Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Nov 27-30, 2013

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91987 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91988 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91989 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91990 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Fw: SCRIBO: Deadline Extended & Judges Needed
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91991 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91992 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91993 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91994 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91995 From: Scipio Second Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91996 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91997 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91998 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Plebeians --- Please Vote
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91999 From: cmc Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92000 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92001 From: James V Hooper Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92002 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the end of
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92003 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia Poenalis - Final Draft - Open for comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92004 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92005 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92006 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92007 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: The cista for this session of the Comitia Plebis Tributa is now clos
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92008 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92009 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92010 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92011 From: Scipio Second Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92012 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92013 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92014 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92015 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving and Hanukkah (Or as we call it Thanksgivingkkuah)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92016 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92017 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92018 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92019 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92020 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92021 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92022 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92023 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92024 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92025 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92026 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92027 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92028 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92029 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92030 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92031 From: Glenn Thacker Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92032 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92033 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92034 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92035 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92036 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92037 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92038 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92039 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92040 From: Glenn Thacker Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92041 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92042 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92043 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92044 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92045 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92046 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92047 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92048 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: CONTIO is CLOSED
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92049 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92050 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92051 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92052 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92053 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92054 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92055 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92056 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92057 From: Scipio Second Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92058 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92059 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92060 From: cmc Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Thoughts on super majorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92061 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92062 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92063 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92064 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Fwd: No Insult Intended
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92065 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92066 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92067 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92068 From: Glenn Thacker Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92069 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: NR News Brief
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92070 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92071 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Thoughts on super majorities
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92072 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92073 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92074 From: cmc Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92075 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92076 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92077 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: NR News Brief
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92078 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Vote is OPEN
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92079 From: Clifford Hamm Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92080 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Edict
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92081 From: iulius_sabinus Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Report of the CP session - November 2766.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92082 From: iulius_sabinus Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: The CP is called into session.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92083 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Re: Report of the CP session - November 2766.



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91987 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
A. Paterculus L. Cornelio Sullae omnibusque sal,
   This law has great advantages in the facts that it offers the censores the flexibility they will need to balance fine-tune the entry requirements to the Ordo Equester and that encourages monetary contributions to Nova Roma.
   There is room for improvement on one point, however. As far as I can tell, the number of equestrian centuries would remain at 1 even as the total number excedes 100. Could we scale up the number of equestrian centuries along with that of the total centuries, so that eventually we will arrive at the same 18 centuries that existed originally?
    Valete.


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91988 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Ave!

Thank you for your comments.

There is a section that encourages Monetary contributions to Nova Roma.  ii.      Contributed during the year in which he/she applies the minimum amount set annually by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for business contributions for Ordo membership by any citizen operating a business within Nova Roma, or legally utilising any assets of Nova Roma.  Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.

Or

iii.      Contributed during the year in which he/she applies the minimum amount set annually by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for donative contributions for Ordo membership. Membership is permanent and no further donative contribution shall be required for the citizen to maintain membership of the Ordo. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.

What I can suggest is that I revise section VII.A.1 to be adjusted to reflect that as the Centuries grow, that single century can be expanded as the total number of Centuries grow.  That way it wont be just specifically limited to one century.  I would set the maximum Ordo Equaesto centuries to reflect that the Ordo Equaesto Centuries will be increased by 1 Century when Nova Roma reaches the 91 Century threshold requirement and increase again to another century when Nova Roma achieves the 193 Century threshold.  So, at a maximum the Ordo Equaesto will dominate 3 Centuries once the Assidui requirement is reached.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91989 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Ave Sulla et avete omnes,
   I was listing encouraging contributions as a positive aspect of the law, not something that needed changing. Since I'm disagreeing with you on a number of points, pointing out some positive aspects of your law seemed only fair.
   For instance, although I would prefer we follow the ancient example more closely by having equestrians represent about 9% (rounded up) of the total centuries, your proposed change is an improvement over the original draft, which was itself a significant improvement on existing laws concerning the Ordo Equester.
  Thank you for your response.
     Vale et valete.
 
 


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91990 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Fw: SCRIBO: Deadline Extended & Judges Needed
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:19 PM, Ascanius: The Youth Classics Institute <info@...
Dear Friends of Ascanius,
Deadline Extended: Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, we are happy to announce that the deadline to register your school for SCRIBO: An International Latin Composition Contest has been extended to Friday, December 6, 2013. Remember that the entries themselves do not have to be submitted until later in December. As always, we are happy to work with you.
Judges Sought: Ascanius seeks Latin teachers or professors who are interested in serving as judges for SCRIBO. Your role as a judge would be to read and score 15-25 entries using your best judgment, our rubric and guidelines, and our suggested resources. You would then enter the results of your scoring into our online database. Scoring would begin on or about December 15, 2013 and you would have approximately one month or more to complete the process. Because we have specified in our publicity materials that all judges will have specific training in Latin composition and/or oral Latin, you would need to submit a brief description (a few sentences) of your training in Latin composition and/or oral Latin. Please also submit your name, school affiliation if any, and contact information (post and electronic). Write mailto:scribo@...?subject=SCRIBO%20Judging to volunteer to serve as a judge.
For more information about SCRIBO, and to register, please visit: http://ascanius.hosted.phplist.com/lists/lt.php?id=f0wECUhRVEVVUAEB
Have a wonderful holiday, and we look forward to some awesome SCRIBO entries once again this year!
Matthew D. Webb
Executive Director
Ascanius: The Youth Classics Institute

--
This message was sent to lvtriarius@... by info@...
powered by phpList 3.0.5-hosted, © phpList ltd


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91991 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Ave!

I totally understand :)  

The one thing I have tried to be in regards to this entire process is trying to be accommodating to suggestions.  :)  I have seen that 9% before, ive been racking my brain trying to remember where I have seen it.  

Thanks for your comments, they are appreciated.  Ultimately at the end of the day, the entire point of the process is to create a fully functioning Ordo Equester within Nova Roma and I believe the work that has been put into the proposed lex accomplishes that goal.

I will amend the lex to include the change and have it posted later today once im home from work.  

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91992 From: qfabiusmaximus Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
 
 If we remember correctly, the Accused refused to accept the Queso's authority over him, and refused to contest the Proceedings.  
1. Define the authority that puts a citizen under NR manus.
 
2. Once this authority is established, if the citizen refuses to participate what procedure is used to strip him of his citizenship, and how will he booted out Nova Roma?
 
Both these need to be spelled out.  Very clearly.  No murkiness. 
 
Q. Fabius Maximus    
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91993 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Ave L. Sulla et avete omnes,
   Thank you very much for replying to my concerns. Looking at the text of the Lex Salicia Poenalis that you provided, it's true that there are several crimes, particularly calumniae and contumelia pietate which could be violated simply through  speech. However, since the penalties for violations seem to be short-term(up to 6 months) forum moderation rather than total banishment which could last years, the punishment seems more in line with the offence to me, as well as less damaging if misapplied.
   If you are referring to the section concerning "Incitement, Conspiracy, and Attempted Offences", it seems as if 'inciting' a behavior is more severe than simply 'advocating', but perhaps that is my connotation rather than a difference in actual meaning.
   In any case, it's clear enough that trouble has arisen from the old law. If you say that it needs to be replaced, you're probably right. I would just like to ensure that this replacement doesn't likewise outstay its usefulness. Could we at least mandate that an alternative be offered to the people after 10 years, or when the citizen population reaches 10,000 (by which time world crime rate statistics suggest we will have approximately 16 crimes per year)?
   Vale et valete,
     A. Paterculus


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91994 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Ave,

I would have no problem including that in the introduction of the lex that the need of the Legal system in place should be reviewed when Nova Roma reaches 500 Assidui citizens.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91995 From: Scipio Second Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Discussion: Lex Cornelia de Poenalis
Hail Consul,
 
As an attorney I find the proposal reasonable.
 
Respectfully,
 
Petrus Augustinus
 


On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:12 AM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...  
Ave Amice,

I think I have a fix on Item II that has been the sticking point.  It came to me, ironically enough while driving.

How does this sound:

II.        Any attempt to introduce or change the current judicial system or administratively alter the  procedures within and for Nova Roma, by any legal instrument lower than a promulgated lex, shall be illegal.

There - I need to know if this works so I can update and repost the law.

As for the provactio request, I will add a period of 48 hours.  After that the decision reached by the Praetor, the Senate and not vetoed by a Tribune will then be imposed.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91996 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope

Cn. Lentulus quaestor A. Iulio quaestori et L. Sullae consuli sal.

Thank you, quaestor Patercule, for sharing your concerns and ideas, and thank you for praising the rogatio de classibus et ordine equestri. I am proud to be a co-author of this law, since it is a fruit of many months of constructive debates with the consul. I'm also sure, consul L. Sulla, that now you can see that the historical elements I insisted that be in the law find many supporters (censor Ti. Paulinus has just called it the greatest law in NR history). I am relieved that besides the equestrian order, which was my priority focus to be in a historical form in the law, also my second most stubborn proposal, the historical composition of classes and centuries could make it to be included in the law. I am grateful that you were willing to be open, and were willing to listen to my sometimes boring tirades about how important is to get a historically accurate Roman social structure, and you let yourself to be convinced. Now that the people's reaction is positive to these historical ideas, I hope that you see that it was a good idea to listen to my mantras about historical ordo equester, classes, centuries. If you can confirm this, I think my year was a year of success assisting you as your quaestor.

As I voiced it in the Consular Cohors when discussing about the final form of the proposal, I could be even more happier, if some other things that I suggested could be included. You asked us, your staff, to post our modification suggestions to the cohors first, but since now all debates go openly, I think I can post them here now, too. Such an element about which I insisted very much is the historical ratio/proportion of the equestrian centuries, a point raised also by A. Iulius Paterculus. (Let me rejoice at this point aloud that there are still citizens in Nova Roma who know the proper structure of a Roman community and are ready to argue for it! It's the happiest moment since times in my Nova Roma experience. Sadly, I can only remember those days when such topics were discussed here on a daily basis...) Returning to my point: the equestrians should not be compelled into only one century, because if the number of people in other first class centuries will be lower than the number of people in the equestrian century, equestrianship will be nothing but a very elegant punishment (since they will have actually less voting power than the lower ranking people in the less populous centuries). I know what you answered to me in the cohors mailing list, but the people shall also know the answers.

But this is of minor importance. What makes me worry is the super majority clause. While I argued with all my heart for the creation of this law during the months of debate, so I can consider most parts of this law my own child, so to speak, and while I waited for this law almost a decade, this 2/3rd majority clause makes me uncertain if it is morally acceptable to approve such a law in our Roman community. I want this law more than anything else. Yet I don't like the tendency what we see here. And how can at all we enact a law with simple majority that requires super majority to be modified? Such laws should be required to have a super majority upon the time of enaction as well. I can only repeat the words of praetor C. Aemilius Crassus and others: please take out the super majority requirement. It is a good law, but may contain mistakes. In fact, it does already contain some minor mistakes. It is not correct to cement it, and I can foresee the possibility of big conflicts around the interpretation of such a super majority requirement. Some will argue that there can be made a law that annuls all supermajority requirements existing in NR laws. Some will argue that such a law would be illegal. The conflicts will never end. I want this law to stand as a cohesion building law, and a very good one at that. With a divisive clause like this, the law will not be able to be embraced by many citizens, and this is bad.

Some minor considerations follow:


The Censores may no longer alter the makeup of the centuries by class.   The Censores are tasked to ensure that each class is properly filled with the appropriate citizens in compliance to existing legislation.  If there are centuries assigned to classes that do not have the citizens to fill those centuries then the Censores cannot fill those centuries. <<<


I repeat here the same what I wrote in the consular office. If you think you can copy your answer here, no problem from my part, but the concerns raised must be public.

In section VII., there is a problem with this sentence: "If there are centuries assigned to classes that do not have the citizens to fill those centuries then the Censores cannot fill those centuries" What does it mean "the Censores cannot fill those centuries" ? If there are still citizens in that class who are not yet located in centuries, the censores CAN fill the centuries with them. If there are no more citizens who could be allocated, the censores can not do anything with "them" since they DON'T EXSIST. So what is stated here in this provision? I don't know, but I know what SHOULD BE here. We indeed have the chance that we face a situation when, e. g. the 3rd class would contain e.g. 5 centuries (because of the prescribed percentages of how many centuries this class shall contain out of the total number of centuries), and, for example, 4 out of the 5 centuries are filled with a plausible number of citizens, let's say each contains 6 citizens, but there remain only 3 citizens to be added to the 5th century. This is what we should not allow! There should be a required minimum of people per century for each class. In such a situation described above the 5th century should be temporarily unfilled (or temporarily dissolved) and the remaining 3 citizens should be distributed among the other 4 centuries of the class.


It's of crucial importance that the centuries of a higher class must ALWAYS contain LESS citizens than those of a lower class, and centuries within the same class must always contain an equal number of citizens (a 1 person difference is forgivable). The censores should check this before every comitia centuriata voting period, and manually adjust the citizen allocations.

