LOL

well said

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato omn spd
>
> Of course nobody voted after the intercessio.... because election was finished.
>
> Di vos incolumem custodiant.
>
>
>
> --
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Aedilis Curulis
>
> Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
>
> --- El mié, 17/6/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribió:
>
> De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:36
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody voted for Modianus after the tribunes issued an intercessio. FAIL.
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
>
> From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@yahoo. com>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:34 PM
>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com>
>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
>
>
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
>
> > <q.valerius. poplicola@ ...> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor illegally is the
>
> >> only
>
> >> choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid intercessio and now
>
> >> a
>
> >> new election must be called. You don't agree with the tribunes so of
>
> >> course
>
> >> you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If it's so illegal, why did so many vote for him?
>
> >
>
> > -Anna
>
> >
>
> >
>

Never before in NR history did the consuls allow a candidate run for two
consecutive terms for the censura, either. Perhaps I don't know all of Nova
Roma history, but this is the first time for me seeing the consuls openly
and flagrantly disregard an intercessio by the tribunes.

Nova Roma has driven itself to cronyism and demagoguery (cf. Maior). That,
not a tribunate intercessio, will kill Nova Roma.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_cato@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:25 AM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice

> Salve Venator,
>
> Never, never before in Roma Antiqua or NR history was any electoral result
> vetoed. If we came to this it's because the actions from two tribunes. And
> that's exactly what and why I said, in an earlier post on the issue, that
> that intercessio placed a really nasty precedent.
>
> And here we are now, with the shadow of doubt over all past elections...
>
> People are slaves of their words. Now the tribunes shall carry the
> doubtful honour of being the first to veto an electoral result and cast a
> dangerous shadow on NR.
>
> Di vos incolumem custodiant.
>
> --
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Aedilis Curulis
>
> Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
>
> --- El mié, 17/6/09, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> <famila.ulleria.venii@...> escribió:
>
> De: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:37
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...and my point gets obscured that if plastic dice being used in the
>
> process of tie-breaking occludes this election then the last election
>
> in which I was Custode and used plastic dice in the process of
>
> tie-breaking was likewise occluded, therefore the legitimacy of any
>
> magistrate whose taking office depended upon my tie-breaking is also,
>
> possibly, illegitimate.
>
>
>
> This is NEW ROME, we no longer have to depend upon cutting the
>
> knuckles off of sheep in order to have materials for creating tools of
>
> chance.
>
>
>
> ...and chance it is, the Gods would not be this petty.
>
>
>
> Consuls, take a deep breath and make a real decision.
>
>
>
> Tribunes, speak up here, please!
>
>
>
> done for today - Venator
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

L. Coruncanius Cato Q. Valerio Poplicolae SPD Ok with Anna.... but I was replying your message. Di vos incolumem custodiant. -- L. Coruncanius Cato Aedilis Curulis Scriba Consulis Hispaniae --- El mié, 17/6/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribió: De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 10:45 Of course, Cato. Anna, as usual, displays her inability to grasp what's going on. Her words are useless to everyone, not least because she's not even a citizen. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo. com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:39 AM To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections > L. Coruncanius Cato omn spd > > Of course nobody voted after the intercessio. ... because election was > finished. > > Di vos incolumem custodiant. > > > > -- > > L. Coruncanius Cato > > Aedilis Curulis > > Scriba Consulis Hispaniae > > --- El mié, 17/6/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola > <q.valerius.poplicol a@...> escribió: > > De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicol a@...> > Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:36 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody voted for Modianus after the tribunes issued an intercessio. > FAIL. > > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- > > From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@ yahoo. com> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:34 PM > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogro u ps.com> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections > > > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" > >> <q.valerius. poplicola@ ...> wrote: > >>> > >>> Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor illegally is the > >>> only > >>> choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid intercessio and now > >>> a > >>> new election must be called. You don't agree with the tribunes so of > >>> course > >>> you think remaining censor is the "only" solution". > >>> > >> > >> > >> If it's so illegal, why did so many vote for him? > >> > >> -Anna > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Salve,

Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have been busy the last few days and just began catching up on the activity on the list.

I would like to dispute your comment about proof and interpretation. In fact, everything in law is about interpretation. The very idea about "precedent"--an idea which you cite here and so apparently implicitly acknowledge--is that there can be more than one interpretation and that certain prior interpretations can influence future interpretations.

People often abuse the term "proof"--strictly speaking, proofs only exist in formal logic and mathematics. In law, it is about presenting a convincing interpretation, not about presenting a formal proof. Unfortunately, what is convincing is hardly ever universal.

The fact that law is about interpretation is why in most legal systems there exist final arbiters for judgment. It is not like a mathematical proof for which you don't need any final authority, but rather everyone following the deductive rules can come to agree on the results.

In law, since there is no *absolute* interpretive path, most systems establish some final authority to decide when disagreements develop.

How this may pan out for the specific system established in NR I prefer not to involve myself in argument, but I would like to make clear that there is no absolutely correct interpretation when it comes to law. Consider how nebulous the term "spirit of the law" is. Is the "spirit" based on authorial intent, or literal meaning, or something else? Who decides?

Let's not pretend that the current debate somehow has some absolutely correct answer--this is why supreme courts exist in the first place.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Poplicola
>
> Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.
>
> "when the spirit........violated" does not admit interpretations, in
> this case the proofs must be presented
>
> "when they believes........" with what legal basis? With the legal basis
> that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?
>
> Do Custodes falsified the election results? This would be the only case
> in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.
>
> If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal precedent.
>
> Vale
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
>
>
>
>
> Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:
> >
> >
> > Pardon me, consul, but the tribunes decide when the spirit or letter
> > of the
> > law is being violated. And they decided. That you are violating the
> > person
> > of the tribunes is a serious offense against the Gods, as the tribunes
> > are
> > made sacrosanct.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "M.C.C." <complutensis@... <mailto:complutensis%40gmail.com>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:55 AM
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> >
> > > The law says WHEN THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER OF....................ARE
> > > BEING VIOLATED
> > >
> > > The law do not says WHEN THEY BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER
> > > OF....................HAS BEEN VIOLATED
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To pronounce /intercessio/ (intercession; a veto) against the actions of
> > > any other magistrate (with the exception of the /dictator/ and the
> > > /interrex/), /Senatus consulta/, magisterial /edicta/, religious
> > > /decreta/, and /leges/ passed by the /comitia/ *when* the spirit and /
> > > or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted /edicta/ or /decreta/,
> > > /Senatus Consulta/ or /leges/ are being violated thereby; once a
> > > pronouncement of /intercessio/ has been made, the other Tribunes may, at
> > > their discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement
> > > with that /intercessio/.
> > >
> > > (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>(Nova_Roma)#IV._Magistrates.)
> > >
> > > Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> > >>
> > >> Salve.
> > >>
> > >> From your words one might not know that you have been a tribune, since
> > >> you evidence such little understanding of Nova Roman law.
> > >>
> > >> A "valid intercessio" is the act of a tribune against the act of a
> > >> magistrate when they (the tribune) believes that the "spirit and / or
> > >> letter" of the Constitution or leges has been violated.
> > >>
> > >> Vipsanius Agrippa's veto has been upheld by the tribunes and therefore
> > >> is valid; no act of any other magistrate can override a tribunician
> > veto.
> > >>
> > >> That's in the Constitution.
> > >>
> > >> Vale,
> > >>
> > >> Cato
> > >>
> > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >> David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem dicit
> > >> >
> > >> > I have been a tribune, so do not lecture me on respect.
> > >> >
> > >> > A valid intercessio would have been to veto a candidate during the
> > >> contio as
> > >> > the Lex Fabia indicates. You cannot veto the will of the people, and
> > >> > vetoing the work done by the custodes is like vetoing a rogator who
> > >> approves
> > >> > a citizenship application.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would be be like a tribune vetoing a diribitor who counts a
> > >> ballot, which
> > >> > is an action. Such an action is absurd, i.e., the veto, and cannot be
> > >> > done. You cannot veto someone doing their job. If the tribunes
> > >> didn't want
> > >> > me as a candidate they should have exercised their veto power during
> > >> > the
> > >> > contio. They did not, and the people elected me as censor. Of course
> > >> > you
> > >> > would have the will of the people negated.
> > >> >
> > >> > Vale:
> > >> >
> > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > >> > q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor illegally is
> > >> the only
> > >> > >
> > >> > > choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid intercessio
> > >> and now a
> > >> > > new election must be called. You don't agree with the tribunes so
> > >> of course
> > >> > >
> > >> > > you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Salvete

after the expiatory ceremony for the vitium and the re-break of the ties using a Nova Roman Sestertius, the will of the citizens of Nova Roma and the will of the Gods and Goddesses is that the Censor Suffectus elected with 28 centuries is K. Fabius Buteo Modianus.

Valete

M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS

Salve Gualtero

in law the proofs are articles of Constitution, leges or edicta.

If anyone veto the Custodes he/she must say/write: I veto the Custodes because doing his/her work they have violated the spirit or letter of following articles of the Constitution, lex or edictum.

This is the requested proof.

An invalid veto says I veto de Custodes because I as tribunus failed to issue my veto against X on time.

The law is clear: the veto must be issued within the 72 hours that follow the magisterial act or violation of the law.

Vale

COMPLVTENSIS


gualterus_graecus escribió:

Salve,

Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have been busy the last few days and just began catching up on the activity on the list.

I would like to dispute your comment about proof and interpretation. In fact, everything in law is about interpretation. The very idea about "precedent"- -an idea which you cite here and so apparently implicitly acknowledge- -is that there can be more than one interpretation and that certain prior interpretations can influence future interpretations.

People often abuse the term "proof"--strictly speaking, proofs only exist in formal logic and mathematics. In law, it is about presenting a convincing interpretation, not about presenting a formal proof. Unfortunately, what is convincing is hardly ever universal.

The fact that law is about interpretation is why in most legal systems there exist final arbiters for judgment. It is not like a mathematical proof for which you don't need any final authority, but rather everyone following the deductive rules can come to agree on the results.

In law, since there is no *absolute* interpretive path, most systems establish some final authority to decide when disagreements develop.

How this may pan out for the specific system established in NR I prefer not to involve myself in argument, but I would like to make clear that there is no absolutely correct interpretation when it comes to law. Consider how nebulous the term "spirit of the law" is. Is the "spirit" based on authorial intent, or literal meaning, or something else? Who decides?

Let's not pretend that the current debate somehow has some absolutely correct answer--this is why supreme courts exist in the first place.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Poplicola
>
> Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.
>
> "when the spirit...... ..violated" does not admit interpretations, in
> this case the proofs must be presented
>
> "when they believes.... ...." with what legal basis? With the legal basis
> that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?
>
> Do Custodes falsified the election results? This would be the only case
> in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.
>
> If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal precedent.
>
> Vale
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
>
>
>
>
> Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:
> >
> >
> > Pardon me, consul, but the tribunes decide when the spirit or letter
> > of the
> > law is being violated. And they decided. That you are violating the
> > person
> > of the tribunes is a serious offense against the Gods, as the tribunes
> > are
> > made sacrosanct.
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> > From: "M.C.C." <complutensis@ ... <mailto:complutensi s%40gmail. com>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:55 AM
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> >
> > > The law says WHEN THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER OF.......... ......... .ARE
> > > BEING VIOLATED
> > >
> > > The law do not says WHEN THEY BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER
> > > OF.......... ......... .HAS BEEN VIOLATED
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To pronounce /intercessio/ (intercession; a veto) against the actions of
> > > any other magistrate (with the exception of the /dictator/ and the
> > > /interrex/), /Senatus consulta/, magisterial /edicta/, religious
> > > /decreta/, and /leges/ passed by the /comitia/ *when* the spirit and /
> > > or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted /edicta/ or /decreta/,
> > > /Senatus Consulta/ or /leges/ are being violated thereby; once a
> > > pronouncement of /intercessio/ has been made, the other Tribunes may, at
> > > their discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement
> > > with that /intercessio/ .
> > >
> > > (http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>(Nova_Roma) #IV._Magistrates .)
> > >
> > > Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> > >>
> > >> Salve.
> > >>
> > >> From your words one might not know that you have been a tribune, since
> > >> you evidence such little understanding of Nova Roman law.
> > >>
> > >> A "valid intercessio" is the act of a tribune against the act of a
> > >> magistrate when they (the tribune) believes that the "spirit and / or
> > >> letter" of the Constitution or leges has been violated.
> > >>
> > >> Vipsanius Agrippa's veto has been upheld by the tribunes and therefore
> > >> is valid; no act of any other magistrate can override a tribunician
> > veto.
> > >>
> > >> That's in the Constitution.
> > >>
> > >> Vale,
> > >>
> > >> Cato
> > >>
> > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com> <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>,
> > >> David Kling <tau.athanasios@ > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem dicit
> > >> >
> > >> > I have been a tribune, so do not lecture me on respect.
> > >> >
> > >> > A valid intercessio would have been to veto a candidate during the
> > >> contio as
> > >> > the Lex Fabia indicates. You cannot veto the will of the people, and
> > >> > vetoing the work done by the custodes is like vetoing a rogator who
> > >> approves
> > >> > a citizenship application.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would be be like a tribune vetoing a diribitor who counts a
> > >> ballot, which
> > >> > is an action. Such an action is absurd, i.e., the veto, and cannot be
> > >> > done. You cannot veto someone doing their job. If the tribunes
> > >> didn't want
> > >> > me as a candidate they should have exercised their veto power during
> > >> > the
> > >> > contio. They did not, and the people elected me as censor. Of course
> > >> > you
> > >> > would have the will of the people negated.
> > >> >
> > >> > Vale:
> > >> >
> > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > >> > q.valerius.poplicol a@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor illegally is
> > >> the only
> > >> > >
> > >> > > choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid intercessio
> > >> and now a
> > >> > > new election must be called. You don't agree with the tribunes so
> > >> of course
> > >> > >
> > >> > > you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

That is not true.

