only and exculsively in a collegial way. It is indeed not written in our laws that a consul cannot do something without the approval of his colleague, it's not stated that an aedile or a praetor can act only with his colleague's consent. But here, in the lex Popillia, only here it is ordered. Is it not evidently clear what the intention of the lex Popillia was? I think it is very clear: to avoid having one sole censor appointing senators.
> >
> > Now just it has happened. It has happened what the law forbids: so where is a question here at all? There is no question: these appointments are invalid.
> >
> > In my personal opinion, the lex Popillia can not be interpreted any other way: in the view of the laws that regulate all other magistracies, we can see that there is never required so openly and explicitly that both of the two colleagues act together in a certain legal issue: it *is*, however, required from the censors. Is it mistake in the law: no, not at all. This was the intention of the law: to make it impossible that a censor without a colleague or against his colleague appoint senators.
> >
> > This is what my firm opinion is.
> >
> > But, even if it is clear in my view what the law says, let me suppose that some people are right (though they aren't) to say there is an another way to interpret the lex Popillia senatoria, as if it would allow a single censor without colleague to appoint senators. But even if the lex Popillia had two interpretations, we have a clear answer to the question of which interpretation is the one that we must follow. It is a principle of the law of Nova Roma that where the written law of Nova Roma is silent or unclear, ancient Roman law is applicable: and we follow the ancient republican customs. And the ancient republican custom is not a secrete in the case of the censors: they were allowed to appoint senators only if acting as a *pair*. No single censor was ever allowed to appoint a senator.
> >
> > Our respected and well-known lawyer, A. Apollonius Cordus, expert of Roman law and a person who contributed very much to Nova Roman legislation could explained it much more eloquently than I can. He wrote his message about another censorial edict where the censors misinterpreted the law similarly to the current situation. Anybody can learn *a lot* from his message and adapt it to our present case:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/46679
> >
> > Let me cite the most important part of his message about what we should do if we have debate about the interpretation of a certain law:
> >
> >
> > "It is, I think, now universally accepted in Nova Roma that where our written law
> >
> > is silent, unclear, or in need of interpretation, it should be interpreted in
> >
> > the light of ancient republican law. This means that, where two or more
> >
> > plausible interpretations of a lex are available, the correct one is the one
> >
> > which is closest to ancient republican law and custom. It is not for the
> >
> > relevant magistrate to choose whichever interpretation he prefers. This is true
> >
> > of all leges, but it must surely be true most especially of a lex, like the lex
> >
> > Popillia, which is explicitly said (by its proposer in debate and indeed by the
> >
> > lex itself in its own preamble) to be intended to restore ancient republican
> >
> > rules." (A. Apollonius Cordus)
> >
> >
> > I admit it, and I repeat again, that it is possible that some interpret the lex Popillia in another way: but
> > since we have a well established practice the orders us to follow ancient Roman
> > legal practices whenever a dubious point arises in NR laws, it is more
> > then evident and more than well known that ancient Romans understood it
> > so that *no single censor*, no censor without a colleague may appoint
> > or remove a senator.
> >
> > Please, Censor Ti. Galeri Pauline, correct your mistake as soon as possible,
> > because the current edictum as it is stands will make questionable all
> > the appointed persons' senatorial status for ever.
> >
> > That would be very dangerous to the senate as whole, to its credibility as our highest governing body.
> >
>

>
> On 5/1/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Fl. Lucillae Merulae s.p.d.,
> >
> >
> > In the Popillia senatoria law, if you read it, you see the words written.
> > "Censores", "they" and "both censores". The law is clear enough to
> > demonstrate that the edictum of Paulinus is outlaw. It is signed under his
> > hand, not under the hand of the both censores.
>
>
> Yes but I've been told that applied when two censors were in office.

> We apparently have no laws to cover the situation when
> only one censor is in office.

> Perhaps at some
> point it could be rewritten to clarify the situation.

> ah, and isn't the senate still in session?