What this required minimum of people per century could be for each class? I give you an example:
  • Each 1st class century should contain at least 3 citizens.
  • Each 2nd class century should contain at least 4 citizens.
  • Each 3rd class century should contain at least 5 citizens.
  • Each 4th class century should contain at least 6 citizens.
  • Each 5th class century should contain at least 7 citizens.
Other numbers are as good as these, with the caveat that every lower class must have a higher number of people per century minimum requirement. You said in the consular cohors that it might no be possible mathematically, because the 1st class contain much more citizens than lower classes (2nd, 3rd, 4th classes), so, while lower class centuries, which should contain more citizens, might contain only a few, but the first class centuries, which should contain less citizens, will probably be too populous. But it *is* possible to solve this problem, because what I propose is that those lower class centuries which don't contain MORE people than any higher class century, those should just simply be temporarily DISSOLVED, and until the population of that class grows to a satisfactory number, the citizens of the dissolved century or centuries would be placed in the other centuries of that class. This way the population of the centuries of that class would be largely increased, and the problem would be solved. This would guarantee that lower class centuries always remain more populous than higher class centuries. If there are not enough people to fill more centuries in a given class, then the remaining centuries must not be filled.

The number of people in the centuries within the SAME class MUST BE equal (with max. 1-2 person difference). This alone makes sense. If a century is smaller within the same class, that century is more powerful, and then the voting power of the citizens will be different in the same class: in this case there would be no meaning in belonging to a higher class if lower class people can have increased voting power when their century accidentally becomes smaller.

The censores shall not only take care that each century within the same class contain an equal number of citizens, but they should also take care that each century in a higher class contains less citizens than the class immediately under it.



Da: Arthur Waite <arthur.f.waite@...
 
Ave Sulla et avete omnes,
   I was listing encouraging contributions as a positive aspect of the law, not something that needed changing. Since I'm disagreeing with you on a number of points, pointing out some positive aspects of your law seemed only fair.
   For instance, although I would prefer we follow the ancient example more closely by having equestrians represent about 9% (rounded up) of the total centuries, your proposed change is an improvement over the original draft, which was itself a significant improvement on existing laws concerning the Ordo Equester.
  Thank you for your response.
     Vale et valete.
 
 


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91997 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - Final Draft - Ope
Cn. Caesar censor sal.

Once again I must address this issue of the super majority clause.

It is absolutely necessary for Nova Roma to enter a period of stability. There is an inherent tendency evident in the past ten years of our history, if not more, for flip flopping in strategic vision, and worse even what one can describe as tactical vision. Nova Roma has developed an unhealthy tendency to fixate on issues, re-invent the wheel and re-legislate on issues. The ancient Romans of the republican era had at least the mos mairoum to protect them from these sudden lurches. We do not. Arguments still occur over the nature of the mos, how it should apply to Nova Roma, and what it is. It has been said in the past in this forum that all we have to do is think like Romans, and all will be well. A simplistic solution which has great appeal, BUT being Nova Roma people argued over what the Ancient Romans thought, why they thought it, what the mos exactly was etc. 

We therefore need to ensure that through the judicious use of devices such as the super majority we impose that period of stability and calm. Some would say that we cannot make it more difficult for future Nova Romans to change this lex - and others with the clause in. I say nonsense, for if we now were thinking collectively like Romans and had developed an aversion to change for change's sake then we wouldn't need the clause and we could safely assume our mos would be enough - but if we are ourselves are not at this stage (or any where near it) after ten years or more, we cannot safely assume future generations of Nova Romans will be. 

I also do not accept the argument that due to "what if there is an error" we should not use the clause. if there is a significant error then we can trust the people collectively, rather than meddling and litigious future consuls, to see the wisdom of change and provide the required majority.

The super majority clauses prevent changes to significant parts of our structural well-being and causing upheaval and confusion, for the unnecessary and vainglorious promotion of ego. This law is good. It will be good tomorrow and in the years to come. I can say this, that the possibility of error is far less than the possibility of meddlesome tinkering that may occur. Therefore the super majority clause is necessary.

Optime valete 


From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...  

Cn. Lentulus quaestor A. Iulio quaestori et L. Sullae consuli sal.

<snip argued with all my heart for the creation of this law during the months of debate, so I can consider most parts of this law my own child, so to speak, and while I waited for this law almost a decade, this 2/3rd majority clause makes me uncertain if it is morally acceptable to approve such a law in our Roman community. I want this law more than anything else. Yet I don't like the tendency what we see here. And how can at all we enact a law with simple majority that requires super majority to be modified? Such laws should be required to have a super majority upon the time of enaction as well. I can only repeat the words of praetor C. Aemilius Crassus and others: please take out the super majority requirement. It is a good law, but may contain mistakes. In fact, it does already contain some minor mistakes. It is not correct to cement it, and I can foresee the possibility of big conflicts around the interpretation of such a super majority requirement. Some will argue that there can be made a law that annuls all supermajority requirements existing in NR laws. Some will argue that such a law would be illegal. The conflicts will never end. I want this law to stand as a cohesion building law, and a very good one at that. With a divisive clause like this, the law will not be able to be embraced by many citizens, and this is bad.

<snip #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 -- #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp { border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp hr { border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879hd { color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ads { margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ad { padding:0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ad p { margin:0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mkp .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ad a { color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-lc { font-family:Arial;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-lc #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879hd { margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-lc .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ad { margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879actions { font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879activity { background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879activity span { font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879activity span:first-child { text-transform:uppercase;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879activity span a { color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879activity span span { color:#ff7900;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879activity span .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879underline { text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach { clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach div a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach img { border:none;padding-right:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach label { display:block;margin-bottom:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach label a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 blockquote { margin:0 0 0 4px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879bold { font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879bold a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 dd.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879last p a { font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 dd.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879last p span { margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 dd.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879last p span.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879yshortcuts { margin-right:0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach-table div div a { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach-table { width:400px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879file-title a, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879file-title a:active, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879file-title a:hover, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879file-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photo-title a, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photo-title a:active, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photo-title a:hover, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 div#ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-msg p a span.ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879yshortcuts { font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879green { color:#628c2a;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879MsoNormal { margin:0 0 0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 o { font-size:0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photos div { float:left;width:72px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photos div div { border:1px solid #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879photos div label { color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879reco-category { font-size:77%;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879reco-desc { font-size:77%;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 .ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879replbq { margin:4px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-actbar div a:first-child { margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg { font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg table { font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg select, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 input, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 textarea { font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg pre, #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 code { font:115% monospace;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg * { line-height:1.22em;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-mlmsg #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879logo { padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-msg p a { font-family:Verdana;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-msg p#ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879attach-count span { color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-reco #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879reco-head { color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-reco { margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ov li a { font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ov li { font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-sponsor #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ov ul { margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-text { font-family:Georgia;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-text p { margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-text tt { font-size:120%;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879 #ygrps-yiv-58373355yiv4122917879ygrp-vital ul li:last-child { border-right:none !important;} #ygrps-yiv-58373355
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91998 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Plebeians --- Please Vote
M. Pompeius Caninus plebibus in foro sal:

There are about nine hours left for voting in the comitia plebis tributa. If you have not yet voted, please vote now. There are some excellent candidates for the offices of plebeian aedile and plebeian tribune. Also on this ballot is a very important law setting minimum requirements for these offices. 

To vote:
  *   Go to the Album Civium at http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album
  *   Make sure you are logged in using the box on the right of the screen.
  *   Go to your page by clicking on your name.
  *   Click on "vote here...".
  *   Click on the "go vote" button.
  *   Cast your votes on the ballot.
  *   Submit the ballot and make a note of your ballot number.

If you run into any problems with voting or logging in to the Album Civium please let me know!

Please cast your vote on the following law:

Please cast your vote for the offices of Plebeian Aedile and Plebeian Tribune:

Bene valete!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!

Very little is needed to make a happy life.
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Meditations, Book VII, 67. 


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 91999 From: cmc Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the USA, and I'd like to wish a happy
holiday to all who celebrate it, and a great day to everyone else. I hope
that, for a few minutes between a wonderful feast and football, you will
take a few minutes to consider those things and especially those people that
bring joy to your lives, and honor them with your gratitude. I would also
like to express my gratitude that you are a part of my life, and that I have
been privileged to touch your lives in some small way.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Valete quam optime!
C. Maria Caeca
Virgo Vestalis in Nová Romá.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92000 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Dallas! Dallas! Dallas! :)

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: cmc
Date:11/27/2013 5:26 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,Nova_roma_@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)

 

Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the USA, and I'd like to wish a happy
holiday to all who celebrate it, and a great day to everyone else. I hope
that, for a few minutes between a wonderful feast and football, you will
take a few minutes to consider those things and especially those people that
bring joy to your lives, and honor them with your gratitude. I would also
like to express my gratitude that you are a part of my life, and that I have
been privileged to touch your lives in some small way.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Valete quam optime!
C. Maria Caeca
Virgo Vestalis in Nová Romá.

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92001 From: James V Hooper Date: 2013-11-27
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
And toy you and all citizens.
C. Pompeius Marcellus, Lpp, AMS


On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:26:20 -0500
"cmc" <c.mariacaeca@...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92002 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the end of
Avete Omnes,

Here is the draft of the lex that will be voted on, including the changes I made based on the discussion that went on the ML earlier today.

Thank you again for your consideration:

Introduction:  The purpose of this lex is to bring Nova Roma closer to the ancients by implementing and bringing to life an important segment of the ancient Roman community, The Ordo Equester.   This will spell out clearly, transparently the requirements and privliedges of being a member of this esteemed order.  In creating this segment of society into Nova Roma it also requires some readjusting of the Comitia Centuriata in accomplishing this every aspect of each citizen’s alignment within the Comitia is transparently laid out from the Census points each  citizen earns, to their Class membership and the actual evolution of centuries as Nova Roma’s tax base increases.

I.                    The lex Octavia altera de comitiis centuratis is hereby repealed.

II.                  The preconditions for admittance to the Ordo are:

a.       That the person be an Assiduus classified citizen of Nova Roma

b.      Admission to the Ordo Equester is voluntary and occurs only if the citizen accepts the honor.

c.       That the citizen applying must have:

                                                               i.      A total of at least 220 census points, in which case membership is permanent subject to the citizen maintaining a balance of census points that totals at least 220. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.

or

                                                             ii.      Contributed during the year in which he/she applies the minimum amount set annually by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for business contributions for Ordo membership by any citizen operating a business within Nova Roma, or legally utilising any assets of Nova Roma.  Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.

or

                                                            iii.      Contributed during the year in which he/she applies the minimum amount set annually by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for donative contributions for Ordo membership. Membership is permanent and no further donative contribution shall be required for the citizen to maintain membership of the Ordo. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.

or

                                                           iv.      Be chosen by one censor for outstanding service to Nova Roma. A Censor may only choose one citizen during his/her two year term as censor. Membership of the Ordo through this means shall not result in advance for the citizen in the centuries and/or classes, though advancement may occur by accruing more census points through the normal public service criteria. A Suffect Censor can not choose any citizen. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.

 

III.                The requirements for continued membership in the Ordo Equester are:

a.       For those citizens admitted under I.b.i permanent, but subject to the citizen retaining a balance of at least 220 census points. Should the citizen suffer a reduction in census points that results in his/her total being less than 220 census points, removal from the Ordo is deemed automatic, and the Censores shall upon such reduction reflect this change in the Album Civium and note the reason in the Censorial record for that citizen.

b.      For those citizens admitted under I.b.ii renewed annually and subject to the citizen making the business contribution amount for the year of renewal.  After ten years of uninterrupted and continuous payments of the business contributions required, membership shall become permanent and no further business contributions shall be required. A person operating a business within Nova Roma is not eligible to apply for membership of the ordo by virtue of donative contributions as at II.c below.

c.       For those citizens admitted under I.b.iii renewed annually and subject to the citizen making the donative contribution amount for that year of renewal.  After ten years of uninterrupted and continuous payments of the donative contributions required, membership shall become permanent and no further donative contributions shall be required.

d.      For those citizens admitted under I.b.iv permanent, subject to that citizen not resigning or being banished and also subject to the citizen retaining a balance of at least 220 census points. Should the citizen suffer a reduction in census points that results in his/her total being less than 220 census points, removal from the Ordo is deemed automatic, and the Censores shall upon such reduction reflect this change in the Album Civium and note the reason in the Censorial record for that citizen.

 

IV.                The process for admittance to the Ordo:

a.       Is automatic for I.b.i and not requiring Censorial approval, collegiate or otherwise.

b.      Is subject to the Censors acting in a collegiate manner to admit a citizen for I.b.ii to I.b.iv inclusive.

c.       Does not require any public reason to be published to support the decision to admit a person.

d.      Requires that the Censors set the amount of census points for the citizens initially admitted under I.b.ii to I.b.iii inclusive at 220 should they be less than 220.

 

V.     The process for rejection of an application to be admitted to the Ordo does not require the Censors to publish a reason for rejection, nor for the censors to provide the person applying with the reasons for rejection. The Censors shall however inform a citizen whose application has been rejected of the fact of rejection, but there is no requirement placed upon the Censors to supply that citizen with the reasons for rejection.