Only the attemp of a few citizens (named Cornelius Sulla, Poplicola et alter) to impose their own viewpoint is which can kill Nova Roma.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:
>
> Never before in NR history did the consuls allow a candidate run for two
> consecutive terms for the censura, either. Perhaps I don't know all of Nova
> Roma history, but this is the first time for me seeing the consuls openly
> and flagrantly disregard an intercessio by the tribunes.
>
> Nova Roma has driven itself to cronyism and demagoguery (cf. Maior). That,
> not a tribunate intercessio, will kill Nova Roma.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_cato@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:25 AM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice
>
> > Salve Venator,
> >
> > Never, never before in Roma Antiqua or NR history was any electoral result
> > vetoed. If we came to this it's because the actions from two tribunes. And
> > that's exactly what and why I said, in an earlier post on the issue, that
> > that intercessio placed a really nasty precedent.
> >
> > And here we are now, with the shadow of doubt over all past elections...
> >
> > People are slaves of their words. Now the tribunes shall carry the
> > doubtful honour of being the first to veto an electoral result and cast a
> > dangerous shadow on NR.
> >
> > Di vos incolumem custodiant.
> >
> > --
> >
> > L. Coruncanius Cato
> >
> > Aedilis Curulis
> >
> > Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
> >
> > --- El mié, 17/6/09, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> > <famila.ulleria.venii@...> escribió:
> >
> > De: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
> > Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice
> > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:37
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ...and my point gets obscured that if plastic dice being used in the
> >
> > process of tie-breaking occludes this election then the last election
> >
> > in which I was Custode and used plastic dice in the process of
> >
> > tie-breaking was likewise occluded, therefore the legitimacy of any
> >
> > magistrate whose taking office depended upon my tie-breaking is also,
> >
> > possibly, illegitimate.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is NEW ROME, we no longer have to depend upon cutting the
> >
> > knuckles off of sheep in order to have materials for creating tools of
> >
> > chance.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...and chance it is, the Gods would not be this petty.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consuls, take a deep breath and make a real decision.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tribunes, speak up here, please!
> >
> >
> >
> > done for today - Venator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem dicit

I am not "King David."  I am Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus and I am asking you to refer to me as such.  You can issue hatred towards me as you wish, but within the forum of Nova Roma I ask that you refer to me as is appropriate within the contexts of our community -- whether that be on-line or otherwise.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

If the result of the action results in breaking the law, then it's not
absurd, it's following the law. Likewise, if I were tribune, I'd veto the
approval of the application of a neo-Nazi. You might be King David, but
you're not above the law.

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Dei vos annuant oro.

Hodie est ante diem XV Kalendas Quinctilias; haec dies comitialis est: Tibernalia

As on 7 June, again on 17 June under the auspices of the Praetor Urbanus ludi piscatorii were held in celebration of Tiberalia (CIL 6.1872). In 227 CE, during the reign Alexander Severus, these games were sponsored by the guilds of the Tiber River fishermen and the guild of urine collectors. Alexander became emperor in 222 CE following the death of his cousin Elagabalus. In fact it was a false report by Elagabalus of the death of the popular Alexander that led to a Praetorian uprising that killed Elagabalus, his mother, and a number of his minions. Alexander was seventeen years old at the time and came under the regency of his grandmother Maesa and his mother Mamaea. Maesa died soon afterward. Mamaea chose a council of state composed of sixteen of the most renowned senators headed by the noted jurist Ulpianus. By 227 CE Severus Alexander entered his majority and extended government control over guilds:

"He also formed guilds of all the wine-dealers, the green-grocers, the boot-makers, and in short, of all the trades, and he granted them advocates chosen from their own numbers and designated the judge to whose jurisdiction each should belong." ~ Scriptores Historiae Augustae 33.2

This had some political context as well as an economic impact. As was noted on 7 June, the guild leaders were freedmen. The emperor, in some cases, became the guilds' patron. Through the reigns of Commodus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus, the army had determined who would be emperor and when his reign would end, often in a bloody manner. Severus Alexander was the last emperor to try to cultivate his power base in the civilian population, and he extended his ties further down into Roman society than had been before. Ultimately he was to fail in his attempt.

Severus Alexander was a remarkable emperor who was seen in his own day as a restorer of the good rule of the Antonines. He was known for his virtue and piety even before coming to the throne. In his personal habits he was modest, disdaining the luxuries that Elagabalus had adopted and then some. Frugal in all things, he reduced taxation by as much as 70% and yet managed to conduct public works on a larger scale than had been seen in the thirty years prior. He took his entertainment more from books than from other amusements. Plato's "Republic," Cicero's "On Duties," the poetry of Virgil and Horace are recorded as some of his favorites. He was an effective military commander, looking into every detail of supplying his troops, planning his routes of march, as well as when commanding his army in battle. He was also a strict disciplinarian, which, following the leniency of his predecessors, gave cause to several mutinies. He apparently checked the advance of the Persians in the East, although the only description of a battle from this campaign was an early defeat. Recalled to the West, on the Rhine he was forced to buy off the Alamanni. This infuriated his army, leading to a final revolt that took his life at age 29.

His pursuit of studies in literature and philosophy made Severus Alexander one of the more intellectual emperors. He paid stipends to those who taught and to those who studied medicine and engineering, among other professions. And he ushered in an era of tolerance, however brief. When presiding at a trial and about to hand down a sentence, "He used often to exclaim what he had heard from someone, either a Jew or a Christian, and always remembered, and he also had it announced by a herald whenever he was disciplining anyone, 'What you do not wish that a man should do to you, do not do to him' (51.7-8)."

In his personal religious practices, Severus Alexander kept two lararia. The main one was unusual in its eclectic nature:

"First of all, if it were permissible, that is to say, if he had not lain with his wife, in the early morning hours he would worship in the sanctuary of his Lares, in which he kept statues of the deified emperors — of whom, however, only the best had been selected — and also of certain holy souls, among them Apollonius, and, according to a contemporary writer, Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others of this same character and, besides, the portraits of his ancestors." ~ Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Severus Alexander 29.2

Apollonius of Tyana was a great Pythagorean philosopher, a healer, and a miracle worker. He had travelled through Persia and into India where he entered philosophical discussions with the Brahmins. In many ways the story of Jesus of Nazareth compared to that of Apollonius as a teacher of moral philosophy and miraculous healing. But Apollonius attributed his skills to knowledge, and dismissed notions that he performed miracles to ignorance. Orpheus, too, was attributed to working miracles and healing, but through another skill. If there is a trend among those whom Severus Alexander admired - the Antonine emperors, Jesus, Apollonius, Orpheus, Cicero, Plato and Abraham - it is that all of them were noted as teachers on ethics. Severus Alexander was himself most noted for his practice of an austere and ethical life.

His other lararium, kept in his bedroom, held portraits of his personal heroes, Virgil and Cicero among them. Severus Alexander was said to disdain clothing and utensils decorated with gold. No gold or silver did he keep, jewels he sold off, but he did keep a golden statue of Alexander the Great. He was born in a temple dedicated to the memory of Alexander, supposedly on the anniversary of the day that Alexander the Great had died. And although of Syrian royalty, he was also said to have descended from Alexander the Great and was named after his supposed ancestor. When he was with his army, Severus Alexander tried to emulate his namesake. He took his meals with his soldiers, exercised with them, bathed with them, dressed as a general rather than as an emperor. He even formed special units of phalangites, the Silver Shields, after Alexander's heavy infantry. Thus did Severus Alexander reserve a special place for Alexander the Great among his Lares.


Thought of the day continues from Epictetus, Enchiridion 2

"Remember that desire demands the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion demands the avoidance of that to which you are averse; that he who fails of the object of his desires is disappointed; and he who incurs the object of his aversion is wretched. If, then, you shun only those undesirable things which you can control, you will never incur anything you shun; but if you shun sickness, or death, or poverty, you will run the risk of wretchedness. Remove [the habit of] aversion, then, from all things that are not within our power, and apply it to things undesirable, which are within our power. But for the present altogether restrain desire; for if you desire any of the things not within our own power, you must necessarily be disappointed; and you are not yet secure of those which are within our power, and so are legitimate objects of desire. Where it is practically necessary for you to pursue or avoid anything, do even this with discretion, and gentleness, and moderation."

L. Coruncanius Cato Q. Valerio Poplicolae SPD We can go again on the dictionary debate if you want. It will get us nowhere. The fact is: if the tribunes, or the people, or anyone, believe that one candidacy is not legal, they MUST act when this situation cames up. If not, the candidacy is valid. Why the intercessio is not valid? Because, dura lex, sed lex: -if any of the points stated on the lex about issuing intercessio is not correct, the intercessio is not valid. The name was missed. One could say that a tribune placing an intercessio missing the magistrate's name is not paying sufficient respect to this office. I am not saying that. I think we are humans, and humans make mistakes, and mistakes carry consequences, and consequences have to be faced. -The only valid point of the intercessio (in case of the intercessio was valid, which is not as I said before) was placed agains the acts of the custodes.... and after that, the intercessio says that it is placed because one candidacy was not valid. If the intercessio is placed because of a not valid candidacy, and if the candidacies are to be reviewed by the rogatores, why the intercessio is placed against the ones involved on the counting of the votes? If the intercessio is to prevent an 'unlawful' (see the dictionary debate mention above) candidacy, why it was placed AFTER elections were over, AFTER the result was announced and against persons not involved absolutely in the review of candidacies? Tribunes of the Plebs are sacrosanct, but they have to abide to the law ...too. Di vos incolumem custodiant. -- L. Coruncanius Cato Aedilis Curulis Scriba Consulis Hispaniae --- El mié, 17/6/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribió: De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 12:37 Never before in NR history did the consuls allow a candidate run for two consecutive terms for the censura, either. Perhaps I don't know all of Nova Roma history, but this is the first time for me seeing the consuls openly and flagrantly disregard an intercessio by the tribunes. Nova Roma has driven itself to cronyism and demagoguery (cf. Maior). That, not a tribunate intercessio, will kill Nova Roma. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo. com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:25 AM To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice > Salve Venator, > > Never, never before in Roma Antiqua or NR history was any electoral result > vetoed. If we came to this it's because the actions from two tribunes. And > that's exactly what and why I said, in an earlier post on the issue, that > that intercessio placed a really nasty precedent. > > And here we are now, with the shadow of doubt over all past elections... > > People are slaves of their words. Now the tribunes shall carry the > doubtful honour of being the first to veto an electoral result and cast a > dangerous shadow on NR. > > Di vos incolumem custodiant. > > -- > > L. Coruncanius Cato > > Aedilis Curulis > > Scriba Consulis Hispaniae > > --- El mié, 17/6/09, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator > <famila.ulleria. venii@gmail. com> escribió: > > De: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria. venii@gmail. com> > Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:37 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and my point gets obscured that if plastic dice being used in the > > process of tie-breaking occludes this election then the last election > > in which I was Custode and used plastic dice in the process of > > tie-breaking was likewise occluded, therefore the legitimacy of any > > magistrate whose taking office depended upon my tie-breaking is also, > > possibly, illegitimate. > > > > This is NEW ROME, we no longer have to depend upon cutting the > > knuckles off of sheep in order to have materials for creating tools of > > chance. > > > > ...and chance it is, the Gods would not be this petty. > > > > Consuls, take a deep breath and make a real decision. > > > > Tribunes, speak up here, please! > > > > done for today - Venator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Salve,

Well, the Constitution does not define the scope in which "the spirit and / or letter of this Constitution" etc is being violated. Is it limited to the immediate duties of the magistrate or any prior action that may have led up to the magistrate's action? Is a particular action of a magistrate invalid if earlier actions that led up to it were invalid? Once again, interpretation.