>
> Salvete,
>
> As a former Tribune, I think that the Tribunes may be hard put to find a
> reason to veto this edict. According to the LEX DIDIA GEMINA DE POTESTATE
> TRIBUNICIA, when a Tribune wishes to issue a veto, he/she must refer to "c.
> The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's
> act(s)." A few citizens have mentioned a law citing that the authors meant
> plural censors at all times. And since neither the constitution or the law
> mentions otherwise, others interpret it as if there is one censor, then the
> one censor can appoint senatores. So I am not sure that semantics qualifies
> as a reason to veto. It would be a you say potato and I say potahto type of
> veto.
>
> Vale,
> Diana Octavia
>

>> A few citizens have mentioned a law citing that the authors meant
> plural censors at all times....

>
> Salvete omnes
>
> I would also like a direct answer to Merula's excellent question. If what is being said here is true, then the current censor, in effect, has no power whatsoever while he is the sole occupant of the office. Is this, in fact, the case?
>
> Gratias
>
> M. Cor. Dexter
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/30/09, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete;
> > > as many have repeated on this list 'the law must be respected'
> > >
> > > The Lex Popillia requires 2 censors to make senatorial apppointments!
> >
> >
> > But as I said, that's presuming there are two censors. What does it say
> > about what will happen when there is only one? You said we look to the
> > practice of Republican Rome. What did they do when they only had one censor
> > and what sources tell us this?
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> >
>

>
> Maior,
>
> We have Tribunes. They protect us and speak for us. We should let them do their jobs. If they start neglecting their duties then we can start kicking up a fuss. I don't know how you can swing from claiming even illegal actions are valid to now not even being willing to allow the Tribunes to do its job and determine the lawfulness of an act. You may fear a Dictator, but you are promoting anarchy..
>
> Vale,
> T.ANNÆVS.REGVLVS
>
>
> From: Maior
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE SENATORIBVS ADLEGENDIS pr. Kal. Mai.
>
>
>
>
>
> M.Hortensia T. Regulo sd:
> I dont uphold it either. Next Paulinus could declare himself dictator.... I would refuse that too. If we let magistrates behave illegally we will wind up with a Dictator or Emperor.
> Maior
> >
> > C. Petronius T. Regulo s.p.d.,
> >
> > > You put forward the reason for its invalidity as ancient Roman custom,
> >
> > Not only, in the case of this edictum we have the Popillia Senatoria lex, it is very clear. I added the ancient customs to explain the meaning of the plurial used in the Popillia Senatoria lex.
> >
> > >> and yet you choose not to follow the ancient Roman custom that says even questionable actions by magistrates are upheld?
> >
> > Where I choose that? What questionable actions are upheld by magistrates? If the action is outlaw, it is outlaw.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
>

> I wholeheartedly agree. This is a matter for the Tribunes and not individual interpretation. I am glad we agree.

> I have read through the debate thus far and am not convinced that this
> appointment of Senators is illegal and improper; irregular and
> unprecedented, yes, but not the other.

> But now where it is written that the tribunes of the plebs could stop
> the census or the edictum of the censors? Show me the article of the
> law which give this power to the tribunes.

>
>
> C. Petronius P. Venatori s.p.d.,
>
> > I have read through the debate thus far and am not convinced that this
> > appointment of Senators is illegal and improper; irregular and
> > unprecedented, yes, but not the other.
>
> It is not unprecedented, Julius Caesar made it. He added more than 300 senators in one time. I know that Cicero made a joke on this surplus Senate, but I do not remember.
>
> Do you want a dictatorship in place of our republic? One man can not decide alone, it is the basis of the Roman Republic. We have two consuls, we have two censors, we have two praetors... it is not by fantasy. "We do not need another hero", as sing Tina Turner.
>
> We need magistrates which proudly respect their oath of office, no which frequent the Back Alley to seek some new senators in.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