 

VI.   The number of centuries shall be determined based on the number of Assidui citizens in Nova Roma.  The Comitia Centuriata will have 31 Centuries that will be divided into 5 classes.  The addition of new centuries to the Comitia Centuriata will be structured to coincide to benchmarks of Assidui citizens.

a.       300 and fewer Assidui citizens will result in 31 Centuries

b.      301-600 Assidui citizens will result in 61 Centuries

c.       601 -1200 Assidui Citizens will result in 91 Centuries

d.      1201-1800 Assidui Citizens will result in 121 Centuries

e.      1801-2400 Assidui Citizens will result in 151 Centuries

f.        2401 and above Assidui Citizens will result in 193 Centuries.

VII. The Censores may no longer alter the makeup of the centuries by class.   The Censores are tasked to ensure that each class is properly filled with the appropriate citizens in compliance to existing legislation.  If there are centuries assigned to classes that do not have the citizens to fill those centuries then the Censores cannot fill those centuries.

a.       The Number of Census points will determine what class citizens are allocated in the Comitia Centuriata. 

                                                               i.      If Citizens hold 220 or more Census Points and have accepted enrollment into the Ordo Equester they will be allocated to that Class and appropriate Century.

                                                             ii.      If Citizens hold between 140-219 Census points OR have not accepted membership into the Ordo Equester they will be allocated to the First Class of Centuries.

                                                            iii.      If Citizens census points fall within the 100 – 139 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Second class.

                                                           iv.      If Citizens census points fall within the 50-99 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Third class.

                                                             v.      If Citizens census points fall within the 35-49 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Fourth class.

                                                           vi.      If Citizens census points fall within 17-34 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Fifth class.

                                                          vii.      If Citizens census points do not meet the minimum threshold of 16 Census points they will be allocated to the Capite Censi Century.

VIII.                        The relative sizes of each class shall be set as follows:

a.       Class I: 49% of the total number of Centuries

                                                               i.      One single century in this class shall be composed of all those members of the Ordo Equester who have accepted membership into the Ordo Equester.  This will be referred to as Century 1.

                                                             ii.      The Century set aside for the members of the Ordo Equester will be expanded to 2 Centuries when Nova Roma reaches 91 Centuries as defined under section VI.C.  These two centuries will be designated as Century 1 and Century 2.

                                                            iii.      The Centuries set aside for members of the Ordo Equester will be expanded to 3 Centuries when Nova Roma achieves the full complement of 193 centuries as described under VI.f.  These 3 centuries will be designated as Century 1, Century 2 and Century 3.

b.      Class II: 10% of the total number of Centuries

c.       Class III: 10% of the total number of Centuries

d.      Class IV: 10% of the total number of Centuries

e.      Class V:    15% of the total number of Centuries

                                                               i.      One single century within class V is reserved for the Capite Censi Only.

f.        Within each class, the number of citizens is to be spread as equitable as possible.  With the exception of those individual centuries that have extra requirements (Section VIII,a,i and Section VIII,e,i).  The Censors are instructed to ensure each class is properly and equitable represented.

IX.                       Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries.

 

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92003 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia Poenalis - Final Draft - Open for comments
Avete,

I must agree that we are too small for a "system of justice."  The whole concept of using a jury forum is that the jurists should not be acquainted with the parties, as to be impartial in the hearings. That is a physical impossibility, unless you are using cives who became cives yesterday or today. Initially, I was in question about the use of the super majority.  Again, I concur with Caesar on this.  If it is that important of an issue, then 2/3 should be no problem.  It means at least 2/3 of the people are on the same sheet of music, either for or against. The problem with most simple majority votes is that they pass, as most people will usually vote yes. Right or wrong, informed or uninformed, they will vote yes, as not to be too controversial with others.  What you get is exactly what Caesar stated earlier today, and that is continual change over and over and over and over.  A complicated and somewhat dysfunctional system and what was present when I joined 8 years ago and what we have today. My first year, I was selected to be a Iudex in a case between two people I had come to know. It was very awkward. It was not what I came here to do. What we need to understand and avoid is this perpetual tendency to revert back to 335 BC.  Everything the ancients did and the way they did it was not necessarily the best idea.  They DID lose the Respublica eventually.  They had a completely different world to live in with its own related issues and consequences, completely different from ours.  We need to live in the present, not in the past.  That means addressing our real world issues, events and consequences. Today. Right now. In this time, not theirs.  I support the Lex.

Valete,
  
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:09 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... wrote:
 
Caesar Lentulo sal. 

Having a legal system that is open to change at the whim of a future comitia where voting is low is not acceptable. We still have obligations to meet after the IRS audit, and internal control systems were one issue they addressed.  

" Or is this law becoming our new foundational document?" Don't be silly. Of course it isn't. Don't start getting emotional. 

As for your concern about the princeps senatus, that is a matter for the Senate, and already decided. Read the senate rules. 

I want to be clear with you and others. Nova Roma has tried to follow the Roman model and it ended up with the Cincinnatus "trial" and numerous other aborted "trials". At our stage of development we cannot afford to institute processes we are far too small to effectively discharge. It would be a Roman process in name only. We need a simple, effective Code of Conduct with oversight provided by the Senate/Board of Directors to avoid long drawn out show trials, the process being hijacked in pursuit of that. We are too small for a system of "justice". Nova Roma as an organisation has to protect itself, but it cannot enter the business of trying to dispense justice...not yet. No one can be impartial serving as an iudex and we are fooling no one by the current model. It as a model has caused numerous people to walk out and leave us in disgust. No, it must go and we need to rid ourselves of a divisive system. I am as conservative as any, but I am also practical. We are Nova Romans - and we can adapt systems to suit OUR needs. To be wedded to a system - or a variant thereof - that can never work (and that has been proved) is idiotically suicidal. 

Optime vale

From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...  
Cn. Lentulus quaestor L. Sullae consuli et C. Aemilio praetori omnibusque s. d.



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92004 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Salvete,

Again, there is the super majority clause, of which I was initially in question about, but have changed positions on.  I now feel the 2/3 voting majority strengthens this Lex, as it is one of the most important ones that we have ever developed, IMO.  It meets a more than exceptional and fair standard, and should not be subject to the whims and potential dangers of the simple majority vote. It brings a much necessary Order to the Ordo.  I support the Lex.

Valete,
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Thursday, November 28, 2013 12:22 AM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...  
Avete Omnes,

Here is the draft of the lex that will be voted on, including the changes I made based on the discussion that went on the ML earlier today.

Thank you again for your consideration:

Introduction:  The purpose of this lex is to bring Nova Roma closer to the ancients by implementing and bringing to life an important segment of the ancient Roman community, The Ordo Equester.   This will spell out clearly, transparently the requirements and privliedges of being a member of this esteemed order.  In creating this segment of society into Nova Roma it also requires some readjusting of the Comitia Centuriata in accomplishing this every aspect of each citizen’s alignment within the Comitia is transparently laid out from the Census points each  citizen earns, to their Class membership and the actual evolution of centuries as Nova Roma’s tax base increases.
I.                    The lex Octavia altera de comitiis centuratis is hereby repealed.
II.                  The preconditions for admittance to the Ordo are:
a.       That the person be an Assiduus classified citizen of Nova Roma
b.      Admission to the Ordo Equester is voluntary and occurs only if the citizen accepts the honor.
c.       That the citizen applying must have:
                                                               i.      A total of at least 220 census points, in which case membership is permanent subject to the citizen maintaining a balance of census points that totals at least 220. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.
or
                                                             ii.      Contributed during the year in which he/she applies the minimum amount set annually by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for business contributions for Ordo membership by any citizen operating a business within Nova Roma, or legally utilising any assets of Nova Roma.  Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.
or
                                                            iii.      Contributed during the year in which he/she applies the minimum amount set annually by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for donative contributions for Ordo membership. Membership is permanent and no further donative contribution shall be required for the citizen to maintain membership of the Ordo. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.
or
                                                           iv.      Be chosen by one censor for outstanding service to Nova Roma. A Censor may only choose one citizen during his/her two year term as censor. Membership of the Ordo through this means shall not result in advance for the citizen in the centuries and/or classes, though advancement may occur by accruing more census points through the normal public service criteria. A Suffect Censor can not choose any citizen. Upon acceptance of the offer the citizen will be duly enrolled.
 
III.                The requirements for continued membership in the Ordo Equester are:
a.       For those citizens admitted under I.b.i permanent, but subject to the citizen retaining a balance of at least 220 census points. Should the citizen suffer a reduction in census points that results in his/her total being less than 220 census points, removal from the Ordo is deemed automatic, and the Censores shall upon such reduction reflect this change in the Album Civium and note the reason in the Censorial record for that citizen.
b.      For those citizens admitted under I.b.ii renewed annually and subject to the citizen making the business contribution amount for the year of renewal.  After ten years of uninterrupted and continuous payments of the business contributions required, membership shall become permanent and no further business contributions shall be required. A person operating a business within Nova Roma is not eligible to apply for membership of the ordo by virtue of donative contributions as at II.c below.
c.       For those citizens admitted under I.b.iii renewed annually and subject to the citizen making the donative contribution amount for that year of renewal.  After ten years of uninterrupted and continuous payments of the donative contributions required, membership shall become permanent and no further donative contributions shall be required.
d.      For those citizens admitted under I.b.iv permanent, subject to that citizen not resigning or being banished and also subject to the citizen retaining a balance of at least 220 census points. Should the citizen suffer a reduction in census points that results in his/her total being less than 220 census points, removal from the Ordo is deemed automatic, and the Censores shall upon such reduction reflect this change in the Album Civium and note the reason in the Censorial record for that citizen.
 
IV.                The process for admittance to the Ordo:
a.       Is automatic for I.b.i and not requiring Censorial approval, collegiate or otherwise.
b.      Is subject to the Censors acting in a collegiate manner to admit a citizen for I.b.ii to I.b.iv inclusive.
c.       Does not require any public reason to be published to support the decision to admit a person.
d.      Requires that the Censors set the amount of census points for the citizens initially admitted under I.b.ii to I.b.iii inclusive at 220 should they be less than 220.
 
V.     The process for rejection of an application to be admitted to the Ordo does not require the Censors to publish a reason for rejection, nor for the censors to provide the person applying with the reasons for rejection. The Censors shall however inform a citizen whose application has been rejected of the fact of rejection, but there is no requirement placed upon the Censors to supply that citizen with the reasons for rejection.
 
VI.   The number of centuries shall be determined based on the number of Assidui citizens in Nova Roma.  The Comitia Centuriata will have 31 Centuries that will be divided into 5 classes.  The addition of new centuries to the Comitia Centuriata will be structured to coincide to benchmarks of Assidui citizens.
a.       300 and fewer Assidui citizens will result in 31 Centuries
b.      301-600 Assidui citizens will result in 61 Centuries
c.       601 -1200 Assidui Citizens will result in 91 Centuries
d.      1201-1800 Assidui Citizens will result in 121 Centuries
e.      1801-2400 Assidui Citizens will result in 151 Centuries
f.        2401 and above Assidui Citizens will result in 193 Centuries.
VII. The Censores may no longer alter the makeup of the centuries by class.   The Censores are tasked to ensure that each class is properly filled with the appropriate citizens in compliance to existing legislation.  If there are centuries assigned to classes that do not have the citizens to fill those centuries then the Censores cannot fill those centuries.
a.       The Number of Census points will determine what class citizens are allocated in the Comitia Centuriata. 
                                                               i.      If Citizens hold 220 or more Census Points and have accepted enrollment into the Ordo Equester they will be allocated to that Class and appropriate Century.
                                                             ii.      If Citizens hold between 140-219 Census points OR have not accepted membership into the Ordo Equester they will be allocated to the First Class of Centuries.
                                                            iii.      If Citizens census points fall within the 100 – 139 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Second class.
                                                           iv.      If Citizens census points fall within the 50-99 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Third class.
                                                             v.      If Citizens census points fall within the 35-49 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Fourth class.
                                                           vi.      If Citizens census points fall within 17-34 Census points they will be allocated to the Centuries within the Fifth class.
                                                          vii.      If Citizens census points do not meet the minimum threshold of 16 Census points they will be allocated to the Capite Censi Century.
VIII.                        The relative sizes of each class shall be set as follows:
a.       Class I: 49% of the total number of Centuries
                                                               i.      One single century in this class shall be composed of all those members of the Ordo Equester who have accepted membership into the Ordo Equester.  This will be referred to as Century 1.
                                                             ii.      The Century set aside for the members of the Ordo Equester will be expanded to 2 Centuries when Nova Roma reaches 91 Centuries as defined under section VI.C.  These two centuries will be designated as Century 1 and Century 2.
                                                            iii.      The Centuries set aside for members of the Ordo Equester will be expanded to 3 Centuries when Nova Roma achieves the full complement of 193 centuries as described under VI.f.  These 3 centuries will be designated as Century 1, Century 2 and Century 3.
b.      Class II: 10% of the total number of Centuries
c.       Class III: 10% of the total number of Centuries
d.      Class IV: 10% of the total number of Centuries
e.      Class V:    15% of the total number of Centuries
                                                               i.      One single century within class V is reserved for the Capite Censi Only.
f.        Within each class, the number of citizens is to be spread as equitable as possible.  With the exception of those individual centuries that have extra requirements (Section VIII,a,i and Section VIII,e,i).  The Censors are instructed to ensure each class is properly and equitable represented.
IX.                       Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries.
 