The structure of Agrippa's intercessio is what we would have expected. All of the arguments are over whether the legal justification is valid or not, and that is completely up to interpretation. Indeed, in your reply to me, you included "doing his/her work"--that is your interpretation, since neither the constitution nor any law specifies that.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gualtero
>
> in law the proofs are articles of Constitution, leges or edicta.
>
> If anyone veto the Custodes he/she must say/write: I veto the Custodes
> because doing his/her work they have violated the spirit or letter of
> following articles of the Constitution, lex or edictum.
>
> This is the requested proof.
>
> An invalid veto says I veto de Custodes because I as tribunus failed to
> issue my veto against X on time.
>
> The law is clear: the veto must be issued within the 72 hours that
> follow the magisterial act or violation of the law.
>
> Vale
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
>
> gualterus_graecus escribió:
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have been busy the last few days
> > and just began catching up on the activity on the list.
> >
> > I would like to dispute your comment about proof and interpretation.
> > In fact, everything in law is about interpretation. The very idea
> > about "precedent"--an idea which you cite here and so apparently
> > implicitly acknowledge--is that there can be more than one
> > interpretation and that certain prior interpretations can influence
> > future interpretations.
> >
> > People often abuse the term "proof"--strictly speaking, proofs only
> > exist in formal logic and mathematics. In law, it is about presenting
> > a convincing interpretation, not about presenting a formal proof.
> > Unfortunately, what is convincing is hardly ever universal.
> >
> > The fact that law is about interpretation is why in most legal systems
> > there exist final arbiters for judgment. It is not like a mathematical
> > proof for which you don't need any final authority, but rather
> > everyone following the deductive rules can come to agree on the results.
> >
> > In law, since there is no *absolute* interpretive path, most systems
> > establish some final authority to decide when disagreements develop.
> >
> > How this may pan out for the specific system established in NR I
> > prefer not to involve myself in argument, but I would like to make
> > clear that there is no absolutely correct interpretation when it comes
> > to law. Consider how nebulous the term "spirit of the law" is. Is the
> > "spirit" based on authorial intent, or literal meaning, or something
> > else? Who decides?
> >
> > Let's not pretend that the current debate somehow has some absolutely
> > correct answer--this is why supreme courts exist in the first place.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "M.C.C." <complutensis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Poplicola
> > >
> > > Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.
> > >
> > > "when the spirit........violated" does not admit interpretations, in
> > > this case the proofs must be presented
> > >
> > > "when they believes........" with what legal basis? With the legal
> > basis
> > > that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?
> > >
> > > Do Custodes falsified the election results? This would be the only case
> > > in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.
> > >
> > > If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal precedent.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pardon me, consul, but the tribunes decide when the spirit or letter
> > > > of the
> > > > law is being violated. And they decided. That you are violating the
> > > > person
> > > > of the tribunes is a serious offense against the Gods, as the
> > tribunes
> > > > are
> > > > made sacrosanct.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > From: "M.C.C." <complutensis@ <mailto:complutensis%40gmail.com>>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:55 AM
> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> > > >
> > > > > The law says WHEN THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER OF....................ARE
> > > > > BEING VIOLATED
> > > > >
> > > > > The law do not says WHEN THEY BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER
> > > > > OF....................HAS BEEN VIOLATED
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To pronounce /intercessio/ (intercession; a veto) against the
> > actions of
> > > > > any other magistrate (with the exception of the /dictator/ and the
> > > > > /interrex/), /Senatus consulta/, magisterial /edicta/, religious
> > > > > /decreta/, and /leges/ passed by the /comitia/ *when* the spirit
> > and /
> > > > > or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted /edicta/ or
> > /decreta/,
> > > > > /Senatus Consulta/ or /leges/ are being violated thereby; once a
> > > > > pronouncement of /intercessio/ has been made, the other Tribunes
> > may, at
> > > > > their discretion, state either their support for or their
> > disagreement
> > > > > with that /intercessio/.
> > > > >
> > > > > (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>
> > > > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>>(Nova_Roma)#IV._Magistrates.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Salve.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From your words one might not know that you have been a
> > tribune, since
> > > > >> you evidence such little understanding of Nova Roman law.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A "valid intercessio" is the act of a tribune against the act of a
> > > > >> magistrate when they (the tribune) believes that the "spirit
> > and / or
> > > > >> letter" of the Constitution or leges has been violated.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vipsanius Agrippa's veto has been upheld by the tribunes and
> > therefore
> > > > >> is valid; no act of any other magistrate can override a
> > tribunician
> > > > veto.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's in the Constitution.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vale,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cato
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > >> David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem dicit
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I have been a tribune, so do not lecture me on respect.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > A valid intercessio would have been to veto a candidate
> > during the
> > > > >> contio as
> > > > >> > the Lex Fabia indicates. You cannot veto the will of the
> > people, and
> > > > >> > vetoing the work done by the custodes is like vetoing a
> > rogator who
> > > > >> approves
> > > > >> > a citizenship application.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It would be be like a tribune vetoing a diribitor who counts a
> > > > >> ballot, which
> > > > >> > is an action. Such an action is absurd, i.e., the veto, and
> > cannot be
> > > > >> > done. You cannot veto someone doing their job. If the tribunes
> > > > >> didn't want
> > > > >> > me as a candidate they should have exercised their veto power
> > during
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > contio. They did not, and the people elected me as censor. Of
> > course
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > would have the will of the people negated.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vale:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > > > >> > q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor
> > illegally is
> > > > >> the only
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid
> > intercessio
> > > > >> and now a
> > > > >> > > new election must be called. You don't agree with the
> > tribunes so
> > > > >> of course
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Salve again Gualtero

Yes, you are partially right: there are leges that allow the interpretation.

But on this matter the law says: "When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio, it must include...........c. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s)."

No interpretation is allowed in this case, doing his work what article(s) of the Constitution or the leges are violated by the Custodes?

And this is not my interpretation.....

Vale bene

COMPLVTENSIS

gualterus_graecus escribió:

Salve,

Well, the Constitution does not define the scope in which "the spirit and / or letter of this Constitution" etc is being violated. Is it limited to the immediate duties of the magistrate or any prior action that may have led up to the magistrate's action? Is a particular action of a magistrate invalid if earlier actions that led up to it were invalid? Once again, interpretation.

The structure of Agrippa's intercessio is what we would have expected. All of the arguments are over whether the legal justification is valid or not, and that is completely up to interpretation. Indeed, in your reply to me, you included "doing his/her work"--that is your interpretation, since neither the constitution nor any law specifies that.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gualtero
>
> in law the proofs are articles of Constitution, leges or edicta.
>
> If anyone veto the Custodes he/she must say/write: I veto the Custodes
> because doing his/her work they have violated the spirit or letter of
> following articles of the Constitution, lex or edictum.
>
> This is the requested proof.
>
> An invalid veto says I veto de Custodes because I as tribunus failed to
> issue my veto against X on time.
>
> The law is clear: the veto must be issued within the 72 hours that
> follow the magisterial act or violation of the law.
>
> Vale
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
>
> gualterus_graecus escribió:
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have been busy the last few days
> > and just began catching up on the activity on the list.
> >
> > I would like to dispute your comment about proof and interpretation.
> > In fact, everything in law is about interpretation. The very idea
> > about "precedent"- -an idea which you cite here and so apparently
> > implicitly acknowledge- -is that there can be more than one
> > interpretation and that certain prior interpretations can influence
> > future interpretations.
> >
> > People often abuse the term "proof"--strictly speaking, proofs only
> > exist in formal logic and mathematics. In law, it is about presenting
> > a convincing interpretation, not about presenting a formal proof.
> > Unfortunately, what is convincing is hardly ever universal.
> >
> > The fact that law is about interpretation is why in most legal systems
> > there exist final arbiters for judgment. It is not like a mathematical
> > proof for which you don't need any final authority, but rather
> > everyone following the deductive rules can come to agree on the results.
> >
> > In law, since there is no *absolute* interpretive path, most systems
> > establish some final authority to decide when disagreements develop.
> >
> > How this may pan out for the specific system established in NR I
> > prefer not to involve myself in argument, but I would like to make
> > clear that there is no absolutely correct interpretation when it comes
> > to law. Consider how nebulous the term "spirit of the law" is. Is the
> > "spirit" based on authorial intent, or literal meaning, or something
> > else? Who decides?
> >
> > Let's not pretend that the current debate somehow has some absolutely
> > correct answer--this is why supreme courts exist in the first place.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>,
> > "M.C.C." <complutensis@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Poplicola
> > >
> > > Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.
> > >
> > > "when the spirit...... ..violated" does not admit interpretations, in
> > > this case the proofs must be presented
> > >
> > > "when they believes.... ...." with what legal basis? With the legal
> > basis
> > > that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?
> > >
> > > Do Custodes falsified the election results? This would be the only case
> > > in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.
> > >
> > > If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal precedent.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pardon me, consul, but the tribunes decide when the spirit or letter
> > > > of the
> > > > law is being violated. And they decided. That you are violating the
> > > > person
> > > > of the tribunes is a serious offense against the Gods, as the
> > tribunes
> > > > are
> > > > made sacrosanct.
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> > > > From: "M.C.C." <complutensis@ <mailto:complutensi s%40gmail. com>>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:55 AM
> > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com> <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> > > >
> > > > > The law says WHEN THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER OF.......... ......... .ARE
> > > > > BEING VIOLATED
> > > > >
> > > > > The law do not says WHEN THEY BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER
> > > > > OF.......... ......... .HAS BEEN VIOLATED
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To pronounce /intercessio/ (intercession; a veto) against the
> > actions of
> > > > > any other magistrate (with the exception of the /dictator/ and the
> > > > > /interrex/), /Senatus consulta/, magisterial /edicta/, religious
> > > > > /decreta/, and /leges/ passed by the /comitia/ *when* the spirit
> > and /
> > > > > or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted /edicta/ or
> > /decreta/,
> > > > > /Senatus Consulta/ or /leges/ are being violated thereby; once a
> > > > > pronouncement of /intercessio/ has been made, the other Tribunes
> > may, at
> > > > > their discretion, state either their support for or their
> > disagreement
> > > > > with that /intercessio/ .
> > > > >
> > > > > (http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>
> > > > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>>(Nova_Roma) #IV._Magistrates .)
> > > > >
> > > > > Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Salve.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From your words one might not know that you have been a
> > tribune, since
> > > > >> you evidence such little understanding of Nova Roman law.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A "valid intercessio" is the act of a tribune against the act of a
> > > > >> magistrate when they (the tribune) believes that the "spirit
> > and / or
> > > > >> letter" of the Constitution or leges has been violated.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vipsanius Agrippa's veto has been upheld by the tribunes and
> > therefore
> > > > >> is valid; no act of any other magistrate can override a
> > tribunician
> > > > veto.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's in the Constitution.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vale,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cato
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>,
> > > > >> David Kling <tau.athanasios@ > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem dicit
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I have been a tribune, so do not lecture me on respect.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > A valid intercessio would have been to veto a candidate
> > during the
> > > > >> contio as
> > > > >> > the Lex Fabia indicates. You cannot veto the will of the
> > people, and
> > > > >> > vetoing the work done by the custodes is like vetoing a
> > rogator who
> > > > >> approves
> > > > >> > a citizenship application.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It would be be like a tribune vetoing a diribitor who counts a
> > > > >> ballot, which
> > > > >> > is an action. Such an action is absurd, i.e., the veto, and
> > cannot be
> > > > >> > done. You cannot veto someone doing their job. If the tribunes
> > > > >> didn't want
> > > > >> > me as a candidate they should have exercised their veto power
> > during
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > contio. They did not, and the people elected me as censor. Of
> > course
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > would have the will of the people negated.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vale:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > > > >> > q.valerius.poplicol a@> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor
> > illegally is
> > > > >> the only
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid
> > intercessio
> > > > >> and now a
> > > > >> > > new election must be called. You don't agree with the
> > tribunes so
> > > > >> of course
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Salve Potito

I see you have a selective memory

Vale

COMPLVTENSIS

Steve Moore escribió:

Consul Complutensis,

 

It is you and your colleague who are setting a bad legal precedent by:

 

1. Allowing Modianus to run for office when he was not legally eligible;
2. Opposing the intercessio of the tribunes.

 

You took the weekend off to “meditate”, and instead of coming back and stating your position clearly and with reasons and rationale, you came back with a pair of plastic dice.