>
> Anything that is not disallowed is allowed. Senatrices could be added without following any of the laws provided if you wanted to be really literal. Also, these laws all pertains to 'the Censors' and they. We have no Censors. We have a Censor. Perhaps he can do whatever he likes without following these laws at all as they are clearly meant for a Censorial team? Interpretation can be so varied.
>
> T.ANNÆVS.REGVLVS
>
>
> From: Gaius Petronius Dexter
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:00 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE SENATORIBVS ADLEGENDIS pr. Kal. Mai.
>
>
>
>
>
> C. Petronius Dianae Octaviae Aventinae s.p.d.,
>
> >> A few citizens have mentioned a law citing that the authors meant
> > plural censors at all times....
>
> The law exactly says :
>
> "H. A new senator may only be added to the list with the agreement of both censores."
>
> It is written "senator" not "senatrix". If you want to play with the text of the law and not understand the spirit of it, I can use these phrase to demonstrate that the law do not permit new senatrix in the Senate.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

> It's in the Constitution of Nova Roma. See
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_(Nova_Roma)

> I think that *any other magistrate* pretty clearly covers Censor Paulinus.

> I believe I have acted legally and morally in making these Senate appointments.

> I was elected,

> as all Censors are, to a two year term of office.

> Nova Roman law does not ask nor require that I step down when my colleague resigned.

> If the FIVE Tribunes, by majority vote, inform me, in private, that I have violated the law I will withdraw my edict.

> I will, however, never resign as Censor.

>>> Show me a law that speaks of

>>> The new reality that this creates, having a single Censor, is

>>> In the Republic, magistrates held authority

>>> The Romans made the

>>>> For better or worse, our current system allows a

>
> LOL Because you can do something does not mean you should. I suppose if the Censor thought it was in NR's best interests he could. But I think we all have more faith in our Censor than that. The list of candidates he has provided seemed balanced, fair, and composed of reasonable and intelligent individuals who will be a beneficial addition to NR's BoD.
>
> T.ANNÆVS.REGVLVS
>
>
> From: Maior
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:37 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE SENATORIBVS ADLEGENDIS pr. Kal. Mai.
>
>
>
>
>
> If interpretation is so varied, perhaps we should have 300 senatores added solely by Paulinus and Incitatus too.
> Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> > Anything that is not disallowed is allowed. Senatrices could be added without following any of the laws provided if you wanted to be really literal. Also, these laws all pertains to 'the Censors' and they. We have no Censors. We have a Censor. Perhaps he can do whatever he likes without following these laws at all as they are clearly meant for a Censorial team? Interpretation can be so varied.
> >
> > T.ANNÆVS.REGVLVS
> >
> >
> > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter
> > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:00 PM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE SENATORIBVS ADLEGENDIS pr. Kal. Mai.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > C. Petronius Dianae Octaviae Aventinae s.p.d.,
> >
> > >> A few citizens have mentioned a law citing that the authors meant
> > > plural censors at all times....
> >
> > The law exactly says :
> >
> > "H. A new senator may only be added to the list with the agreement of both censores."
> >
> > It is written "senator" not "senatrix". If you want to play with the text of the law and not understand the spirit of it, I can use these phrase to demonstrate that the law do not permit new senatrix in the Senate.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
>

>
> Maior Dextro Annaeo spd;
> Exactly; no one acknowledges this illegality.