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92005 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Salvete Omnes,

Sulla, under I think what is Section III/Item A:     For those citizens admitted under I.b.i permanent, but subject to the citizen retaining a balance of at least 220 census points. Should the citizen suffer a reduction in census points that results in his/her total being less than 220 census points, removal from the Ordo is deemed automatic, and the Censores shall upon such reduction reflect this change in the Album Civium and note the reason in the Censorial record for that citizen.

Aeternia:  Could you explain on what grounds could a citizen lose Census points?  This part seems a bit vague IMHO.

Also  Section V:      The process for rejection of an application to be admitted to the Ordo does not require the Censors to publish a reason for rejection, nor for the censors to provide the person applying with the reasons for rejection. The Censors shall however inform a citizen whose application has been rejected of the fact of rejection, but there is no requirement placed upon the Censors to supply that citizen with the reasons for rejection.


Aeternia:  I understand there is no requirement placed upon the Censors.  But would it be left up to the discretion to the Censors to disclose such information?  Sometimes people may want to know the reason for such rejection.

Valete bene,
Aeternia








Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92006 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Ave!

Oh easy, if the Lex Cornelia Poenalis passes and a Praetor decides to issue a punishment when it goes for the Senate for review the Senate can determine to lessen the sentence and one of those options could be to reduce the Census points of an individual.

And, yes, while there is no compelling reason to give a reason for rejection there is nothing in the law to prevent the Censors from disclosing such information.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92007 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: The cista for this session of the Comitia Plebis Tributa is now clos
M. Pompeius Caninus plebibus in foro sal:

The voting period has ended and the cista is now closed. Thank you for your attention Thank you to everyone who voted. I will announce the official results as soon as I receive them. 

Bene valete!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis

Vivat Nova Roma!


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92008 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92009 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

With respect to Quadratus, the references to US laws are irrelevant and he is incorrect.

Our Constitution establishes a chain of legal precedence for the legal instruments described, a pecking order of authority. The Constitution is at the top of that tree, BUT it is a fatal error to assume that all legislative authority flows downwards from that document. It does not. Indeed it cannot, for example the edicta of magistrates can deal with issues not prescribed in the Constitution. The rule that has been followed in Nova Roma is simple - if it is not expressly forbidden in our Constitution it is possible. The Constitution simply enshrines certain immutable points, key concepts and fundamental principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a super majority. 

Consider the role of the Tribunes in Nova Roma. They exist for one sole reason, to determine if the letter of the Constitution or a lex has been violated OR the spirit of the same. Before some wag tries this task, the proposing of legislation that would void an existing lex or change the Constitution is not itself a violation. The principle is that the newer lex (or Constitutional clause) takes precedence over an earlier one. Therefore even if there was a clause in a lex prohibiting a super majority, and there is NOT, then this lex if passed would be perfectly legal. The newest lex takes priority. So ... back to the Tribunes - where in the Constitution of Nova Roma or any of its leges is this prohibited? The answer is it isn't. Ask then is the spirit of the Constitution violated? Again, no. All the Constitution does is establish a legal order of precedence for legal instruments and affirms that the latest takes priority.

So... if this passes is a new lex prevented? No, of course not, as long as the required majority is obtained. Until such time as it is this lex (if passed) would require legally any change to have a super majority. So the spirit of the Constitution is not affected in any way. 

Consider the Constitution itself. Where does it say that all novel changes have to be authorized in that document? It doesn't is the simple answer. Again, the Constitution exists simply to set certain principles above all others, certain facts and the nature of certain institutions too, AND to require a super majority in the Senate to pass a change voted in by the comitia, BUT where did the authority for the super majority in the Constitution derive from? The answer? SPQR - the Senate and people of Rome, as required in the Constitution. Now, a lex does not require senatorial approval - it lies in the hands of the people. If you the people say X, then X it is - unless the Constitution says otherwise or it is overruled by a senatus consultum ultimum or the edicta of a dictator. In the case of this proposed lex, the Constitution contains NOTHING to prevent this. 

To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal. So we return to this proposal and its merits and the need for a super majority. Let me once again cover that. Nova Roma has been in a state of flux for years. Generally speaking consuls in the past and maybe in the future try to tinker with laws with which they have a pet peeve. There is often no thought to merit. This year we are lucky to have a consul who has selectively chosen laws that NEED to be changed or created rather than ones that he has a personal preference over. This may not be so in the future.

 This proposal below is a very significant one. It will cause confusion and bad feeling if it were to be substantially altered or repealed once it is bedded into our fabric. Therefore given the propensity of consuls to tinker and meddle with what is good, we MUST firewall this to prevent further rows, upset and essentially a chaotic situation in the future. We cannot trust people to exercise common sense - as that has evidently been in short supply in Nova Roma over the years, so we need a legislative method. Super majorities, utterly legal and constitutional, provide that means. 

Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like. is there a need? Nope. None at all. In fact this method of using a lex is an instantaneous reflection of the people's will as it will not have to go to the Senate, which a constitutional amendment would, for ratification. It is immediate, efficient and will have the same protection BUT will still be subordinate to the Constitution under the order of legal precedence. All perfectly constitutional and proper. 

As to my qualifications, as Quadratus has cited his, as well as having been praetor, consul and currently censor, as well as in the Senate since 2008 involved in drafting and interpreting all aspects of our legal code, I have drafted provincial legislation and every day have to interpret legislation and court orders. I know my "stuff" - and super majorities are legal and constitutional. they violate no lex nor the Constitution and they still allow for the lex the protect to be amended. To say a lex or the Constitution could never be changed would be illegal - but the super majority just requires a higher voting standard - as does the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not reserve super majorities for itself - so their use is therefore permitted and legal. 

Super majorities are needed to restore stability to Nova Roma on issues of importance, discourage tinkering, and ensure that slim majorities do not overturn key stones of our res publica's legal code and structure, The only reason for people to object to these are that they are mistaken in their legal analysis (Quadratus) or because they want to tinker with this, or their ego is affronted. Well in all cases my response is simple.

Suck it up.

We have gone through far too much discord in Nova Roma not to try to prevent chaos in the future. Undoing this lex if passed without a super majority clause would be easy. The consequences are that we would have to completely re-order many things. The requirements in the lex will have to be eventually coded into our database. It is precisely this sort of legislative tinkering and flip flopping (were we not to have the clause and the lex to be amended or scrapped - for no good reason) that led Octavius (for those that don't know he hosted our website and did coding for free) to quit providing free support and hosting. A lot of unnecessary changes - tinkering - and ones he wasn't consulted over but which he had to try to accommodate. A huge loss and for no real gain.

No citizens, this is necessary, yes you can reject it, but be clear why you are if you do so. There is no evidence presented, hard factual evidence and sections cited, to show the Constitution or a lex has been violated. The is no principle this violates in a wider sense. If you toss out this proposal - a really good one - because of this then you do so either because you believe erroneous claims or because you support the idea you, we, Nova Roma as a whole, should at any time tinker unfettered with any lex with no consideration for chaos caused. You can still do this if the super majority is within the lex, just more of you will have to vote for it and that is a very good thing. Chaos will not come on the backs of a slimmest of majorities.  

There are no valid grounds to reject the use of super majorities and many reasons why they should be used.

I urge you to vote for this lex citizens.

Optime valete.


From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@... font-weight:bold;">To: "nova-roma@yahoogroups.com" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92010 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salvete omnibus in foro!

To quote the Censor:  "To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal."

There's the problem in a nutshell.  There is great potential for abuse.  Following his reasoning, there is "nothing" to prevent inserting supermajorities into a mere lex of 67%, 75%, 90%, etc.  Do that, get it passed, and we are stuck with it in perpetuity.  It would thus be possible to pass laws that are more difficult to amend than the very constitution itself.  Since our constitution is "at the top of the tree," such a possibility certainly, positively, absolutely violates the spirit of that document.

The reference to U.S. law is not irrelevant.  It provides evidence of how similar situations are handled in another forum, one, I might add, that has been around for a pretty long time.

Another quote:  "Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like."

So why not do that?  That would be proper.  There would be no constitutional controversy. 

My suggestion is to remove those supermajority sections, put the laws to a vote now, and during the next year insert them into the Constitution. 

Valete!
C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:00:40 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

With respect to Quadratus, the references to US laws are irrelevant and he is incorrect.

Our Constitution establishes a chain of legal precedence for the legal instruments described, a pecking order of authority. The Constitution is at the top of that tree, BUT it is a fatal error to assume that all legislative authority flows downwards from that document. It does not. Indeed it cannot, for example the edicta of magistrates can deal with issues not prescribed in the Constitution. The rule that has been followed in Nova Roma is simple - if it is not expressly forbidden in our Constitution it is possible. The Constitution simply enshrines certain immutable points, key concepts and fundamental principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a super majority. 

Consider the role of the Tribunes in Nova Roma. They exist for one sole reason, to determine if the letter of the Constitution or a lex has been violated OR the spirit of the same. Before some wag tries this task, the proposing of legislation that would void an existing lex or change the Constitution is not itself a violation. The principle is that the newer lex (or Constitutional clause) takes precedence over an earlier one. Therefore even if there was a clause in a lex prohibiting a super majority, and there is NOT, then this lex if passed would be perfectly legal. The newest lex takes priority. So ... back to the Tribunes - where in the Constitution of Nova Roma or any of its leges is this prohibited? The answer is it isn't. Ask then is the spirit of the Constitution violated? Again, no. All the Constitution does is establish a legal order of precedence for legal instruments and affirms that the latest takes priority.

So... if this passes is a new lex prevented? No, of course not, as long as the required majority is obtained. Until such time as it is this lex (if passed) would require legally any change to have a super majority. So the spirit of the Constitution is not affected in any way. 

Consider the Constitution itself. Where does it say that all novel changes have to be authorized in that document? It doesn't is the simple answer. Again, the Constitution exists simply to set certain principles above all others, certain facts and the nature of certain institutions too, AND to require a super majority in the Senate to pass a change voted in by the comitia, BUT where did the authority for the super majority in the Constitution derive from? The answer? SPQR - the Senate and people of Rome, as required in the Constitution. Now, a lex does not require senatorial approval - it lies in the hands of the people. If you the people say X, then X it is - unless the Constitution says otherwise or it is overruled by a senatus consultum ultimum or the edicta of a dictator. In the case of this proposed lex, the Constitution contains NOTHING to prevent this. 

To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal. So we return to this proposal and its merits and the need for a super majority. Let me once again cover that. Nova Roma has been in a state of flux for years. Generally speaking consuls in the past and maybe in the future try to tinker with laws with which they have a pet peeve. There is often no thought to merit. This year we are lucky to have a consul who has selectively chosen laws that NEED to be changed or created rather than ones that he has a personal preference over. This may not be so in the future.

 This proposal below is a very significant one. It will cause confusion and bad feeling if it were to be substantially altered or repealed once it is bedded into our fabric. Therefore given the propensity of consuls to tinker and meddle with what is good, we MUST firewall this to prevent further rows, upset and essentially a chaotic situation in the future. We cannot trust people to exercise common sense - as that has evidently been in short supply in Nova Roma over the years, so we need a legislative method. Super majorities, utterly legal and constitutional, provide that means. 

Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like. is there a need? Nope. None at all. In fact this method of using a lex is an instantaneous reflection of the people's will as it will not have to go to the Senate, which a constitutional amendment would, for ratification. It is immediate, efficient and will have the same protection BUT will still be subordinate to the Constitution under the order of legal precedence. All perfectly constitutional and proper. 

As to my qualifications, as Quadratus has cited his, as well as having been praetor, consul and currently censor, as well as in the Senate since 2008 involved in drafting and interpreting all aspects of our legal code, I have drafted provincial legislation and every day have to interpret legislation and court orders. I know my "stuff" - and super majorities are legal and constitutional. they violate no lex nor the Constitution and they still allow for the lex the protect to be amended. To say a lex or the Constitution could never be changed would be illegal - but the super majority just requires a higher voting standard - as does the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not reserve super majorities for itself - so their use is therefore permitted and legal. 

Super majorities are needed to restore stability to Nova Roma on issues of importance, discourage tinkering, and ensure that slim majorities do not overturn key stones of our res publica's legal code and structure, The only reason for people to object to these are that they are mistaken in their legal analysis (Quadratus) or because they want to tinker with this, or their ego is affronted. Well in all cases my response is simple.

Suck it up.