 

This reminds me of your ineffective defense of the Magna Mater Project, when you tried to convince us that “restore” means merely “to shore up”.

 

You keep trying to deceive the people by making them think that the Tribunes vetoed the election (see your email below)—instead of taking the blame for allowing Modianus to run in the first place.

 

Your talking points will fail in the light of the Constitution and the laws. By the way, didn’t you take a sacred oath to defend the Constitution?

 

If you don’t want to follow the bylaws of this organization, just say so. It would be better than the talking points you’ve been putting out.

 

Potitus

 

 

 

---

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com ] On Behalf Of M.C.C.
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:41 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections

 

Salve Poplicola

Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.

"when the spirit...... ..violated" does not admit interpretations, in this case the proofs must be presented

"when they believes.... ...." with what legal basis? With the legal basis that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?

Do Custodes falsified the election results?  This would be the only case in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.

If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal precedent.

Vale

COMPLVTENSIS

REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO



Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, citizen and Senator of Nova Roma requests that the Tribunus Plebis issue an intercessio against Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, Consul of Nova Roma and against Marcus Iulius Severus, Consul of Nova Roma on the grounds that their instructions in respect of the recent election for Censor suffectus, held in the comitia centuriata, to "invalidate the tiebreak and order that the sortes are thrown again and with base in the following result, the diribitores should count the votes again" as contained in Message 66963 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/66963, violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:



"While it shall be called to order by either a consul or a praetor, only the comitia centuriata shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally."



The consuls actions have created a rule by which the processes of the comitia centuriata will be altered in a manner which is not supported in any law passed for that purpose within the comitia centuriata. The consuls and/or Pontifex Maximus cannot create a rule by which the comitia centuriata shall function in relation to tie breaking, otherwise known as the "lot". The change in process will effectively bind future consuls to follow this practice and as such usurps the function of law, and thus violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution. The consuls imperium does not extend to overturning the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal processes.



The specific supporting reasons and/or background information and explanation for this intercessio are.



1. The intercessio is against both consuls for in the above message Consul Marcus Curiatius Complutensis states "The consuls we have studied the situation derived from the recent extraordinary elections and have asked for advice to the Pontifex Maximus, have both agreed to this most recent action" and also "For this motive we have decided to". Even though message 66963 is only signed by Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, the reference to this being a collegiate decision requires intercessio be issued against both consuls.



2. Section III.B of the Constitution makes no reference to the manner of breaking ties and the only reference to tie breaking in the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum describes the process for doing so as by "lot".



3. The dictionary definition, of "lot" in the absence of any definition provided under the Constitution or any lex is "an object used as a counter in determining a question by chance2 a: the use of lots as a means of deciding something b: the resulting choice" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lot%5b1] The Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum requires no more than this as a definition of the process of tie breaking or the "lot" therefore.



4. Therefore by invalidating the tiebreak the consuls have created a rule that exists outside of the Constitution and the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum, and by doing so have violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, as quoted above, by usurping the power and/or function of law and the rights of the comitia centuriata.



5. The consuls have thus illegally and unconstitutionally arrogated the right to create two rules for the operation of an election in the Comitia Centuriata, contarary to Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
1. That tie breaks once decided can be invalidated and the tie break repeated.
2. That the process of the "lot" shall be by dice of a metal or bone construction.



6. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not specific to this election, and therefore cannot have limited effect. The action of the consuls will therefore create a rule that will have to be followed in subsequent elections as it is supposedly based on a religious objection to using plastic dice in the process of tie-breaking or "lot". This action will therefore lead to subsequent consuls also having to bind themselves to this illegal and unconstitutional rule, and thereby place themselves in jeopardy of violating Section III.B of of the Constitution, or risk claims of religious impropriety in the tie breaking or "lot".



7. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not the policy of the Collegium Pontificum, nor the Collegium Augurum. Further the advice of the Pontifex Maximus ignores the method of public sortition used Ancient Rome, and does not even create an approximation of the religious elements of that sortititon. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus has failed completely to address:



1. What ancient Roman model of sortition to use in Nova Roma for tie breaking in the electoral process, be the methodology used in the comitia or the one for provincial allocation, or another.
2. Which deity would be the counterintuitive agent.
3. How, when magistrates live in different parts of the world the same implements of sortition would be used by the custodes and the effect on the length of elections that would have.
4. What the design of the implements of sortition would be, whether it would be a cista or a hydria for the container and what material the lots would be constructed from.
5. Where the implements would be stored, as traditionally they were housed in the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.
6. What rituals would accompany the sortition process.
7. How Nova Roma would accommodate the requirement for an augural presence in public sortition.
8. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that errors in the sortition were detected.
9. What training would be provided to mark out the templum necessary for the performance of public sortition.



8. The Pontifex Maximus has claimed that Plastic is alleged to be unnatural due to the molecular alteration of its material, and thus cannot have a natural numen, which leads to its inability to receive the numina through which the Gods could influence the outcome. A metal such as bronze, favored by the Pontifex Maximus as an alternative, is an alloy. An alloy "is a partial or complete solid solution of one or more elements in a metallic matrix." (Wikipedia). A solid solution is a solid-state solution of one or more solutes in a solvent.



When the issue with the use of a polymer in the construction of the die is based on the molecular alteration of the material, consider that a disruption occurs also in solid solutions.



"The solute may incorporate into the solvent crystal lattice substitutionally, by replacing a solvent particle in the lattice, or interstitially, by fitting into the space between solvent particles. Both of these types of solid solution affect the properties of the material by distorting the crystal lattice and disrupting the physical and electrical homogeneity of the solvent material' (Wikipedia).



Plastic as the Pontifex Maximus has stated is a polymer is usually a polymer, which is a large molecule of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds.



A covalent bond is "characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms, or between atoms and other covalent bonds." (Wikipedia). Covalent bonding can occur naturally, for example Hydrogen cyanide, a linear molecule, with a triple bond between carbon and nitrogen, which is present in fruits that have pits, such as cherries. It also has been detected in the interstellar medium. Covalent chemical bonding is not therefore an unatural and artificial process.



While polymer in popular usage suggests plastic, the term actually refers to a "large class of natural and synthetic materials with a variety of properties." (Wikipedia). Polymers can be either natural or synthetic. Natural polymers would be for example rubber. "Plastic" as a term is therefore too wide a description to be of much use in determining the issue. What was the material used in the construction of the die in question? Was the die acyrilic? Was it resin? Was it polymethyl methacrylate? Was it a cellulose based plastic, either cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate?



The reason for this level of inquiry concerning the material used is that some materials have as their base a naturally occurring substance. For example cellulose nitrate uses cotton as its cellulose base, while cellulose acetate uses cotton or tree pulp. Resins can be naturally occurring or synthetic.



Therefore polymers, which are all based on naturally occurring substances, be they organic materials or chemical elements, share a level of disruption at a molecular level with a solid solution found in alloys, of which bronze is one. Creating an alloy such as bronze involves a chemical process. Additionally when applying chromium, iron, cobalt and copper to a bronze surface, molecular changes take place in the bronze. So if molecular changes take place in bronze, asserted to be a more "natural" substance than a polymer, does this affect its ability to accommodate a numen? There is no evidence of any detailed research into this matter, therefore the issue of molecular changes somehow interfering with the ability of an object to host a numen maybe a substantiated claim or a specious one. There is simply a lack of evidence and research either way.



Consequently the argument that a polymer cannot have a natural numen could be contradictory, given the natural base of the compounds and the fact that bronze, which is assumed to be more "natural" and is a solid solution, has a level of disruption. The chemical processes maybe artificially stimulated but as per covalent bonding, this isn't a man made process, as it occurs in the natural world.



9. Therefore the Pontifex Maximus has advanced a claim regarding the inability of plastic to host a numen which is unsubstantiated by any detailed research and discussion by the Collegium Pontificum or the Collegium Augurum, and furthermore advances a recommendation for a change in the process of tie breaking or "lot" which would not only be illegal and unconstitutional, but also which is not a historic recreation, nor even an approximation, of the Ancient Roman method of public sortition. There would continue to be a complete lack of religious ritual accompanying the tie breaking thus rendering false or unreliable the claim that the recommended change in the tie breaking process enhances the reliability of the tie breaking or "lot" and in some way represents the will of the Gods or some unspecified God.



10. Finally the "Law of Contagion" which the Pontifex Maximus has referenced as somehow connected to the Religio Romana was first articulated as a "law" as far as can be determined by Sir James George Frazer in his "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion". No evidence can be found that the Collegium Pontificum has ever researched this matter and determined its role in public sortition rituals in Ancient Rome



Therefore the Consuls have not only clearly violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, by usurping the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal rules, which is grounds alone for the intercessio, but they have done so based on spurious and/or false and/or poorly researched claims by the Pontifex Maximus concerning the nature of public sortition in Ancient Rome and/or unproven claims regarding the corruption of the current process, and by claiming falsely an enhanced religious component to the tie breaking or "lot" which will effectively bind further consuls to have to decide between also violating this section of the Constitution or risking false claims of religious impropriety in tie breaking.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> after the expiatory ceremony for the vitium and the re-break of the ties
> using a Nova Roman Sestertius, the will of the citizens of Nova Roma and
> the will of the Gods and Goddesses is that the Censor Suffectus elected
> with 28 centuries is K. Fabius Buteo Modianus.
>
> Valete
>
> M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

I, Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus, as a Lictor of Nova Roma, hereby witness the appointment of L. Coruncanius Cato as Aedilis curulis of Nova Roma.

As a member of the Comitia Curiata I wish them good fortune in their offices and in their work on behalf of the Religio Romana.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

I, David Oliver Kling - Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, David Oliver Kling - Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, David Oliver Kling - Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, David Oliver Kling - Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus swear to protect and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, David Oliver Kling - Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus further swear to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Censor Suffectus to the best of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I accept the position of Censor Suffectus and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
Censor - Senator - Pontifex - Augur - Flamen Pomonalis - Lictor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

>
> You really don't keep up, do you?
>

No, I do keep up actually. How many times are you going to be wrong in this conversation?

Keep digging that hole.

-Anna

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

>
> Of course, Cato. Anna, as usual, displays her inability to grasp what's
> going on. Her words are useless to everyone, not least because she's not
> even a citizen.
>

wrong yet again pop.

You mistakenly thought I was referring to some mysterious vote after the intercessio; I was not. I was referring to the actual election, where the people in NR actually voted.

There was no vote after the intercessio, so only an idiot would think I was referring to that.

Keep digging.

-Anna

> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_cato@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:39 AM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
>
> > L. Coruncanius Cato omn spd
> >
> > Of course nobody voted after the intercessio.... because election was
> > finished.
> >
> > Di vos incolumem custodiant.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > L. Coruncanius Cato
> >
> > Aedilis Curulis
> >
> > Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
> >
> > --- El mi�, 17/6/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola
> > <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribi�:
> >
> > De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> > Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Fecha: mi�rcoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:36
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nobody voted for Modianus after the tribunes issued an intercessio.
> > FAIL.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> >
> > From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@yahoo. com>
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:34 PM
> >
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com>
> >
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> >
> >
> >
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
> >
> >> <q.valerius. poplicola@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>> Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor illegally is the
> >
> >>> only
> >
> >>> choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid intercessio and now
> >
> >>> a
> >
> >>> new election must be called. You don't agree with the tribunes so of
> >
> >>> course
> >
> >>> you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >> If it's so illegal, why did so many vote for him?
> >
> >>
> >
> >> -Anna
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

>
> Never before in NR history did the consuls allow a candidate run for two
> consecutive terms for the censura, either.

And there hasn't been a candidate for them to allow to run for 2 consecutive terms. Modianus's candidacy was not consecutive(hence why he was allowed to run).


Perhaps I don't know all of Nova

> Roma history, but this is the first time for me seeing the consuls openly
> and flagrantly disregard an intercessio by the tribunes.
>
> Nova Roma has driven itself to cronyism and demagoguery (cf. Sulla). That,
> not a tribunate intercessio, will kill Nova Roma.
>

Fixed.