> Please stop talking about illegality Maior. It has never concerned you before, there is no sense in starting now.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "galerius_of_rome" <galerius_of_rome@...> wrote:
>
> Citizens of the Republic of Nova Roma, Conscript Fathers
> Salve et salvete,
> In my capacity as Tribunis Plebis, I render my opinion, concerning the following
> Edictum.
> Edictum Cencorium De Senatoribus Alendis pri.Kal.mai.
>
> "A new senator may only be added to the list with the agreement of both
> censores." Lex Popillia, III. H.
>
> So no matter how many censors are, what's the point is that a senator can be
> appointed only by an agreement of both censors.
>
> I will analyze the lex Popillia to prove it. The lex Popillia uses the following
> words:
>
> "A new senator may *only* be added..."
>
> It doesn't say: "may be added", it says exactly: "a new senator may only be
> added". What does "only" mean? It means "this is the unique way that you can use
> to do this". What does "may" mean? It means "this is how it is permitted".
>
> So what the law says further? What is this "only" way to add a new senator to
> the list? How can you "only" add a senator to the list?
>
> "...with the agreement of both censores."
>
> What does "agreement" mean? It means action of more than one person, "an action
> of accepting each other's opinion and decision". What does "both censores" mean?
> It means "two censors" as a pair.
>
> So the one, the unique, the only one way to add a new senator to the list is
> that both censors have accept each others' opinion and to make an agreement
> about the individuals to be appointed. There is no other procedure to appoint a
> senator.
>
> The law is very clear about the fact that the only way to appoint a senator is
> to be appointed by a mutual agreement of two censors. The law states that it is
> the "only" way to make an appointment: if there are no two censors, just one
> censor, he can't appoint senators because it is not written in the law that
> there would be another way to appoint a senator than through an agreement of two
> sitting censors.
>
> If the wording is questionable (what I think is not) you can still get an answer
> following our NR legal principle that universally accepted in Nova Roma that
> where our written law is silent, unclear, or in need of interpretation, it
> should be interpreted in the light of ancient republican law. And ancient
> republican law forbids the censor to make an unilateral appointment or to
> appoint a senator where he doesn't have a colleague.
>
> In light of all these arguments, I respectfully join my hand with my Colleague;
> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus in his Veto.
>
>
> Cura, ut valeas optime!
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> Tribunis et Plebis
>

>
> Salve Deci Iuni,

> > In the event there is one censor in essence that one censor has the
> > full authority of both.
>
> He certainly has the full authority to conduct day to day >activities. He does not have the authority to appoint senators. >Not only is it in direct contravention of established practice, it >violates the clear words of the Lex Popillia Senatoria.

> > What the censor has done is not illegal,
>
> I happen to think it is. I have asked the Tribunes to make a >decision.

> > What I find most interesting is that those most opposed to this
> > were silent or in support of far more dangerous actions to the
> > Republic, like the pretend trials of Cincinnatus which brought Nova
> > Roma to its knees--where it remains!
>
> I happen to think that the charges against Cincinnatus were >justified.

>I disagreed with the trial proceedings at the time, and I told the >people in a position to make a difference. I still think the >charges should have been held in abayence, but that is neither here >nor there now.

>
> The fact remains that Censor Paulinus has taken a unilateral >action, apparently without consulting anybody else. He certainly >didn't consult me and I'm in his censorial cohors where I'm supposed >to be advising him on best censorial practices. Had he asked me I'd >have advised against this action of his. In a matter of weeks he'll >have a colleague and he could proceed then.

>I note that Censor Paulinus stated that he had been, very recently,
> asked by one of the Consuls to issue a nota against someone whilst
> he was the SOLE censor.

> Now if this nota that was requested was say against Sulla, Cato,
> Poplicola, or myself I am sure all those clamoring about how
> terrible Censor Paulinus' actions are now

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Palladio spd;
> what do you mean? Please post an example of my behaving in an illegal manner when a magistrate.
> I talk about Roman law, mos and behavior. Paulinus has followed neither Nova Roman law, Nova Roman mos nor Roma Antiqua.
> He respects neither law nor mos.
>


I was referring more to your vocal support of illegal actions when you approve of the actor. Your support of the pretend trial against Cincinnatus last year; your support of an illegal senatus consultum attempting to usurp private lists by the state; your call to prevent non-cultores from being magistrates in contravention of the Constitution; your support for the illegal removal of Sulla from the Senate list last year. That's off the top of my head. No doubt you can think of other examples. ;-)

Vale,

Palladius

>I note that Censor

> asked by one of the

> he was the SOLE