We have gone through far too much discord in Nova Roma not to try to prevent chaos in the future. Undoing this lex if passed without a super majority clause would be easy. The consequences are that we would have to completely re-order many things. The requirements in the lex will have to be eventually coded into our database. It is precisely this sort of legislative tinkering and flip flopping (were we not to have the clause and the lex to be amended or scrapped - for no good reason) that led Octavius (for those that don't know he hosted our website and did coding for free) to quit providing free support and hosting. A lot of unnecessary changes - tinkering - and ones he wasn't consulted over but which he had to try to accommodate. A huge loss and for no real gain.

No citizens, this is necessary, yes you can reject it, but be clear why you are if you do so. There is no evidence presented, hard factual evidence and sections cited, to show the Constitution or a lex has been violated. The is no principle this violates in a wider sense. If you toss out this proposal - a really good one - because of this then you do so either because you believe erroneous claims or because you support the idea you, we, Nova Roma as a whole, should at any time tinker unfettered with any lex with no consideration for chaos caused. You can still do this if the super majority is within the lex, just more of you will have to vote for it and that is a very good thing. Chaos will not come on the backs of a slimmest of majorities.  

There are no valid grounds to reject the use of super majorities and many reasons why they should be used.

I urge you to vote for this lex citizens.

Optime valete.


From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92011 From: Scipio Second Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave Omnes,
Dearest Quadratus,  you have made a classic error.   First, the Second Amendment is an addition to the original U.S. Constitution.   Article V thereof actually requires a 3/4 majority of the States to adopt an amendment.
Second, while it is unclear what your reference to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) indicates, if you are talking about the U.S. Senate, there is no 2/3 rule.   The supermajority (60 votes of 100) often required to pass legislation in the Senate is a Senate rule intended to avoid a filibuster.   It is not a law.  Under the rule as manipulated by the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is not currently possible to repeal Obamacare.   That, of course, could change with the political winds.   The only other practical way to "repeal" Obamacare is through the federal court system and have the statute, or portions thereof, declared unconstitutional.  That process is currently underway in several lawsuits wending their way through the federal court system.  Though technically possible, it is highly unlikely that the constitutional amendment process would be used to repeal Obamacare.
Third, as Nova Roma is a private organization, these comparisons to U.S. constitutional procedures and Senate rules are misplaced.   As long as its internal procedures do not violate the laws of the U.S. state wherein it is incorporated or U.S. laws writ large, Nova Roma can adopt any internal administrative procedures it deems fit and necessary.   Thus, if the membership chooses to require a "supermajority" to amend the lex, there are no legal prohibitions thereto.
There is a degree of instability which presents itself if the lex can be easily amended or altered.   Such a procedure can be a temptation to those who would moment seize upon it in the heat of the moment.    Changes to the lex should be studied, debated, and favored by more than 51% of the voting membership.
As an attorney with some forty years of practice, I see the proposed change as positive.   I would respectfully urge its adoption.
Valete,
Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
                    
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:43 AM, "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92012 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:03 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...  
Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

With respect to Quadratus, the references to US laws are irrelevant and he is incorrect.

Our Constitution establishes a chain of legal precedence for the legal instruments described, a pecking order of authority. The Constitution is at the top of that tree, BUT it is a fatal error to assume that all legislative authority flows downwards from that document. It does not. Indeed it cannot, for example the edicta of magistrates can deal with issues not prescribed in the Constitution. The rule that has been followed in Nova Roma is simple - if it is not expressly forbidden in our Constitution it is possible. The Constitution simply enshrines certain immutable points, key concepts and fundamental principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a super majority. 

Consider the role of the Tribunes in Nova Roma. They exist for one sole reason, to determine if the letter of the Constitution or a lex has been violated OR the spirit of the same. Before some wag tries this task, the proposing of legislation that would void an existing lex or change the Constitution is not itself a violation. The principle is that the newer lex (or Constitutional clause) takes precedence over an earlier one. Therefore even if there was a clause in a lex prohibiting a super majority, and there is NOT, then this lex if passed would be perfectly legal. The newest lex takes priority. So ... back to the Tribunes - where in the Constitution of Nova Roma or any of its leges is this prohibited? The answer is it isn't. Ask then is the spirit of the Constitution violated? Again, no. All the Constitution does is establish a legal order of precedence for legal instruments and affirms that the latest takes priority.

So... if this passes is a new lex prevented? No, of course not, as long as the required majority is obtained. Until such time as it is this lex (if passed) would require legally any change to have a super majority. So the spirit of the Constitution is not affected in any way. 

Consider the Constitution itself. Where does it say that all novel changes have to be authorized in that document? It doesn't is the simple answer. Again, the Constitution exists simply to set certain principles above all others, certain facts and the nature of certain institutions too, AND to require a super majority in the Senate to pass a change voted in by the comitia, BUT where did the authority for the super majority in the Constitution derive from? The answer? SPQR - the Senate and people of Rome, as required in the Constitution. Now, a lex does not require senatorial approval - it lies in the hands of the people. If you the people say X, then X it is - unless the Constitution says otherwise or it is overruled by a senatus consultum ultimum or the edicta of a dictator. In the case of this proposed lex, the Constitution contains NOTHING to prevent this. 

To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal. So we return to this proposal and its merits and the need for a super majority. Let me once again cover that. Nova Roma has been in a state of flux for years. Generally speaking consuls in the past and maybe in the future try to tinker with laws with which they have a pet peeve. There is often no thought to merit. This year we are lucky to have a consul who has selectively chosen laws that NEED to be changed or created rather than ones that he has a personal preference over. This may not be so in the future.

 This proposal below is a very significant one. It will cause confusion and bad feeling if it were to be substantially altered or repealed once it is bedded into our fabric. Therefore given the propensity of consuls to tinker and meddle with what is good, we MUST firewall this to prevent further rows, upset and essentially a chaotic situation in the future. We cannot trust people to exercise common sense - as that has evidently been in short supply in Nova Roma over the years, so we need a legislative method. Super majorities, utterly legal and constitutional, provide that means. 

Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like. is there a need? Nope. None at all. In fact this method of using a lex is an instantaneous reflection of the people's will as it will not have to go to the Senate, which a constitutional amendment would, for ratification. It is immediate, efficient and will have the same protection BUT will still be subordinate to the Constitution under the order of legal precedence. All perfectly constitutional and proper. 

As to my qualifications, as Quadratus has cited his, as well as having been praetor, consul and currently censor, as well as in the Senate since 2008 involved in drafting and interpreting all aspects of our legal code, I have drafted provincial legislation and every day have to interpret legislation and court orders. I know my "stuff" - and super majorities are legal and constitutional. they violate no lex nor the Constitution and they still allow for the lex the protect to be amended. To say a lex or the Constitution could never be changed would be illegal - but the super majority just requires a higher voting standard - as does the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not reserve super majorities for itself - so their use is therefore permitted and legal. 

Super majorities are needed to restore stability to Nova Roma on issues of importance, discourage tinkering, and ensure that slim majorities do not overturn key stones of our res publica's legal code and structure, The only reason for people to object to these are that they are mistaken in their legal analysis (Quadratus) or because they want to tinker with this, or their ego is affronted. Well in all cases my response is simple.

Suck it up.

We have gone through far too much discord in Nova Roma not to try to prevent chaos in the future. Undoing this lex if passed without a super majority clause would be easy. The consequences are that we would have to completely re-order many things. The requirements in the lex will have to be eventually coded into our database. It is precisely this sort of legislative tinkering and flip flopping (were we not to have the clause and the lex to be amended or scrapped - for no good reason) that led Octavius (for those that don't know he hosted our website and did coding for free) to quit providing free support and hosting. A lot of unnecessary changes - tinkering - and ones he wasn't consulted over but which he had to try to accommodate. A huge loss and for no real gain.

No citizens, this is necessary, yes you can reject it, but be clear why you are if you do so. There is no evidence presented, hard factual evidence and sections cited, to show the Constitution or a lex has been violated. The is no principle this violates in a wider sense. If you toss out this proposal - a really good one - because of this then you do so either because you believe erroneous claims or because you support the idea you, we, Nova Roma as a whole, should at any time tinker unfettered with any lex with no consideration for chaos caused. You can still do this if the super majority is within the lex, just more of you will have to vote for it and that is a very good thing. Chaos will not come on the backs of a slimmest of majorities.  

There are no valid grounds to reject the use of super majorities and many reasons why they should be used.

I urge you to vote for this lex citizens.

Optime valete.

From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 






Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92013 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Avete,

In light of the two new proposed Lexes and super-majority clauses, I would say that in a macronational environment with umpteen million voters and individual opinions and a large number of legislators with varying views, the situation might be more appropriate.  In this small environment, things are much too volatile for the whims and emotional sways of the easy simple majority vote. One of the reasons the US Constitution has held firmly for over two centuries it that it is damned near impossible to amend it.  It has to be really good or really bad as recognized by everyone to make a change.  Unlike the former USSR Constitution which changed several thousand times since 1917. After a while, things get so confusing, nobody knows what the heck is going on. We need to prevent that from happening and correct some of the dysfunctionality in our system. 

IMO, ALL Lexes need to have the super majority, and the Constitution should probably be a 3/4 vote majority. Personally, I'd rather be doing Roman things than rehashing and rehashing and rehashing the political system in NR. Also, it is not 442 BC, and we do not need to emulate the ancients. There's was a different time and age with their own set of problems and circumstances. Ours is different. We need to focus on the here and now...right now...in our time and age.  Remember, they lost the Respublica, due to inadequacies in government and dysfunctionality.  We must learn from their mistakes, not revisit them.

I support BOTH Lexes AND their super majorities.

Valete,
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:03 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...  
Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

With respect to Quadratus, the references to US laws are irrelevant and he is incorrect.

Our Constitution establishes a chain of legal precedence for the legal instruments described, a pecking order of authority. The Constitution is at the top of that tree, BUT it is a fatal error to assume that all legislative authority flows downwards from that document. It does not. Indeed it cannot, for example the edicta of magistrates can deal with issues not prescribed in the Constitution. The rule that has been followed in Nova Roma is simple - if it is not expressly forbidden in our Constitution it is possible. The Constitution simply enshrines certain immutable points, key concepts and fundamental principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a super majority. 

Consider the role of the Tribunes in Nova Roma. They exist for one sole reason, to determine if the letter of the Constitution or a lex has been violated OR the spirit of the same. Before some wag tries this task, the proposing of legislation that would void an existing lex or change the Constitution is not itself a violation. The principle is that the newer lex (or Constitutional clause) takes precedence over an earlier one. Therefore even if there was a clause in a lex prohibiting a super majority, and there is NOT, then this lex if passed would be perfectly legal. The newest lex takes priority. So ... back to the Tribunes - where in the Constitution of Nova Roma or any of its leges is this prohibited? The answer is it isn't. Ask then is the spirit of the Constitution violated? Again, no. All the Constitution does is establish a legal order of precedence for legal instruments and affirms that the latest takes priority.

So... if this passes is a new lex prevented? No, of course not, as long as the required majority is obtained. Until such time as it is this lex (if passed) would require legally any change to have a super majority. So the spirit of the Constitution is not affected in any way. 

Consider the Constitution itself. Where does it say that all novel changes have to be authorized in that document? It doesn't is the simple answer. Again, the Constitution exists simply to set certain principles above all others, certain facts and the nature of certain institutions too, AND to require a super majority in the Senate to pass a change voted in by the comitia, BUT where did the authority for the super majority in the Constitution derive from? The answer? SPQR - the Senate and people of Rome, as required in the Constitution. Now, a lex does not require senatorial approval - it lies in the hands of the people. If you the people say X, then X it is - unless the Constitution says otherwise or it is overruled by a senatus consultum ultimum or the edicta of a dictator. In the case of this proposed lex, the Constitution contains NOTHING to prevent this. 

To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal. So we return to this proposal and its merits and the need for a super majority. Let me once again cover that. Nova Roma has been in a state of flux for years. Generally speaking consuls in the past and maybe in the future try to tinker with laws with which they have a pet peeve. There is often no thought to merit. This year we are lucky to have a consul who has selectively chosen laws that NEED to be changed or created rather than ones that he has a personal preference over. This may not be so in the future.

 This proposal below is a very significant one. It will cause confusion and bad feeling if it were to be substantially altered or repealed once it is bedded into our fabric. Therefore given the propensity of consuls to tinker and meddle with what is good, we MUST firewall this to prevent further rows, upset and essentially a chaotic situation in the future. We cannot trust people to exercise common sense - as that has evidently been in short supply in Nova Roma over the years, so we need a legislative method. Super majorities, utterly legal and constitutional, provide that means. 

Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like. is there a need? Nope. None at all. In fact this method of using a lex is an instantaneous reflection of the people's will as it will not have to go to the Senate, which a constitutional amendment would, for ratification. It is immediate, efficient and will have the same protection BUT will still be subordinate to the Constitution under the order of legal precedence. All perfectly constitutional and proper. 