-Anna

:O Un-be-lie-va-ble...really. If we made a "the most surreal request for intercessio" contest, I will vote this one! You did it all alone? Finally your NBA's and PH-Neutrals paid the price! This made me cry of joy. Di vos incolumem custodiant. -- L. Coruncanius Cato Aedilis Curulis Scriba Consulis Hispaniae --- El mié, 17/6/09, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> escribió: De: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:44 REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, citizen and Senator of Nova Roma requests that the Tribunus Plebis issue an intercessio against Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, Consul of Nova Roma and against Marcus Iulius Severus, Consul of Nova Roma on the grounds that their instructions in respect of the recent election for Censor suffectus, held in the comitia centuriata, to "invalidate the tiebreak and order that the sortes are thrown again and with base in the following result, the diribitores should count the votes again" as contained in Message 66963 http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Nova- Roma/message/ 66963, violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely: "While it shall be called to order by either a consul or a praetor, only the comitia centuriata shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally." The consuls actions have created a rule by which the processes of the comitia centuriata will be altered in a manner which is not supported in any law passed for that purpose within the comitia centuriata. The consuls and/or Pontifex Maximus cannot create a rule by which the comitia centuriata shall function in relation to tie breaking, otherwise known as the "lot". The change in process will effectively bind future consuls to follow this practice and as such usurps the function of law, and thus violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution. The consuls imperium does not extend to overturning the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal processes. The specific supporting reasons and/or background information and explanation for this intercessio are. 1. The intercessio is against both consuls for in the above message Consul Marcus Curiatius Complutensis states "The consuls we have studied the situation derived from the recent extraordinary elections and have asked for advice to the Pontifex Maximus, have both agreed to this most recent action" and also "For this motive we have decided to". Even though message 66963 is only signed by Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, the reference to this being a collegiate decision requires intercessio be issued against both consuls. 2. Section III.B of the Constitution makes no reference to the manner of breaking ties and the only reference to tie breaking in the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum describes the process for doing so as by "lot". 3. The dictionary definition, of "lot" in the absence of any definition provided under the Constitution or any lex is "an object used as a counter in determining a question by chance2 a: the use of lots as a means of deciding something b: the resulting choice" http://www.merriam- webster.com/ dictionary/ lot[1] The Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum requires no more than this as a definition of the process of tie breaking or the "lot" therefore. 4. Therefore by invalidating the tiebreak the consuls have created a rule that exists outside of the Constitution and the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum, and by doing so have violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, as quoted above, by usurping the power and/or function of law and the rights of the comitia centuriata. 5. The consuls have thus illegally and unconstitutionally arrogated the right to create two rules for the operation of an election in the Comitia Centuriata, contarary to Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely: 1. That tie breaks once decided can be invalidated and the tie break repeated. 2. That the process of the "lot" shall be by dice of a metal or bone construction. 6. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not specific to this election, and therefore cannot have limited effect. The action of the consuls will therefore create a rule that will have to be followed in subsequent elections as it is supposedly based on a religious objection to using plastic dice in the process of tie-breaking or "lot". This action will therefore lead to subsequent consuls also having to bind themselves to this illegal and unconstitutional rule, and thereby place themselves in jeopardy of violating Section III.B of of the Constitution, or risk claims of religious impropriety in the tie breaking or "lot". 7. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not the policy of the Collegium Pontificum, nor the Collegium Augurum. Further the advice of the Pontifex Maximus ignores the method of public sortition used Ancient Rome, and does not even create an approximation of the religious elements of that sortititon. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus has failed completely to address: 1. What ancient Roman model of sortition to use in Nova Roma for tie breaking in the electoral process, be the methodology used in the comitia or the one for provincial allocation, or another. 2. Which deity would be the counterintuitive agent. 3. How, when magistrates live in different parts of the world the same implements of sortition would be used by the custodes and the effect on the length of elections that would have. 4. What the design of the implements of sortition would be, whether it would be a cista or a hydria for the container and what material the lots would be constructed from. 5. Where the implements would be stored, as traditionally they were housed in the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus. 6. What rituals would accompany the sortition process. 7. How Nova Roma would accommodate the requirement for an augural presence in public sortition. 8. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that errors in the sortition were detected. 9. What training would be provided to mark out the templum necessary for the performance of public sortition. 8. The Pontifex Maximus has claimed that Plastic is alleged to be unnatural due to the molecular alteration of its material, and thus cannot have a natural numen, which leads to its inability to receive the numina through which the Gods could influence the outcome. A metal such as bronze, favored by the Pontifex Maximus as an alternative, is an alloy. An alloy "is a partial or complete solid solution of one or more elements in a metallic matrix." (Wikipedia). A solid solution is a solid-state solution of one or more solutes in a solvent. When the issue with the use of a polymer in the construction of the die is based on the molecular alteration of the material, consider that a disruption occurs also in solid solutions. "The solute may incorporate into the solvent crystal lattice substitutionally, by replacing a solvent particle in the lattice, or interstitially, by fitting into the space between solvent particles. Both of these types of solid solution affect the properties of the material by distorting the crystal lattice and disrupting the physical and electrical homogeneity of the solvent material' (Wikipedia). Plastic as the Pontifex Maximus has stated is a polymer is usually a polymer, which is a large molecule of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds. A covalent bond is "characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms, or between atoms and other covalent bonds." (Wikipedia). Covalent bonding can occur naturally, for example Hydrogen cyanide, a linear molecule, with a triple bond between carbon and nitrogen, which is present in fruits that have pits, such as cherries. It also has been detected in the interstellar medium. Covalent chemical bonding is not therefore an unatural and artificial process. While polymer in popular usage suggests plastic, the term actually refers to a "large class of natural and synthetic materials with a variety of properties." (Wikipedia). Polymers can be either natural or synthetic. Natural polymers would be for example rubber. "Plastic" as a term is therefore too wide a description to be of much use in determining the issue. What was the material used in the construction of the die in question? Was the die acyrilic? Was it resin? Was it polymethyl methacrylate? Was it a cellulose based plastic, either cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate? The reason for this level of inquiry concerning the material used is that some materials have as their base a naturally occurring substance. For example cellulose nitrate uses cotton as its cellulose base, while cellulose acetate uses cotton or tree pulp. Resins can be naturally occurring or synthetic. Therefore polymers, which are all based on naturally occurring substances, be they organic materials or chemical elements, share a level of disruption at a molecular level with a solid solution found in alloys, of which bronze is one. Creating an alloy such as bronze involves a chemical process. Additionally when applying chromium, iron, cobalt and copper to a bronze surface, molecular changes take place in the bronze. So if molecular changes take place in bronze, asserted to be a more "natural" substance than a polymer, does this affect its ability to accommodate a numen? There is no evidence of any detailed research into this matter, therefore the issue of molecular changes somehow interfering with the ability of an object to host a numen maybe a substantiated claim or a specious one. There is simply a lack of evidence and research either way. Consequently the argument that a polymer cannot have a natural numen could be contradictory, given the natural base of the compounds and the fact that bronze, which is assumed to be more "natural" and is a solid solution, has a level of disruption. The chemical processes maybe artificially stimulated but as per covalent bonding, this isn't a man made process, as it occurs in the natural world. 9. Therefore the Pontifex Maximus has advanced a claim regarding the inability of plastic to host a numen which is unsubstantiated by any detailed research and discussion by the Collegium Pontificum or the Collegium Augurum, and furthermore advances a recommendation for a change in the process of tie breaking or "lot" which would not only be illegal and unconstitutional, but also which is not a historic recreation, nor even an approximation, of the Ancient Roman method of public sortition. There would continue to be a complete lack of religious ritual accompanying the tie breaking thus rendering false or unreliable the claim that the recommended change in the tie breaking process enhances the reliability of the tie breaking or "lot" and in some way represents the will of the Gods or some unspecified God. 10. Finally the "Law of Contagion" which the Pontifex Maximus has referenced as somehow connected to the Religio Romana was first articulated as a "law" as far as can be determined by Sir James George Frazer in his "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion". No evidence can be found that the Collegium Pontificum has ever researched this matter and determined its role in public sortition rituals in Ancient Rome Therefore the Consuls have not only clearly violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, by usurping the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal rules, which is grounds alone for the intercessio, but they have done so based on spurious and/or false and/or poorly researched claims by the Pontifex Maximus concerning the nature of public sortition in Ancient Rome and/or unproven claims regarding the corruption of the current process, and by claiming falsely an enhanced religious component to the tie breaking or "lot" which will effectively bind further consuls to have to decide between also violating this section of the Constitution or risking false claims of religious impropriety in tie breaking. --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@ ...> wrote: > > Salvete > > after the expiatory ceremony for the vitium and the re-break of the ties > using a Nova Roman Sestertius, the will of the citizens of Nova Roma and > the will of the Gods and Goddesses is that the Censor Suffectus elected > with 28 centuries is K. Fabius Buteo Modianus. > > Valete > > M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS >

Bla, bla, bla, bla...........

This is all we can expect from someone who does not believe in the Gods and Goddesses.