As to my qualifications, as Quadratus has cited his, as well as having been praetor, consul and currently censor, as well as in the Senate since 2008 involved in drafting and interpreting all aspects of our legal code, I have drafted provincial legislation and every day have to interpret legislation and court orders. I know my "stuff" - and super majorities are legal and constitutional. they violate no lex nor the Constitution and they still allow for the lex the protect to be amended. To say a lex or the Constitution could never be changed would be illegal - but the super majority just requires a higher voting standard - as does the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not reserve super majorities for itself - so their use is therefore permitted and legal. 

Super majorities are needed to restore stability to Nova Roma on issues of importance, discourage tinkering, and ensure that slim majorities do not overturn key stones of our res publica's legal code and structure, The only reason for people to object to these are that they are mistaken in their legal analysis (Quadratus) or because they want to tinker with this, or their ego is affronted. Well in all cases my response is simple.

Suck it up.

We have gone through far too much discord in Nova Roma not to try to prevent chaos in the future. Undoing this lex if passed without a super majority clause would be easy. The consequences are that we would have to completely re-order many things. The requirements in the lex will have to be eventually coded into our database. It is precisely this sort of legislative tinkering and flip flopping (were we not to have the clause and the lex to be amended or scrapped - for no good reason) that led Octavius (for those that don't know he hosted our website and did coding for free) to quit providing free support and hosting. A lot of unnecessary changes - tinkering - and ones he wasn't consulted over but which he had to try to accommodate. A huge loss and for no real gain.

No citizens, this is necessary, yes you can reject it, but be clear why you are if you do so. There is no evidence presented, hard factual evidence and sections cited, to show the Constitution or a lex has been violated. The is no principle this violates in a wider sense. If you toss out this proposal - a really good one - because of this then you do so either because you believe erroneous claims or because you support the idea you, we, Nova Roma as a whole, should at any time tinker unfettered with any lex with no consideration for chaos caused. You can still do this if the super majority is within the lex, just more of you will have to vote for it and that is a very good thing. Chaos will not come on the backs of a slimmest of majorities.  

There are no valid grounds to reject the use of super majorities and many reasons why they should be used.

I urge you to vote for this lex citizens.

Optime valete.

From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 






Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92014 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salve!

I do not think my analysis of the potential abuse inherent in supermajorities is erroneous, and I have not suggested that we use American law as precedent.  Just as an example to demonstrate the difference between constitutional changes and ordinary legislation.

We must be clear in our understanding that mere leges, as these currently under consideration, cannot be elevated to a status having an equal or higher authority than our own constitution. That is what results from the insertion of supermajority requirement to effect change.

I have already set forth an alternative procedure that avoids the problem.  I urge its use.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: scipiosecond@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:36:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave Omnes,
Dearest Quadratus,  you have made a classic error.   First, the Second Amendment is an addition to the original U.S. Constitution.   Article V thereof actually requires a 3/4 majority of the States to adopt an amendment.
Second, while it is unclear what your reference to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) indicates, if you are talking about the U.S. Senate, there is no 2/3 rule.   The supermajority (60 votes of 100) often required to pass legislation in the Senate is a Senate rule intended to avoid a filibuster.   It is not a law.  Under the rule as manipulated by the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is not currently possible to repeal Obamacare.   That, of course, could change with the political winds.   The only other practical way to "repeal" Obamacare is through the federal court system and have the statute, or portions thereof, declared unconstitutional.  That process is currently underway in several lawsuits wending their way through the federal court system.  Though technically possible, it is highly unlikely that the constitutional amendment process would be used to repeal Obamacare.
Third, as Nova Roma is a private organization, these comparisons to U.S. constitutional procedures and Senate rules are misplaced.   As long as its internal procedures do not violate the laws of the U.S. state wherein it is incorporated or U.S. laws writ large, Nova Roma can adopt any internal administrative procedures it deems fit and necessary.   Thus, if the membership chooses to require a "supermajority" to amend the lex, there are no legal prohibitions thereto.
There is a degree of instability which presents itself if the lex can be easily amended or altered.   Such a procedure can be a temptation to those who would moment seize upon it in the heat of the moment.    Changes to the lex should be studied, debated, and favored by more than 51% of the voting membership.
As an attorney with some forty years of practice, I see the proposed change as positive.   I would respectfully urge its adoption.
Valete,
Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
                    
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:43 AM, "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92015 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving and Hanukkah (Or as we call it Thanksgivingkkuah)
Avete Omnes,

I would like to wish everyone who is celebrating Thanksgiving and Hanukkah a wonderful holiday and lots of Turkey and Latkes! :)  And, lots of deserts and FOOTBALL.

Most Respectfully,

Sulla
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92016 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Lex Cornelia de Classibus et Ordine Equestri - 24 hour to the en
Salve Sulla et Salvete Omnes,

I was thinking that but again it seemed a bit vague-ish.  Thank you for the clarification.  Good to know that at least discretion can be chosen if the Censor wishes to do so.

Valete bene,
Aeternia



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92017 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow (for those who celebrate it)
Salve Caeca et Salvete Omnes,

Happy Thanksgiving to you amica!  And Happy Thanksgiving to all who are celebrating it around the world (especially the Troops abroad).  May you celebrate it in a cornucopia of good company, health, and joy! 

Valete Optime,
Aeternia


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92018 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Avete Omnes,

For the most part, I am staying out of the debate about supermajorities.  In my opinion they are absolutely legal.  

There is a clear line of reasoning that I had for including the super majority clause.  Some individuals think its an ego thing, by that it is directed at the soon to be consuls taking office, it simply is not.  I fully expect both Crassus and Aeternia to place their stamp on Nova Roma, just as I have.  Some individuals might think its an ego thing that I do not want these laws overturned.  To be honest, I don't want any of the laws I promulgated to be overturned.  But, using that logic I would have slapped the supermajority clause on each of them, but I did not.  The real reason that I inserted the super majority clause is due to this rationale. When I began working on the laws to fix Nova Roma the first legislation I worked on was the Comitia procedures. I went through every comita procedure change.  The results shocked me.  Both Comitia procedures were changed ON AVERAGE 1 time every 2 years.  Yes, some of the change might have been for the better, but ultimately all those changes brought Nova Roma to a point where NONE of the Comitia's could function at all when I entered office.

Many of us fought against the Leges Salicia from day 1.  I was one of the most vocal critics, One of my friends, co-wrote the law with Gn. Salix.  But, from day 1 I saw the trainwreck that law would create in Nova Roma and ultimately (and it took nearly 10 years for that to come) but we were proven correct.   The Leges Salicia were not changed until now for multiple reasons.  First it took years for the law to actually be tested (again a sign that Nova Roma was simply not ready for them in the first place) and when they were applied Train wreck.  

Nova Roma has a long and glorious history of revising laws.  This is part of what we do.  On these two laws they deal with very important subjects in Nova Roma.  Conflict Resolution within Nova Roma and the stability of the Comitia Centuriata.  I want to pace a higher threshold to at least slow down the revising, that we consuls of Nova Roma tend to do, because I believe the laws as proposed are exhaustive and thorough.  I think that has been proven substantively given the fact that the debate now has shifted from the content of the laws to the one single super majority clause.  

In the end result if you agree with the substantive content on the law then the path is clear, vote for the law.  That is my intention.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92019 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Cn. Caesar censor sal.

The point about people voting against a proposal is indeed the point. There is potential for tinkering - we know that. Our consul has affirmed that by his analysis of how many times laws change in Nova Roma. Quadratus on the other hand worries that there will be abuse by future consults requiring higher majorities. Of course they could!  The check and balance comes from the people. if they decide to support a higher majority, then so be it. If they reject it, so be it. All I ask of you, the people, is that you understand that the super majority is utterly legal and constitutional. 

Quadratus advances an argument that if something is more difficult to change than the Constitution then it must be unconstitutional. That is not only wrong but illogical. These  leges, if passed, would be at least as easy to alter as the Constitution. Even if it were harder, so what? You the people get to decide that. The Constitution of Nova Roma is a document that works for us, not the other way around. It serves our needs, we do not make sacrifice at the altar of the Constitution.

As an additional point, the Constitution is deeply flawed. It needs re-working. To add more sections to it at this stage when it is not necessary would be akin to attaching large and numerous lead weights to a scuba diver that dragged him down way beyond his operating depth. The only measures that should go in the Constitution at this stage are those items that it is necessary to insert, because they affect something already in it. Otherwise, we should refrain from burdening an already contradictory and messy instrument.

It is also necessary in my view for all the reasons I and other have explained to include the super majority clause, which is utterly reasonable and in line with other usage earlier in this year in the comitia and last year in the senate.

Please support the consul's legislative proposals. They are good ones, and necessary and both are legal and constitutional. Please vote in favour of progress and not irrational and unfounded fears, assumptions and fallacious arguments.

Optime valete



From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

To quote the Censor:  "To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal."

There's the problem in a nutshell.  There is great potential for abuse.  Following his reasoning, there is "nothing" to prevent inserting supermajorities into a mere lex of 67%, 75%, 90%, etc.  Do that, get it passed, and we are stuck with it in perpetuity.  It would thus be possible to pass laws that are more difficult to amend than the very constitution itself.  Since our constitution is "at the top of the tree," such a possibility certainly, positively, absolutely violates the spirit of that document.

The reference to U.S. law is not irrelevant.  It provides evidence of how similar situations are handled in another forum, one, I might add, that has been around for a pretty long time.

Another quote:  "Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like."

So why not do that?  That would be proper.  There would be no constitutional controversy. 

My suggestion is to remove those supermajority sections, put the laws to a vote now, and during the next year insert them into the Constitution. 

Valete!
C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:00:40 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

With respect to Quadratus, the references to US laws are irrelevant and he is incorrect.

Our Constitution establishes a chain of legal precedence for the legal instruments described, a pecking order of authority. The Constitution is at the top of that tree, BUT it is a fatal error to assume that all legislative authority flows downwards from that document. It does not. Indeed it cannot, for example the edicta of magistrates can deal with issues not prescribed in the Constitution. The rule that has been followed in Nova Roma is simple - if it is not expressly forbidden in our Constitution it is possible. The Constitution simply enshrines certain immutable points, key concepts and fundamental principles. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a super majority. 

Consider the role of the Tribunes in Nova Roma. They exist for one sole reason, to determine if the letter of the Constitution or a lex has been violated OR the spirit of the same. Before some wag tries this task, the proposing of legislation that would void an existing lex or change the Constitution is not itself a violation. The principle is that the newer lex (or Constitutional clause) takes precedence over an earlier one. Therefore even if there was a clause in a lex prohibiting a super majority, and there is NOT, then this lex if passed would be perfectly legal. The newest lex takes priority. So ... back to the Tribunes - where in the Constitution of Nova Roma or any of its leges is this prohibited? The answer is it isn't. Ask then is the spirit of the Constitution violated? Again, no. All the Constitution does is establish a legal order of precedence for legal instruments and affirms that the latest takes priority.

So... if this passes is a new lex prevented? No, of course not, as long as the required majority is obtained. Until such time as it is this lex (if passed) would require legally any change to have a super majority. So the spirit of the Constitution is not affected in any way. 

Consider the Constitution itself. Where does it say that all novel changes have to be authorized in that document? It doesn't is the simple answer. Again, the Constitution exists simply to set certain principles above all others, certain facts and the nature of certain institutions too, AND to require a super majority in the Senate to pass a change voted in by the comitia, BUT where did the authority for the super majority in the Constitution derive from? The answer? SPQR - the Senate and people of Rome, as required in the Constitution. Now, a lex does not require senatorial approval - it lies in the hands of the people. If you the people say X, then X it is - unless the Constitution says otherwise or it is overruled by a senatus consultum ultimum or the edicta of a dictator. In the case of this proposed lex, the Constitution contains NOTHING to prevent this. 

To answer Quadratus' question of what is to stop more stringent clauses - nothing, except you the people voting against a  proposal. So we return to this proposal and its merits and the need for a super majority. Let me once again cover that. Nova Roma has been in a state of flux for years. Generally speaking consuls in the past and maybe in the future try to tinker with laws with which they have a pet peeve. There is often no thought to merit. This year we are lucky to have a consul who has selectively chosen laws that NEED to be changed or created rather than ones that he has a personal preference over. This may not be so in the future.

 This proposal below is a very significant one. It will cause confusion and bad feeling if it were to be substantially altered or repealed once it is bedded into our fabric. Therefore given the propensity of consuls to tinker and meddle with what is good, we MUST firewall this to prevent further rows, upset and essentially a chaotic situation in the future. We cannot trust people to exercise common sense - as that has evidently been in short supply in Nova Roma over the years, so we need a legislative method. Super majorities, utterly legal and constitutional, provide that means. 

Could this go in the Constitution? Of course it could - we could put in there anything we like. is there a need? Nope. None at all. In fact this method of using a lex is an instantaneous reflection of the people's will as it will not have to go to the Senate, which a constitutional amendment would, for ratification. It is immediate, efficient and will have the same protection BUT will still be subordinate to the Constitution under the order of legal precedence. All perfectly constitutional and proper. 

As to my qualifications, as Quadratus has cited his, as well as having been praetor, consul and currently censor, as well as in the Senate since 2008 involved in drafting and interpreting all aspects of our legal code, I have drafted provincial legislation and every day have to interpret legislation and court orders. I know my "stuff" - and super majorities are legal and constitutional. they violate no lex nor the Constitution and they still allow for the lex the protect to be amended. To say a lex or the Constitution could never be changed would be illegal - but the super majority just requires a higher voting standard - as does the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not reserve super majorities for itself - so their use is therefore permitted and legal. 

Super majorities are needed to restore stability to Nova Roma on issues of importance, discourage tinkering, and ensure that slim majorities do not overturn key stones of our res publica's legal code and structure, The only reason for people to object to these are that they are mistaken in their legal analysis (Quadratus) or because they want to tinker with this, or their ego is affronted. Well in all cases my response is simple.

Suck it up.

We have gone through far too much discord in Nova Roma not to try to prevent chaos in the future. Undoing this lex if passed without a super majority clause would be easy. The consequences are that we would have to completely re-order many things. The requirements in the lex will have to be eventually coded into our database. It is precisely this sort of legislative tinkering and flip flopping (were we not to have the clause and the lex to be amended or scrapped - for no good reason) that led Octavius (for those that don't know he hosted our website and did coding for free) to quit providing free support and hosting. A lot of unnecessary changes - tinkering - and ones he wasn't consulted over but which he had to try to accommodate. A huge loss and for no real gain.

No citizens, this is necessary, yes you can reject it, but be clear why you are if you do so. There is no evidence presented, hard factual evidence and sections cited, to show the Constitution or a lex has been violated. The is no principle this violates in a wider sense. If you toss out this proposal - a really good one - because of this then you do so either because you believe erroneous claims or because you support the idea you, we, Nova Roma as a whole, should at any time tinker unfettered with any lex with no consideration for chaos caused. You can still do this if the super majority is within the lex, just more of you will have to vote for it and that is a very good thing. Chaos will not come on the backs of a slimmest of majorities.  

There are no valid grounds to reject the use of super majorities and many reasons why they should be used.

I urge you to vote for this lex citizens.

Optime valete.


From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete omnibus in foro!

We will soon be voting upon two important proposed laws, the first involving a penal system, the second the Ordo Equestor. 

Each of these laws concludes with the provision:      "Upon enactment of this lex, the only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this lex must be by way of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata that must achieve an extraordinary majority  of 2/3s or greater (67%  or greater) of the total Centuries."

I believe the closing sections of these proposed laws to be unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional authority providing for the imposition of an "extraordinary majority" requirement upon future legislation.  I write with the instincts of a lawyer having more than forty years of experience in a field of federal jurisdiction involving the interpretation of statutes, regulations, and many issues of constitutionality.

My concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the proposed legislation - but solely with the supermajority issue.  The proponents are seeking to place these laws upon a higher level than that of all other laws.  The supermajority requirement bears a similarity to the requirement for amending the very Constitution itself.

As an example, I will cite two important United States legal references - with apologies to those who may not be familiar with them -  1.  The Second Amendment to their constitution (right to bear arms); 2.  the Affordable Care Act,  a/k/a ObamaCare.  There are substantial groups seeking to amend or repeal both.  To amend or repeal the Second Amendment would require a supermajority similar to that sought for the proposed leges being discussed herein.  To amend or repeal ObamaCare would require only a majority vote in the U.S. Congress, with a supermajority required only if needed to overcome a presidential veto.  The fact that legislation as important as the Affordable Care Act does not and cannot impose a supermajority with respect to possible amendment or repeal is telling. 

The supermajoritiy requirements will set a very dangerous precedent.  If these are constitutional, what is to prevent a future lex from providing a still more stringent requirement for amendment or repeal?

In my opinion, if a proposed law is so important that future amendment should require a supermajority, the proper way to go about it would be to insert it into the Constitution.

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favor of the proposed leges unless the supermajority sections are withdrawn.   In the absence of such change, I urge that you vote "no" with respect to this legislation.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus

 







Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92020 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave!

I have been in discussion with the Crassus and Quadratus about the supermajority clause.  Given that today is the last day of the Contio and I am about to leave to go to my sisters for the holiday.  I took the last few hours to  reflect on the proposed laws.  I stand by them 100%.  I believe they are both exhaustive and comprehensive.  They meet Nova Roma's needs and the Supermajority clause stays.  Because I cannot guarantee that any future revision will be as thorough as the current proposed laws are.'

This in no way prevents future magistrates from trying to revise them.  The hurdle they just need to jump over is just a bit higher.  

I have made many revisions to make the laws the best for Nova Roma and the current drafts are the two of the finest laws I have had the pleasure of promulgating.  I now place them in the hands of the People of Nova Roma to decide if substance of the laws meet Nova Roma's needs at present and in the foreseeable future.  I believe they do.

Most Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92021 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92022 From: Aemilius Crassus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salvete omnes,

Addressing other points on the matter.

First being one of the persons opposing the concept of the super majority I guess the remarks concerning people opposing were also direct at me so in reply Caesar no I will not want neither planned to tinker with any of these two laws if they would be approved without the 2/3 majority because I respect the decisions of the comitia and also believe in the life cycle of the laws. They are approved, tested, and tested and if and when needed correct being the first option always to fine tune and only in extreme malfunction complete redrawn from scratch.

But for that work it is also necessary to be able to change the same laws. 2/3 of all non empty centuries is impossible to achieve.

So since I'm not basing my opposing in a misunderstand of laws, as it is Quadratus in your opinion, I also don't want to change them so I guess the problem is my huge ego, something I'm well known as anyone here can tell.

My opposition is simple the fundamental parts of our organization are in the constitution and that has an extra layer of protection the rest are simple legislation all equal. To change any law it is needed a magistrate to propose the change and a comitia that approves it. So no matter what other future Consuls may propose the final decision is in the hands of the citizens and if they are now valid to enact these laws why will they suddenly will be less valid in a future?

Citizens the case is very simple, you do believe these laws to be so well written that no future change will ever needed? You don't mind making it near impossible to change? If your answer is yes to both questions vote yes and those laws will stay around exactly as they are since I believe more easy to change constitution than these laws as they are.

If the answer of any of these two questions is no  than the only vote possible is no.

In one case I strongly believe the law will prove to need several corrections in the other I don't but I don't believe in hard coding legislation so I will vote no on both. Probably my big ego working here.

Well the time to talk is ending and it will be in your hands.

Valete optime,
Crassus


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92023 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92024 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 


Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92025 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92026 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salvete Romans,
 
I think the case has been made to try something different. I will be voting for something different.
 
Valete,
 
Ti. Galerius Paulinus

 

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92027 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave amice!

I agree completely.   If citizens think it's a more efficient use of nova Roma's magistrates limited time in office to re fight those same battles.... just like nova Roma did in the past - case in point comitia procedures revised every 2 years on average.  Resignation laws over and over again...name change lawd.  Refighting those recurring topics sure is a good way to accomplish little to nothing of substance. 

Respectfully,

Sulla



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Date:11/28/2013 7:53 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92028 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Caesar Crasso sal.

Change may or may not be necessary, in which case the consul of the day can make his//her case to the people and if it is convincing enough then it will obtain the required majority. It is very simple and doesn't need all the bogus claims of illegality or unconstitutionality to simply say, "I don't like it because I as consul may have to work harder to change it". You may not wish to change them or revoke them, BUT others in the future may not share your approach. we have seen the evidence for willful tinkering - that is a fact, but on the other hand I have seen NO legal argument supporting claims that we cannot use these other than assertions. That is because there isn't any. This opposition is all because you and others don't like the use of them. Fine, I understand that, but please, no bogus arguments, no emotional based claims from you or others. 

The super majority clause is legal. Period. Laws can be changed that include them, just not so easily at some magistrate's whim by manipulating the voters through bogus claims and fear mongering to achieve a slim majority. Once enacted anything that involves a structural change to Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. That is a practical and necessary use of a legal device, very Roman.

As to the Constitution it is a necessary evil, for the moment, but it is a paper tiger in many respects. Changes such as these do NOT belong in the Constitution precisely because they are not immutable parts of Nova Roma, such as the existence of republican structures, senate, comitia, consuls, praetors etc. Those should be in the Constitution, but a lex can handle both the proposals here quite well and the super majority adds an extra level of protection. 

Optime vale


From: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...  
Salvete omnes,

Addressing other points on the matter.

First being one of the persons opposing the concept of the super majority I guess the remarks concerning people opposing were also direct at me so in reply Caesar no I will not want neither planned to tinker with any of these two laws if they would be approved without the 2/3 majority because I respect the decisions of the comitia and also believe in the life cycle of the laws. They are approved, tested, and tested and if and when needed correct being the first option always to fine tune and only in extreme malfunction complete redrawn from scratch.

But for that work it is also necessary to be able to change the same laws. 2/3 of all non empty centuries is impossible to achieve.

So since I'm not basing my opposing in a misunderstand of laws, as it is Quadratus in your opinion, I also don't want to change them so I guess the problem is my huge ego, something I'm well known as anyone here can tell.

My opposition is simple the fundamental parts of our organization are in the constitution and that has an extra layer of protection the rest are simple legislation all equal. To change any law it is needed a magistrate to propose the change and a comitia that approves it. So no matter what other future Consuls may propose the final decision is in the hands of the citizens and if they are now valid to enact these laws why will they suddenly will be less valid in a future?

Citizens the case is very simple, you do believe these laws to be so well written that no future change will ever needed? You don't mind making it near impossible to change? If your answer is yes to both questions vote yes and those laws will stay around exactly as they are since I believe more easy to change constitution than these laws as they are.

If the answer of any of these two questions is no  than the only vote possible is no.

In one case I strongly believe the law will prove to need several corrections in the other I don't but I don't believe in hard coding legislation so I will vote no on both. Probably my big ego working here.

Well the time to talk is ending and it will be in your hands.

Valete optime,
Crassus


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92029 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92030 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Cn. Caesar censor sal.

Of course it is broken. The most recent example came in 2010, when it did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to protect us from a coup. In fact due to weak wording it permitted a consult to claim that he was permitted to call the Senate to order with Tribunes. Due to fuzzy wording, the Constitution did not specifically state that a consul could not emply such a device and that the proposition of a dictatorship was not within the mandate of Tribunes. yet there we were - in the midst of it up to our necks - and the Constitution where? It was on a beach in Bali taking a nap.

As to why it hasn't been repaired, because first things first. In 2011 we were trying to recover from the coup and there was some residue work that had to be done in ensuring the non-return of those responsible. In my year as consul in 2012 the rules of the Senate/Board of Directors, together with other important senatus consulta had to be updated/promulgated. This year legislative changes necessary to make Nova Roma work have been pursued. As to the Constitution that needs active debate. Hopefully 2015 will see that, for even if next year's consuls adopt this as a goal it will take time to do the job properly. 

The Constitution requires 2/3rds of the Senate to sign off on any proposed change. Getting changes like this through the Senate is more difficult than the comitia, as it is full of consulars and others who all have their own points of view and their individual votes can help kill a proposal far more effectively than the vote of a single citizen in comitia, so yes it does make sense because the Constitution has more staying power as a result, not the lex as Quadratus claims.

Equally Quadratus claims that the super majority removes the right of the comitia to enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry. This is absolutely and utterly false. That clause does not say that the comitia has to vote by simple majority and the super majority does not remove that right, it simply sets the bar higher to achieve the result. setting the bar higher is utterly legal and constitutional. All the Constitution requires is that the comitia can change/enact laws. It still can with a super majority, once it has achieved that majority. None of this is a cogent legal position, but simply smoke and mirrors. 

Optime vale



From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus







Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92031 From: Glenn Thacker Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.

I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.

Optime valete!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android



From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 

Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92032 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus







Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92033 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus








Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92034 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Cn. Caesar censor sal.

Indeed a very good point but not for the same reason. 

Firstly, if it is so bad the people will vote to amend it - and it should easily achieve 2/3rds - that is if it is really bad and not just bad because someone says it is, or doesn't like it.

Secondly, does this mean that the people are incapable of spotting bad legislation that is offered to the vote initially and that no one in the forum can spot it? I say they can. I say the people today are not idiots.

More specious reasoning....

Optime valete




From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus










Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92035 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Cn. Iulius Caesar censor sal.

"The problems will start with January 1"

Yes true, but not for the reason Lentulus foresees in his teacup. Given some of the attitudes expressed so far, I can see 2014 being a year when challenges to the structure and processes will be made. I can foresee 2014 as being one where the forces of advancement and progress will increasingly clash with those at odds with those goals.

So be it. It was expected and prepared for.

Optime valete


From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...  

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus







Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92036 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave

Do you think the laws are bad?

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 8:57 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one appro
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92037 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave

Do you believe the laws are bad?

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 8:57 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one appro
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92038 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salve, Sulla!

If you took away the supermajority clauses I would vote for them.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; backalley@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:18:59 -0700
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave

Do you believe the laws are bad?

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 8:57 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one appro

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92039 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Ave

So your answer is then, yes.