Cornelius Sulla does not respect Religio Romana

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO
>
>
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, citizen and Senator of Nova Roma requests that the Tribunus Plebis issue an intercessio against Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, Consul of Nova Roma and against Marcus Iulius Severus, Consul of Nova Roma on the grounds that their instructions in respect of the recent election for Censor suffectus, held in the comitia centuriata, to "invalidate the tiebreak and order that the sortes are thrown again and with base in the following result, the diribitores should count the votes again" as contained in Message 66963 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/66963, violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
>
>
>
> "While it shall be called to order by either a consul or a praetor, only the comitia centuriata shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally."
>
>
>
> The consuls actions have created a rule by which the processes of the comitia centuriata will be altered in a manner which is not supported in any law passed for that purpose within the comitia centuriata. The consuls and/or Pontifex Maximus cannot create a rule by which the comitia centuriata shall function in relation to tie breaking, otherwise known as the "lot". The change in process will effectively bind future consuls to follow this practice and as such usurps the function of law, and thus violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution. The consuls imperium does not extend to overturning the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal processes.
>
>
>
> The specific supporting reasons and/or background information and explanation for this intercessio are.
>
>
>
> 1. The intercessio is against both consuls for in the above message Consul Marcus Curiatius Complutensis states "The consuls we have studied the situation derived from the recent extraordinary elections and have asked for advice to the Pontifex Maximus, have both agreed to this most recent action" and also "For this motive we have decided to". Even though message 66963 is only signed by Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, the reference to this being a collegiate decision requires intercessio be issued against both consuls.
>
>
>
> 2. Section III.B of the Constitution makes no reference to the manner of breaking ties and the only reference to tie breaking in the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum describes the process for doing so as by "lot".
>
>
>
> 3. The dictionary definition, of "lot" in the absence of any definition provided under the Constitution or any lex is "an object used as a counter in determining a question by chance2 a: the use of lots as a means of deciding something b: the resulting choice" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lot%5b1] The Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum requires no more than this as a definition of the process of tie breaking or the "lot" therefore.
>
>
>
> 4. Therefore by invalidating the tiebreak the consuls have created a rule that exists outside of the Constitution and the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum, and by doing so have violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, as quoted above, by usurping the power and/or function of law and the rights of the comitia centuriata.
>
>
>
> 5. The consuls have thus illegally and unconstitutionally arrogated the right to create two rules for the operation of an election in the Comitia Centuriata, contarary to Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
> 1. That tie breaks once decided can be invalidated and the tie break repeated.
> 2. That the process of the "lot" shall be by dice of a metal or bone construction.
>
>
>
> 6. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not specific to this election, and therefore cannot have limited effect. The action of the consuls will therefore create a rule that will have to be followed in subsequent elections as it is supposedly based on a religious objection to using plastic dice in the process of tie-breaking or "lot". This action will therefore lead to subsequent consuls also having to bind themselves to this illegal and unconstitutional rule, and thereby place themselves in jeopardy of violating Section III.B of of the Constitution, or risk claims of religious impropriety in the tie breaking or "lot".
>
>
>
> 7. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not the policy of the Collegium Pontificum, nor the Collegium Augurum. Further the advice of the Pontifex Maximus ignores the method of public sortition used Ancient Rome, and does not even create an approximation of the religious elements of that sortititon. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus has failed completely to address:
>
>
>
> 1. What ancient Roman model of sortition to use in Nova Roma for tie breaking in the electoral process, be the methodology used in the comitia or the one for provincial allocation, or another.
> 2. Which deity would be the counterintuitive agent.
> 3. How, when magistrates live in different parts of the world the same implements of sortition would be used by the custodes and the effect on the length of elections that would have.
> 4. What the design of the implements of sortition would be, whether it would be a cista or a hydria for the container and what material the lots would be constructed from.
> 5. Where the implements would be stored, as traditionally they were housed in the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.
> 6. What rituals would accompany the sortition process.
> 7. How Nova Roma would accommodate the requirement for an augural presence in public sortition.
> 8. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that errors in the sortition were detected.
> 9. What training would be provided to mark out the templum necessary for the performance of public sortition.
>
>
>
> 8. The Pontifex Maximus has claimed that Plastic is alleged to be unnatural due to the molecular alteration of its material, and thus cannot have a natural numen, which leads to its inability to receive the numina through which the Gods could influence the outcome. A metal such as bronze, favored by the Pontifex Maximus as an alternative, is an alloy. An alloy "is a partial or complete solid solution of one or more elements in a metallic matrix." (Wikipedia). A solid solution is a solid-state solution of one or more solutes in a solvent.
>
>
>
> When the issue with the use of a polymer in the construction of the die is based on the molecular alteration of the material, consider that a disruption occurs also in solid solutions.
>
>
>
> "The solute may incorporate into the solvent crystal lattice substitutionally, by replacing a solvent particle in the lattice, or interstitially, by fitting into the space between solvent particles. Both of these types of solid solution affect the properties of the material by distorting the crystal lattice and disrupting the physical and electrical homogeneity of the solvent material' (Wikipedia).
>
>
>
> Plastic as the Pontifex Maximus has stated is a polymer is usually a polymer, which is a large molecule of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds.
>
>
>
> A covalent bond is "characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms, or between atoms and other covalent bonds." (Wikipedia). Covalent bonding can occur naturally, for example Hydrogen cyanide, a linear molecule, with a triple bond between carbon and nitrogen, which is present in fruits that have pits, such as cherries. It also has been detected in the interstellar medium. Covalent chemical bonding is not therefore an unatural and artificial process.
>
>
>
> While polymer in popular usage suggests plastic, the term actually refers to a "large class of natural and synthetic materials with a variety of properties." (Wikipedia). Polymers can be either natural or synthetic. Natural polymers would be for example rubber. "Plastic" as a term is therefore too wide a description to be of much use in determining the issue. What was the material used in the construction of the die in question? Was the die acyrilic? Was it resin? Was it polymethyl methacrylate? Was it a cellulose based plastic, either cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate?
>
>
>
> The reason for this level of inquiry concerning the material used is that some materials have as their base a naturally occurring substance. For example cellulose nitrate uses cotton as its cellulose base, while cellulose acetate uses cotton or tree pulp. Resins can be naturally occurring or synthetic.
>
>
>
> Therefore polymers, which are all based on naturally occurring substances, be they organic materials or chemical elements, share a level of disruption at a molecular level with a solid solution found in alloys, of which bronze is one. Creating an alloy such as bronze involves a chemical process. Additionally when applying chromium, iron, cobalt and copper to a bronze surface, molecular changes take place in the bronze. So if molecular changes take place in bronze, asserted to be a more "natural" substance than a polymer, does this affect its ability to accommodate a numen? There is no evidence of any detailed research into this matter, therefore the issue of molecular changes somehow interfering with the ability of an object to host a numen maybe a substantiated claim or a specious one. There is simply a lack of evidence and research either way.
>
>
>
> Consequently the argument that a polymer cannot have a natural numen could be contradictory, given the natural base of the compounds and the fact that bronze, which is assumed to be more "natural" and is a solid solution, has a level of disruption. The chemical processes maybe artificially stimulated but as per covalent bonding, this isn't a man made process, as it occurs in the natural world.
>
>
>
> 9. Therefore the Pontifex Maximus has advanced a claim regarding the inability of plastic to host a numen which is unsubstantiated by any detailed research and discussion by the Collegium Pontificum or the Collegium Augurum, and furthermore advances a recommendation for a change in the process of tie breaking or "lot" which would not only be illegal and unconstitutional, but also which is not a historic recreation, nor even an approximation, of the Ancient Roman method of public sortition. There would continue to be a complete lack of religious ritual accompanying the tie breaking thus rendering false or unreliable the claim that the recommended change in the tie breaking process enhances the reliability of the tie breaking or "lot" and in some way represents the will of the Gods or some unspecified God.
>
>
>
> 10. Finally the "Law of Contagion" which the Pontifex Maximus has referenced as somehow connected to the Religio Romana was first articulated as a "law" as far as can be determined by Sir James George Frazer in his "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion". No evidence can be found that the Collegium Pontificum has ever researched this matter and determined its role in public sortition rituals in Ancient Rome
>
>
>
> Therefore the Consuls have not only clearly violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, by usurping the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal rules, which is grounds alone for the intercessio, but they have done so based on spurious and/or false and/or poorly researched claims by the Pontifex Maximus concerning the nature of public sortition in Ancient Rome and/or unproven claims regarding the corruption of the current process, and by claiming falsely an enhanced religious component to the tie breaking or "lot" which will effectively bind further consuls to have to decide between also violating this section of the Constitution or risking false claims of religious impropriety in tie breaking.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > after the expiatory ceremony for the vitium and the re-break of the ties
> > using a Nova Roman Sestertius, the will of the citizens of Nova Roma and
> > the will of the Gods and Goddesses is that the Censor Suffectus elected
> > with 28 centuries is K. Fabius Buteo Modianus.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > M.CVR.COMPLVTENSIS
> >
>

Plenty of ex-NR and non-NR post here. Anyone who tries to use the "you're not a member so shut up" argument is probably unable to think of a better comeback. It's pathetic really.

-Anna

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Diana Octavia Aventina <roman.babe@...> wrote:
>
> Congratulations Modianus.
>
> Let's hope that this is the last oath of office that you'll have to make this year as Censor...
>
> Before anyone says that I have no right to speak because I am an ex-citizen, I would like to say that people telling me to shut up never bothered me before, so why should it now? :-)
>
> Anyway the main reason why I am writing is to let the Nova Romans know about a new play that may be of interest. It is called "You, Nero". It is a comedy about Rome and has gotten rave reviews from everyone who is anyone. It is playing in a few theatres in California and is soon to go country wide. It is written by my beloverd sister-in-law Amy Freed, who never seems to run out of ideas for new plays. She was up for the Pullitzer prize a few years ago. I haven't seem it because I am living in Belgium, but if Amy wrote it and the NY Times loves it, then I am sure that it is more than worth recommending to you all!
>  
> Valete,
> Diana Aventina
>

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

>
> Caesar Aquilae SPD
>  
> Well I think due credit must be given to the Pontifex Maximus for opening up this line of inquiry into the chemical and natural world :)
>  
> Optime vale
>

I've found that most pagans prefer using natural materials for their divination. It's not like he's the only one.

I do not think the type of material matters much. My runes are artificially made, and they still work. They may not be as cool as hand-made ones out of stone or wood, but they still do the job imo.

-Anna

Salve Anna

Well that very point about the die being plastic appears to have been the very reason the tie breaking was undertaken again, on the advice of the PM.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Wed, 6/17/09, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

> From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
> Subject: Re: AW: [Nova-Roma] REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO or The molecular structure of a dice
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 9:56 AM
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar Aquilae SPD
> >  
> > Well I think due credit must be given to the Pontifex
> Maximus for opening up this line of inquiry into the
> chemical and natural world :)
> >  
> > Optime vale
> >
>
> I've found that most pagans prefer using natural materials
> for their divination. It's not like he's the only one.
>
> I do not think the type of material matters much. My runes
> are artificially made, and they still work. They may not be
> as cool as hand-made ones out of stone or wood, but they
> still do the job imo.
>
> -Anna
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

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

>
>
> Salve Anna
>
> Well that very point about the die being plastic appears to have been the very reason the tie breaking was undertaken again, on the advice of the PM.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar

ah, the very point is the very reason, verily. Yea I know. We all know. I just said most pagans prefer natural materials than artificial. Obviously the PM is one of them.

-Anna

Salvete,   Well, I just find the whole unhistorical role played that makes the Nova Roma Pontifex Maximus more like the Roman Catholic pope than the real, historical Pontifex Maximus of Republican times. Plus, if I remember Watson's discussion of Mommsen correctly, in contrast to the other pontiffs (especially the flamines maiors), at least in the time of Festus the pontifiex maximus was an annual office, sometimes shared, until Augustus turned several offices into life-time appointments (for him) until the reforms of Roman law by the Byzantines when the college of pontiffs were replaced by the Christian episcopacy and the office of pontifex maximus returned to an annual appointment -- Watson's discussion being maining the conservative nature of Roman law and how Byzantine law was in some respects a dismantling of some of the imperial law and a return to Republican law in these limited matters. A good comparison was made by Dumezil to the British polity. You have the Royals (the college of pontiffs) and you have the prime minister (pontifex maximus).   Oh well, I learned long ago that Nova Roma's religio was more construction than reconstruction.   Valete A. Sempronius Regulus --- On Wed, 6/17/09, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote: From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> Subject: Re: AW: [Nova-Roma] REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO or The molecular structure of a dice To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:56 PM --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ ...> wrote: > > Caesar Aquilae SPD >   > Well I think due credit must be given to the Pontifex Maximus for opening up this line of inquiry into the chemical and natural world :) >   > Optime vale > I've found that most pagans prefer using natural materials for their divination. It's not like he's the only one. I do not think the type of material matters much. My runes are artificially made, and they still work. They may not be as cool as hand-made ones out of stone or wood, but they still do the job imo. -Anna

Salve Regule;
Piscinus is a member of the college of augurs and the consuls asked his advice about the sortition because he is an augur. That's it.

Magistrates requesting a religious officials' expert advice on religious law is very traditional too:)

The CP members have done a lot of research and reformed itself so it is closer to the form of the Republic. We want to be true to the res publica. We're not there yet, but we are trying!
bene vale in pacem deorum
M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis
sacerdos Mentis

> Salvete,
>  
> Well, I just find the whole unhistorical role played that makes the Nova Roma Pontifex Maximus more like the Roman Catholic pope than the real, historical Pontifex Maximus of Republican times.
>
> Plus, if I remember Watson's discussion of Mommsen correctly, in contrast to the other pontiffs (especially the flamines maiors), at least in the time of Festus the pontifiex maximus was an annual office, sometimes shared, until Augustus turned several offices into life-time appointments (for him) until the reforms of Roman law by the Byzantines when the college of pontiffs were replaced by the Christian episcopacy and the office of pontifex maximus returned to an annual appointment -- Watson's discussion being maining the conservative nature of Roman law and how Byzantine law was in some respects a dismantling of some of the imperial law and a return to Republican law in these limited matters. A good comparison was made by Dumezil to the British polity. You have the Royals (the college of pontiffs) and you have the prime minister (pontifex maximus).
>  
> Oh well, I learned long ago that Nova Roma's religio was more construction than reconstruction.
>  
> Valete
> A. Sempronius Regulus
> --- On Wed, 6/17/09, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
> Subject: Re: AW: [Nova-Roma] REQUEST FOR TRIBUNICIAN INTERCESSIO or The molecular structure of a dice
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:56 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar Aquilae SPD
> >  
> > Well I think due credit must be given to the Pontifex Maximus for opening up this line of inquiry into the chemical and natural world :)
> >  
> > Optime vale
> >
>
> I've found that most pagans prefer using natural materials for their divination. It's not like he's the only one.
>
> I do not think the type of material matters much. My runes are artificially made, and they still work. They may not be as cool as hand-made ones out of stone or wood, but they still do the job imo.
>
> -Anna
>

The tribunes disagreed, and fortunately for us all, they are the final
authority, and not you.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:24 AM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Plastic Dice

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
> <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:
>>
>> Never before in NR history did the consuls allow a candidate run for two
>> consecutive terms for the censura, either.
>
> And there hasn't been a candidate for them to allow to run for 2
> consecutive terms. Modianus's candidacy was not consecutive(hence why he
> was allowed to run).
>
>
> Perhaps I don't know all of Nova
>> Roma history, but this is the first time for me seeing the consuls openly
>> and flagrantly disregard an intercessio by the tribunes.
>>
>> Nova Roma has driven itself to cronyism and demagoguery (cf. Sulla).
>> That,
>> not a tribunate intercessio, will kill Nova Roma.
>>
>
> Fixed.
>
> -Anna
>
>

"The name was missed."

This has absolutely no bearing on the intercessio where the custodes was
concerned. Agrippa did mistake at all any of the custodes names. Focusing on
the name of the consul is merely an attempt at diversion.

Poplicola

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_cato@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:09 AM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice

> L. Coruncanius Cato Q. Valerio Poplicolae SPD
>
> We can go again on the dictionary debate if you want. It will get us
> nowhere. The fact is: if the tribunes, or the people, or anyone, believe
> that one candidacy is not legal, they MUST act when this situation cames
> up. If not, the candidacy is valid.
> Why the intercessio is not valid? Because, dura lex, sed lex:
>
> -if any of the points stated on the lex about issuing intercessio is not
> correct, the intercessio is not valid. The name was missed. One could say
> that a tribune placing an intercessio missing the magistrate's name is not
> paying sufficient respect to this office. I am not saying that. I think we
> are humans, and humans make mistakes, and mistakes carry consequences, and
> consequences have to be faced.
>
> -The only valid point of the intercessio (in case of the intercessio was
> valid, which is not as I said before) was placed agains the acts of the
> custodes.... and after that, the intercessio says that it is placed
> because one candidacy was not valid. If the intercessio is placed because
> of a not valid candidacy, and if the candidacies are to be reviewed by the
> rogatores, why the intercessio is placed against the ones involved on the
> counting of the votes? If the intercessio is to prevent an 'unlawful' (see
> the dictionary debate mention above) candidacy, why it was placed AFTER
> elections were over, AFTER the result was announced and against persons
> not involved absolutely in the review of candidacies?
>
> Tribunes of the Plebs are sacrosanct, but they have to abide to the law
> ...too.
>
> Di vos incolumem custodiant.
>
> --
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Aedilis Curulis
>
> Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
>
> --- El mié, 17/6/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola
> <q.valerius.poplicola@...> escribió:
>
> De: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 12:37
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Never before in NR history did the consuls allow a candidate run for
> two
>
> consecutive terms for the censura, either. Perhaps I don't know all of
> Nova
>
> Roma history, but this is the first time for me seeing the consuls openly
>
> and flagrantly disregard an intercessio by the tribunes.
>
>
>
> Nova Roma has driven itself to cronyism and demagoguery (cf. Maior). That,
>
> not a tribunate intercessio, will kill Nova Roma.
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
>
> From: "Lucius Coruncanius Cato" <l.coruncanius_ cato@yahoo. com>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:25 AM
>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice
>
>
>
>> Salve Venator,
>
>>
>
>> Never, never before in Roma Antiqua or NR history was any electoral
>> result
>
>> vetoed. If we came to this it's because the actions from two tribunes.
>> And
>
>> that's exactly what and why I said, in an earlier post on the issue, that
>
>> that intercessio placed a really nasty precedent.
>
>>
>
>> And here we are now, with the shadow of doubt over all past elections...
>
>>
>
>> People are slaves of their words. Now the tribunes shall carry the
>
>> doubtful honour of being the first to veto an electoral result and cast a
>
>> dangerous shadow on NR.
>
>>
>
>> Di vos incolumem custodiant.
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>>
>
>> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
>>
>
>> Aedilis Curulis
>
>>
>
>> Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
>
>>
>
>> --- El mié, 17/6/09, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
>
>> <famila.ulleria. venii@gmail. com> escribió:
>
>>
>
>> De: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria. venii@gmail. com>
>
>> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Plastic Dice
>
>> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
>
>> Fecha: miércoles, 17 junio, 2009 3:37
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ...and my point gets obscured that if plastic dice being used in the
>
>>
>
>> process of tie-breaking occludes this election then the last election
>
>>
>
>> in which I was Custode and used plastic dice in the process of
>
>>
>
>> tie-breaking was likewise occluded, therefore the legitimacy of any
>
>>
>
>> magistrate whose taking office depended upon my tie-breaking is also,
>
>>
>
>> possibly, illegitimate.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> This is NEW ROME, we no longer have to depend upon cutting the
>
>>
>
>> knuckles off of sheep in order to have materials for creating tools of
>
>>
>
>> chance.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ...and chance it is, the Gods would not be this petty.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Consuls, take a deep breath and make a real decision.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Tribunes, speak up here, please!
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> done for today - Venator
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

>
> The tribunes disagreed, and fortunately for us all, they are the final
> authority, and not you.
>

I never said I was the final authority. But in my opinion, the people of nova roma are the final authority in Nova Roma. Shouldn't the tribunes be on the side of the people?

-Anna

I agree with you, Anna.

The people must be the final authority. The people is the final authority.

The acronym SPQR does not means "Sulla Populusque Romanorum".

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> >
> > The tribunes disagreed, and fortunately for us all, they are the final
> > authority, and not you.
> >
>
> I never said I was the final authority. But in my opinion, the people of nova roma are the final authority in Nova Roma. Shouldn't the tribunes be on the side of the people?
>
> -Anna
>

Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.

What the people should or should not be is another question. In Nova Roma the supreme legal authority is the Constitution.

Optime valete

--- On Wed, 6/17/09, fpasquinus@... <fpasquinus@...> wrote:

> From: fpasquinus@... <fpasquinus@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Plastic Dice
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 1:16 PM
> I agree with you, Anna.
>
> The people must be the final authority. The people is the
> final authority.
>
> The acronym SPQR does not means "Sulla Populusque
> Romanorum".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The tribunes disagreed, and fortunately for us
> all, they are the final
> > > authority, and not you.
> > >
> >
> > I never said I was the final authority. But in my
> opinion, the people of nova roma are the final authority in
> Nova Roma. Shouldn't the tribunes be on the side of the
> people?
> >
> > -Anna
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Salve,

Yes, I can certainly see how that line can be interpreted to limit the violation of law only to the technical details of a magistrate's work--which is to say, how a magistrate did or did not fulfill his specific duties--but it doesn't say this. Rather, it say's "the magistrate's act", which can be interpreted rather broadly, to include violation against any law under the sun. It also doesn't put any explicit limits on how an "act" can violate a law. Potentially one can present quite a wild set of connexions that result in a "violation". All of this is up for interpretation as much as "consecutive" was two weeks ago.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve again Gualtero
>
> Yes, you are partially right: there are leges that allow the interpretation.
>
> But on this matter the law says: "When a Tribunus Plebis issues an
> intercessio, it must include...........c. The article(s) of the
> Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s)."
>
> No interpretation is allowed in this case, doing his work what
> article(s) of the Constitution or the leges are violated by the Custodes?
>
> And this is not my interpretation.....
>
> Vale bene
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
> gualterus_graecus escribió:
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Well, the Constitution does not define the scope in which "the spirit
> > and / or letter of this Constitution" etc is being violated. Is it
> > limited to the immediate duties of the magistrate or any prior action
> > that may have led up to the magistrate's action? Is a particular
> > action of a magistrate invalid if earlier actions that led up to it
> > were invalid? Once again, interpretation.
> >
> > The structure of Agrippa's intercessio is what we would have expected.
> > All of the arguments are over whether the legal justification is valid
> > or not, and that is completely up to interpretation. Indeed, in your
> > reply to me, you included "doing his/her work"--that is your
> > interpretation, since neither the constitution nor any law specifies that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "M.C.C." <complutensis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Gualtero
> > >
> > > in law the proofs are articles of Constitution, leges or edicta.
> > >
> > > If anyone veto the Custodes he/she must say/write: I veto the Custodes
> > > because doing his/her work they have violated the spirit or letter of
> > > following articles of the Constitution, lex or edictum.
> > >
> > > This is the requested proof.
> > >
> > > An invalid veto says I veto de Custodes because I as tribunus failed to
> > > issue my veto against X on time.
> > >
> > > The law is clear: the veto must be issued within the 72 hours that
> > > follow the magisterial act or violation of the law.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > >
> > >
> > > gualterus_graecus escribió:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have been busy the last few
> > days
> > > > and just began catching up on the activity on the list.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to dispute your comment about proof and interpretation.
> > > > In fact, everything in law is about interpretation. The very idea
> > > > about "precedent"--an idea which you cite here and so apparently
> > > > implicitly acknowledge--is that there can be more than one
> > > > interpretation and that certain prior interpretations can influence
> > > > future interpretations.
> > > >
> > > > People often abuse the term "proof"--strictly speaking, proofs only
> > > > exist in formal logic and mathematics. In law, it is about presenting
> > > > a convincing interpretation, not about presenting a formal proof.
> > > > Unfortunately, what is convincing is hardly ever universal.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that law is about interpretation is why in most legal
> > systems
> > > > there exist final arbiters for judgment. It is not like a
> > mathematical
> > > > proof for which you don't need any final authority, but rather
> > > > everyone following the deductive rules can come to agree on the
> > results.
> > > >
> > > > In law, since there is no *absolute* interpretive path, most systems
> > > > establish some final authority to decide when disagreements develop.
> > > >
> > > > How this may pan out for the specific system established in NR I
> > > > prefer not to involve myself in argument, but I would like to make
> > > > clear that there is no absolutely correct interpretation when it
> > comes
> > > > to law. Consider how nebulous the term "spirit of the law" is. Is the
> > > > "spirit" based on authorial intent, or literal meaning, or something
> > > > else? Who decides?
> > > >
> > > > Let's not pretend that the current debate somehow has some absolutely
> > > > correct answer--this is why supreme courts exist in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Gualterus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "M.C.C." <complutensis@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Poplicola
> > > > >
> > > > > Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.
> > > > >
> > > > > "when the spirit........violated" does not admit interpretations, in
> > > > > this case the proofs must be presented
> > > > >
> > > > > "when they believes........" with what legal basis? With the legal
> > > > basis
> > > > > that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do Custodes falsified the election results? This would be the
> > only case
> > > > > in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal
> > precedent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale
> > > > >
> > > > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pardon me, consul, but the tribunes decide when the spirit or
> > letter
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > law is being violated. And they decided. That you are
> > violating the
> > > > > > person
> > > > > > of the tribunes is a serious offense against the Gods, as the
> > > > tribunes
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > made sacrosanct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > From: "M.C.C." <complutensis@ <mailto:complutensis%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:55 AM
> > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The law says WHEN THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER
> > OF....................ARE
> > > > > > > BEING VIOLATED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The law do not says WHEN THEY BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT
> > AND/OR LETTER
> > > > > > > OF....................HAS BEEN VIOLATED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To pronounce /intercessio/ (intercession; a veto) against the
> > > > actions of
> > > > > > > any other magistrate (with the exception of the /dictator/
> > and the
> > > > > > > /interrex/), /Senatus consulta/, magisterial /edicta/, religious
> > > > > > > /decreta/, and /leges/ passed by the /comitia/ *when* the
> > spirit
> > > > and /
> > > > > > > or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted /edicta/ or
> > > > /decreta/,
> > > > > > > /Senatus Consulta/ or /leges/ are being violated thereby; once a
> > > > > > > pronouncement of /intercessio/ has been made, the other
> > Tribunes
> > > > may, at
> > > > > > > their discretion, state either their support for or their
> > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > with that /intercessio/.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>
> > > > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>>
> > > > > > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>
> > > > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_>>>(Nova_Roma)#IV._Magistrates.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Salve.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From your words one might not know that you have been a
> > > > tribune, since
> > > > > > >> you evidence such little understanding of Nova Roman law.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> A "valid intercessio" is the act of a tribune against the
> > act of a
> > > > > > >> magistrate when they (the tribune) believes that the "spirit
> > > > and / or
> > > > > > >> letter" of the Constitution or leges has been violated.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Vipsanius Agrippa's veto has been upheld by the tribunes and
> > > > therefore
> > > > > > >> is valid; no act of any other magistrate can override a
> > > > tribunician
> > > > > > veto.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> That's in the Constitution.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Vale,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Cato
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > >> David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem
> > dicit
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I have been a tribune, so do not lecture me on respect.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > A valid intercessio would have been to veto a candidate
> > > > during the
> > > > > > >> contio as
> > > > > > >> > the Lex Fabia indicates. You cannot veto the will of the
> > > > people, and
> > > > > > >> > vetoing the work done by the custodes is like vetoing a
> > > > rogator who
> > > > > > >> approves
> > > > > > >> > a citizenship application.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > It would be be like a tribune vetoing a diribitor who
> > counts a
> > > > > > >> ballot, which
> > > > > > >> > is an action. Such an action is absurd, i.e., the veto, and
> > > > cannot be
> > > > > > >> > done. You cannot veto someone doing their job. If the
> > tribunes
> > > > > > >> didn't want
> > > > > > >> > me as a candidate they should have exercised their veto
> > power
> > > > during
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > contio. They did not, and the people elected me as
> > censor. Of
> > > > course
> > > > > > >> > you
> > > > > > >> > would have the will of the people negated.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Vale:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > > > > > >> > q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor
> > > > illegally is
> > > > > > >> the only
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid
> > > > intercessio
> > > > > > >> and now a
> > > > > > >> > > new election must be called. You don't agree with the
> > > > tribunes so
> > > > > > >> of course
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

The people are indeed the final authority. They can change the law that is
keeping Modianus out of consecutive terms if they want. But they must do it
through normal legal means, and not through an illegal vote.

It's all about balance.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:57 PM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Plastic Dice

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola"
> <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:
>>
>> The tribunes disagreed, and fortunately for us all, they are the final
>> authority, and not you.
>>
>
> I never said I was the final authority. But in my opinion, the people of
> nova roma are the final authority in Nova Roma. Shouldn't the tribunes be
> on the side of the people?
>
> -Anna
>
>
>

Re: Witnessing of Appointment of L. Coruncanius Cato as Aedilis Curulis


Lictrix Marca Hortensia Maior Civibus Novae Romae spd;
Ego Marca Hortensia Maior, lictrix curiata Nova Romae
testificor L. Corucanium Catonem aedilem curulem Novae Romae creari

Lictor Comitiorum Curiatorum eo opto ut pro religione Romana felicissime
officiis muneribusque suis fungatur.

I, Marca Hortensia Maior, as a Lictrix of Nova Roma, hereby witness the
appointment of L. Coruncanius Cato as Aedilis curulis of Nova Roma



As a member of the Comitia Curiata I wish him good fortune in his offices and in
his work on behalf of the Religio Romana.



-

C. Petronius M. Piscino et K. Modiano s.p.d.,

> Hodie est ante diem XVI Kalendas Quinctilias; haec dies comitialis est:
>
> Dies natalis: Today is the birthday of Pontifex and Censorius Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus. Felices natalis! Et optimam habeas Fortunam.

I am late, sorry, but I say with great pleasure :
Happy Birthday Modiane !

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

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

>
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.
>
> What the people should or should not be is another question. In Nova Roma the supreme legal authority is the Constitution.
>
> Optime valete

The constitution doesn't elect magistrates. The people do. In regards to the constitution being the final authority on the laws and procedures in Nova Roma(which had to be voted in by the people), it would seem prudent to have a supreme authority(not unlike the US supreme court) to decide on the matter of constitutionality rather than just having everyone bicker about it.

Although I'm sure that wouldn't stop the bickering(I don't think anything could), atleast there'd be something in the way of progress.

-Anna

The Constitution VI.A

A. The Religio Romana, 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 Religio Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great. Magistrates, Senators, and citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the Religio Romana, or its practitioners.




-------- Original message--------
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] Re: The rocks speak
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:59:54 -0700
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Reply To: BackAlley@yahoogroups.com
To: BackAlley@yahoogroups.com




I have not.

I am at this point preparing for my attorney. When they start yammering the Gods decided this....I will love to see a US court room hear that excuse. The Gods demanded that we violate the law...Yep..that will fly.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, <QFabiusMaxmi@...> wrote:



In a message dated 6/16/2009 3:22:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, hucke@... writes:

You're right, it's never been an issue before - and I don't believe it is now. Nor will
an unnecessary do-over change the outcome... it's a transparent stalling tactic.


This the first time religion is being used to decide an election. Before it was always about the fates, and chance.

This is a very dangerous precedent. Has anybody contacted the Tribunes?

Fabius

An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

We do. And that supreme authority that's akin to the Supreme Court are the
tribunes.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:36 PM
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Plastic Dice

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.
>>
>> What the people should or should not be is another question. In Nova Roma
>> the supreme legal authority is the Constitution.
>>
>> Optime valete
>
>
> The constitution doesn't elect magistrates. The people do. In regards to
> the constitution being the final authority on the laws and procedures in
> Nova Roma(which had to be voted in by the people), it would seem prudent
> to have a supreme authority(not unlike the US supreme court) to decide on
> the matter of constitutionality rather than just having everyone bicker
> about it.
>
> Although I'm sure that wouldn't stop the bickering(I don't think anything
> could), atleast there'd be something in the way of progress.
>
> -Anna
>
>

Salvete:

Thank you, and to everyone who wished me birthday wishes.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

C. Petronius M. Piscino et K. Modiano s.p.d.,

> Hodie est ante diem XVI Kalendas Quinctilias; haec dies comitialis est:
>
> Dies natalis: Today is the birthday of Pontifex and Censorius Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus. Felices natalis! Et optimam habeas Fortunam.

I am late, sorry, but I say with great pleasure :
Happy Birthday Modiane !

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve Gualtero

The Lex Didia Gemina is too restrictive. It does not set the violation against any law under the sun

The lex sets that the intercessio must contain explicly the articles of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act.

Vale

COMPLVTENSIS

gualterus_graecus escribió:

Salve,

Yes, I can certainly see how that line can be interpreted to limit the violation of law only to the technical details of a magistrate's work--which is to say, how a magistrate did or did not fulfill his specific duties--but it doesn't say this. Rather, it say's "the magistrate's act", which can be interpreted rather broadly, to include violation against any law under the sun. It also doesn't put any explicit limits on how an "act" can violate a law. Potentially one can present quite a wild set of connexions that result in a "violation". All of this is up for interpretation as much as "consecutive" was two weeks ago.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve again Gualtero
>
> Yes, you are partially right: there are leges that allow the interpretation.
>
> But on this matter the law says: "When a Tribunus Plebis issues an
> intercessio, it must include..... ......c. The article(s) of the
> Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s)."
>
> No interpretation is allowed in this case, doing his work what
> article(s) of the Constitution or the leges are violated by the Custodes?
>
> And this is not my interpretation. ....
>
> Vale bene
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
> gualterus_graecus escribió:
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Well, the Constitution does not define the scope in which "the spirit
> > and / or letter of this Constitution" etc is being violated. Is it
> > limited to the immediate duties of the magistrate or any prior action
> > that may have led up to the magistrate's action? Is a particular
> > action of a magistrate invalid if earlier actions that led up to it
> > were invalid? Once again, interpretation.
> >
> > The structure of Agrippa's intercessio is what we would have expected.
> > All of the arguments are over whether the legal justification is valid
> > or not, and that is completely up to interpretation. Indeed, in your
> > reply to me, you included "doing his/her work"--that is your
> > interpretation, since neither the constitution nor any law specifies that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>,
> > "M.C.C." <complutensis@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Gualtero
> > >
> > > in law the proofs are articles of Constitution, leges or edicta.
> > >
> > > If anyone veto the Custodes he/she must say/write: I veto the Custodes
> > > because doing his/her work they have violated the spirit or letter of
> > > following articles of the Constitution, lex or edictum.
> > >
> > > This is the requested proof.
> > >
> > > An invalid veto says I veto de Custodes because I as tribunus failed to
> > > issue my veto against X on time.
> > >
> > > The law is clear: the veto must be issued within the 72 hours that
> > > follow the magisterial act or violation of the law.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > >
> > >
> > > gualterus_graecus escribió:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for jumping in like this, but I have been busy the last few
> > days
> > > > and just began catching up on the activity on the list.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to dispute your comment about proof and interpretation.
> > > > In fact, everything in law is about interpretation. The very idea
> > > > about "precedent"- -an idea which you cite here and so apparently
> > > > implicitly acknowledge- -is that there can be more than one
> > > > interpretation and that certain prior interpretations can influence
> > > > future interpretations.
> > > >
> > > > People often abuse the term "proof"--strictly speaking, proofs only
> > > > exist in formal logic and mathematics. In law, it is about presenting
> > > > a convincing interpretation, not about presenting a formal proof.
> > > > Unfortunately, what is convincing is hardly ever universal.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that law is about interpretation is why in most legal
> > systems
> > > > there exist final arbiters for judgment. It is not like a
> > mathematical
> > > > proof for which you don't need any final authority, but rather
> > > > everyone following the deductive rules can come to agree on the
> > results.
> > > >
> > > > In law, since there is no *absolute* interpretive path, most systems
> > > > establish some final authority to decide when disagreements develop.
> > > >
> > > > How this may pan out for the specific system established in NR I
> > > > prefer not to involve myself in argument, but I would like to make
> > > > clear that there is no absolutely correct interpretation when it
> > comes
> > > > to law. Consider how nebulous the term "spirit of the law" is. Is the
> > > > "spirit" based on authorial intent, or literal meaning, or something
> > > > else? Who decides?
> > > >
> > > > Let's not pretend that the current debate somehow has some absolutely
> > > > correct answer--this is why supreme courts exist in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Gualterus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>,
> > > > "M.C.C." <complutensis@ > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve Poplicola
> > > > >
> > > > > Clarification: I respect the Tribunes.
> > > > >
> > > > > "when the spirit...... ..violated" does not admit interpretations, in
> > > > > this case the proofs must be presented
> > > > >
> > > > > "when they believes.... ...." with what legal basis? With the legal
> > > > basis
> > > > > that the preferred candidate of the Tribune has not been elected?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do Custodes falsified the election results? This would be the
> > only case
> > > > > in which I and anyone can accept the veto of election result.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we accept this kind of veto, we wouls setting a bad legal
> > precedent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale
> > > > >
> > > > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pardon me, consul, but the tribunes decide when the spirit or
> > letter
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > law is being violated. And they decided. That you are
> > violating the
> > > > > > person
> > > > > > of the tribunes is a serious offense against the Gods, as the
> > > > tribunes
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > made sacrosanct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> > > > > > From: "M.C.C." <complutensis@ <mailto:complutensi s%40gmail. com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:55 AM
> > > > > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Elections
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The law says WHEN THE SPIRIT AND/OR LETTER
> > OF.......... ......... .ARE
> > > > > > > BEING VIOLATED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The law do not says WHEN THEY BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT
> > AND/OR LETTER
> > > > > > > OF.......... ......... .HAS BEEN VIOLATED
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To pronounce /intercessio/ (intercession; a veto) against the
> > > > actions of
> > > > > > > any other magistrate (with the exception of the /dictator/
> > and the
> > > > > > > /interrex/), /Senatus consulta/, magisterial /edicta/, religious
> > > > > > > /decreta/, and /leges/ passed by the /comitia/ *when* the
> > spirit
> > > > and /
> > > > > > > or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted /edicta/ or
> > > > /decreta/,
> > > > > > > /Senatus Consulta/ or /leges/ are being violated thereby; once a
> > > > > > > pronouncement of /intercessio/ has been made, the other
> > Tribunes
> > > > may, at
> > > > > > > their discretion, state either their support for or their
> > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > with that /intercessio/ .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>
> > > > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>>
> > > > > > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>
> > > > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_
> > <http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Current_ constitution_>>>(Nova_Roma) #IV._Magistrates .)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Salve.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From your words one might not know that you have been a
> > > > tribune, since
> > > > > > >> you evidence such little understanding of Nova Roman law.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> A "valid intercessio" is the act of a tribune against the
> > act of a
> > > > > > >> magistrate when they (the tribune) believes that the "spirit
> > > > and / or
> > > > > > >> letter" of the Constitution or leges has been violated.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Vipsanius Agrippa's veto has been upheld by the tribunes and
> > > > therefore
> > > > > > >> is valid; no act of any other magistrate can override a
> > > > tribunician
> > > > > > veto.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> That's in the Constitution.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Vale,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Cato
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>
> > > > <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com>,
> > > > > > >> David Kling <tau.athanasios@ > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem
> > dicit
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I have been a tribune, so do not lecture me on respect.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > A valid intercessio would have been to veto a candidate
> > > > during the
> > > > > > >> contio as
> > > > > > >> > the Lex Fabia indicates. You cannot veto the will of the
> > > > people, and
> > > > > > >> > vetoing the work done by the custodes is like vetoing a
> > > > rogator who
> > > > > > >> approves
> > > > > > >> > a citizenship application.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > It would be be like a tribune vetoing a diribitor who
> > counts a
> > > > > > >> ballot, which
> > > > > > >> > is an action. Such an action is absurd, i.e., the veto, and
> > > > cannot be
> > > > > > >> > done. You cannot veto someone doing their job. If the
> > tribunes
> > > > > > >> didn't want
> > > > > > >> > me as a candidate they should have exercised their veto
> > power
> > > > during
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > contio. They did not, and the people elected me as
> > censor. Of
> > > > course
> > > > > > >> > you
> > > > > > >> > would have the will of the people negated.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Vale:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > > > > > >> > q.valerius.poplicol a@> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Since you don't respect the tribunes, becoming censor
> > > > illegally is
> > > > > > >> the only
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > choice for you, however, the tribunes called a valid
> > > > intercessio
> > > > > > >> and now a
> > > > > > >> > > new election must be called. You don't agree with the
> > > > tribunes so
> > > > > > >> of course
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > you think remaining censor is the "only" solution".
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

--
M. Curiatius Complutensis

↑ Grab this Headline Animator