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 9:25 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve, Sulla!

If you took away the supermajority clauses I would vote for them.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; backalley@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:18:59 -0700
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave

Do you believe the laws are bad?

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 8:57 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one appro

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92040 From: Glenn Thacker Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

Laterensis Caesari omnibusque sal.

I agree with you that the people aren't idiots. That's part of the point I'm making. Do you trust the people to not tinker with legislation unnecessarily? Can they not recognize the difference between a necessary change, and one put forward for petty reasons? Your defense of this rather controversial clause suggests you don't. The 'considering people idiots' argument can go both ways.

As to the vote in the Senate, I would expect you to vote to the benefit of Nova Roma. If that benefits me as well, then great. If not, well that's life. You wouldn't hurt my feelings any.

Optime valete!

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android



From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 4:04:01 AM

 

Cn. Caesar censor sal.

Indeed a very good point but not for the same reason. 

Firstly, if it is so bad the people will vote to amend it - and it should easily achieve 2/3rds - that is if it is really bad and not just bad because someone says it is, or doesn't like it.

Secondly, does this mean that the people are incapable of spotting bad legislation that is offered to the vote initially and that no one in the forum can spot it? I say they can. I say the people today are not idiots.

More specious reasoning....

Optime valete




From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus










Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92041 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Salve, Sulla!

I'm not sure what you're asking me.  I don't think the basic substance of the laws are bad, just the supermajority aspect.  As you know, as a staff member, I helped a bit with their preparation and editing. 

Vale!
Quadratus




To: BackAlley@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; backalley@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:27:51 -0700
Subject: RE: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave

So your answer is then, yes.

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 9:25 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve, Sulla!

If you took away the supermajority clauses I would vote for them.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; backalley@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:18:59 -0700
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave

Do you believe the laws are bad?

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: charlesaronowitz@...
Date:11/28/2013 8:57 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com,backalley@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one appro



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92042 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Ave,

I have made the case using Nova Roma's past that Nova Roma's best hobby horse is refighting the same battles all over again.  Our history is filled with it.  What I am trying to do is to ensure that future magistrates focus on new ideas and NOT refighting the same battles and wasting time and energy tinkering with the same laws over and over again.

If these laws don't pass NR will be the one to suffer because future magistrates, maybe not next year but sooner than later will start tinkering them because they can.  This is how Nova Roma has operated in the past and to think that the future will be different will be in itself to go against tradition.

No one has truly stated the laws that are proposed are bad laws for Nova Roma.  You, yourself and Quadratus said if it wasnt for the Super Majority you would vote for them.  I am trying to keep the focus on Nova Roma's best benefit which is NOT to refight the same battles over again, waste energy that should be focused on growth and progress.  In the end as you said, I expect the citizens of Nova Roma to vote in the best way that benefits Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92043 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Ave,

So you are going to vote against the law, when you basically agree with 95% of it (roughly) because of the 5% (roughly) that you do not like?

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92044 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Salve 

I won't support the Senate using the general provision for your elevation to the patrician order as there is a perfectly adequate process outlined in the Lex Equitia familiaris (section XI). Get yourself adopted in the normal way into the patrician order. Either route requires the involvement of the pontifex maximus but there is no reason the Senate need to use its general power as it sets a bad precedent. I had raised this in the Senate BEFORE you posted your missive here (so not a reaction to your failed logic on this), but you are being inconsistent - you benfit from innovation if the SC passes but Nova Roma should not?. Super majorities benefit Nova Roma because they strengthen the durability of a lex without removing the ability to change it. That is a very good thing given our shabby history in legislating. 

 I always do what is best for Nova Roma and that which is consistent. If I thought using the general power to elevate you was for the best I would votes yes, regardless of whether you have drifted off into inconsistency and erroneous objections in respect of this matter. 

You are incorrect about my view of the people for what I say is that it is not the people that need to be deterred but future consuls obsessed with tinkering with the system. It sets the bar higher and means that they cannot rely on a narrow majority to overturn structural components of Nova Roma. If future consuls know they have to convince more people of the need to start altering the structure of Nova Roma, or key components, they may think twice. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but it is harder to fool two thirds at least of the people. Knowing that will deter and it means that what the people review will be more likely to be actually an issue rather than a perceived issue - one that it can be backed up with factual examples of errors, not waffling. 

Vale 
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@... font-weight:bold;">Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Laterensis Caesari omnibusque sal.
I agree with you that the people aren't idiots. That's part of the point I'm making. Do you trust the people to not tinker with legislation unnecessarily? Can they not recognize the difference between a necessary change, and one put forward for petty reasons? Your defense of this rather controversial clause suggests you don't. The 'considering people idiots' argument can go both ways.
As to the vote in the Senate, I would expect you to vote to the benefit of Nova Roma. If that benefits me as well, then great. If not, well that's life. You wouldn't hurt my feelings any.
Optime valete!


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 4:04:01 AM

 
Cn. Caesar censor sal.

Indeed a very good point but not for the same reason. 

Firstly, if it is so bad the people will vote to amend it - and it should easily achieve 2/3rds - that is if it is really bad and not just bad because someone says it is, or doesn't like it.

Secondly, does this mean that the people are incapable of spotting bad legislation that is offered to the vote initially and that no one in the forum can spot it? I say they can. I say the people today are not idiots.

More specious reasoning....

Optime valete




From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salvete!

"We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass."

A very good point!

Valete!

Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:51:22 -0800
Subject: Re: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve.

" That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. "

Of course there is - the people, or do you too consider the people incapable of drawing the distinction? Are the citizens all retarded idiots incapable of detecting a misuse of the super majority, which should be utilized only to protect the structural components of Nova Roma? We can implement that which is legal and necessary. A very good attitude to have and one which you might personally have cause to be grateful for, as the Senate is currently reviewing whether to raise you to the patrician order so you can take up the flaminate you applied for. Should I call for the Senate to say NO to this because at some future point the Senate could stuff the collegium pontificum full of people for the ends of a slim majority within the CP? Isn't that a valid objection? It certainly is in the same vein as all these claims of monsters under the bed.

These objections are all smoke and mirrors. Possible, future, maybe threats? If you feel that way about the super majority, then why are you allowing the Senate to take a novel approach for your own benefit? Yes it is legal, but I don't recall we have ever done it, certainly not since 2008? So you benefit from innovative thinking and the use of a permitted legal device but we cannot employ the same principle to protect these leges from tinkering? You win and Nova Roma does not?

Interesting.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor


From: Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
C. Decius Laterensis omnibus S.P.D.
I've been rolling this around in my head for a few days now, and I haven't been able to shake my misgivings. Both leges are solidly written and much needed. That said, I'm also finding the supermajority requirements hard to swallow. I understand why they were included, and I consider Sulla's intentions here to be honorable. Similar clauses haven't been included in any other lex presented to the Comitia in the last year, so I'm certain this isn't being done for petty reasons. That said, including a supermajority requirement in these leges sets a dangerous precedent. Though they're being used with the best of intentions in this case, there's nothing preventing a future Consul from using it for less noble reasons. I'm not sure that's a road we want to find ourselves on. We shouldn't be taking the risk of being stuck with bad legislation that's harder to remove than it was to pass. I would like to think we can trust the people of Nova Roma to not remove a good, working lex for frivolous reasons. Though I would like to support both leges, I'm afraid that I can't do that as they are. If the supermajority clause were to be removed, I would support both wholeheartedly.
Optime valete!


From: charlesaronowitz@... <charlesaronowitz@... To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 3:12:27 AM

 
Salvete!

It is interesting to note that the communication below states "The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair,"  The Constitution is supposed to be our most important guide.  If it's "broken" why hasn't it been repaired?  Instead, legislation is proposed that is calculated to have more staying power and, in essence, to supersede the Constitution and then it is said that to do so does not violate the spirit of the Constitution.  Does that make any sense? 

Once again, I urge a "no" vote to any ORDINARY LEX - and these proposed laws are in that category - that inserts a supermajority requirement for subsequent change.  Notice also that any change is limited to action by the Comitia Centuriata, ignoring the right of the Comitia Populi Tributa (Assembly of the People) to legislate on these subjects.  The Constitution provides that the Assembly has the power "To enact laws binding upon the entire citizenry".  To remove that right is a further unconstitutional act - ah, but I forget, the Constitution is "broken."  Not to me.  It is in force until properly amended.

Valete!

C. Claudius Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: gn_iulius_caesar@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:53:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Salve Sulla et omnes.

Sulla, amice, as predicted the chips fall into place. Next year will be interesting, but one we prepared for. Super majorities are the key to Nova Roma's stability to prevent infantile meddling all for the sake of a name on a lex. 

Citizens, in the closing hours of this contio it is of course staggering that the original proponent of the draft lex on the Ordo Equester now would burn it all in one big funeral pile, and why? The same reasons as others I suspect, because the super majority ensures that one cannot jiggle election results easily or dragoon people into voting to overturn items based on specious reasoning. Yes it may affront those hung up on the "power" of the position of consul, but again that is the point - it defends us from legal excursions into the unknown for the sake of ego.  It means future consuls, next year or thereafter, will have to work hard to convince people that change is necessary. That is the whole point! Anything that can have a detrimental effect on the structure of Nova Roma should be protected by a super majority. 

It is also ironic and contradictory that those who say "oh no to super majorities - what if we need to change something?" advocate for including the proposals into the Constitution! Do any of you have any idea how long that document would become if we did that as a principle? Do you all understand that we could cause further inherent weaknesses and contradictions in that document by adding more and more to it? As it is parts of it conflict with other parts, yet here we are adding more! The building is claimed to be on fire and the advice of the volunteer fire brigade is to throw more combustible material and gasoline into it!!!! Absurd! The Constitution is damaged and broken and needs repair, do not add further to it when it is not necessary. A lex will do the job with the super majority included. 

Citizens, if you vote NO to these leges you are in effect supporting instability and the promotion of legislative chaos. Please vote YES for stability and the advancement of Nova Roma's mission.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Censor



From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Ave,

As I have stated before if one approves of the substance of the proposed laws; then one should vote for the laws.  

Frankly, anyone supports the substance of the proposed laws but now votes against them for the sole reason of the super majority is not seeing the forest because they cannot see beyond the tree.  That, in my opinion is misguided.  

Lentulus of course you liked the leges salicia!  You stood by your idol piscinus and condemned Cincinnatus!  I am not at all surprised by your comments.

If next year's consuls wish to prevent the utilization of super majorities I would suggest that they consider promulgating legislation removing the option off the table and see if they can get the support necessary to prevent the option from being used.  

The Senate used super majorities from day 1 of nova roma...There is no reason to deny it's use in the comitia's.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
Date:11/28/2013 5:30 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Lentulus Crasso pr. sal.

And I don't know if you have thought of this, praetor C. Crasse, but what is also disturbing the system that not even the Constitution is protected by such a 2/3 super majority clause (it's protected so only in the senate)! This means that, in theory, not even the changing of the Constitution could change these laws because the Constitutional changes are not done by a 2/3rd majority, but by simple majority. And the law stipulates that only a 2/3rd majority can modify it. It's total chaos... Debate Addicts, prepare, your age is coming! There will be so many interpretation debates on what exactly and who can we get rid and/or modify of 2/3rd majority laws. There are ALREADY things in these laws that would be better adjusted or modified, neither are perfect. The problems will start with January 1.

As the greatest promoter of the class system law and as one who inspired great part of its key elements, I don't know if I will be able to do the incorrect thing and accept it this way, so I will probably vote abstain, but on the Punishment law my answer is "no". Contrarily to the recent fashion, I always found the leges Saliciae good laws, though far from perfect; I witnessed Nova Roman trials and, as I have written a hundred times about that here and elsewhere, they were viably, workable, and correct procedures, with mistakes and flaws, but the same mistakes remain in the new proposal there too. If the senate is composed of like minded people, or people who are in too good relationship with the princeps senatus, then the outcome of the trial can not be anything but what the party wants. There is no absolute protection from abuse, until people exist. Actually, smaller abuses happen on a daily basis in real courts, too. The big change with the new law would be not a better representation of justice, but a replacement of republican traditions with monarchic and imperial, traditional with invented, moderate with excessive and harsh. The political message and real focus of the law is simply an even greater power concentration in the hands of the faction(s) controlling the senate. And that cemented in a dubiously interpreted 2/3 super majority. I know the proposers of the law wanted good, I'm sure L. Sulla Felix and Cn. Caesar Sagax has nothing but the final victory of Nova Roma before their eyes, but at this time I shall vote with "no" on this particular law.

Vale!


Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...
 
Salve Sulla et omnes,

I'm sorry amice but you have just given good arguments why such super majority is not need. You say the comitia laws where changed several times,  and you are correct but that is because  those laws are tested year after year and many times more than once each year. They ceased to function not because of those changes but they based themselves in a IT tool that cease to exist and as you know perfectly well it was used as reason to throw 10k in a dubious solution. You correct that, and by the way in my opinion those leges were the more important of all this year, in part because they old laws were nor protected by any 2/3.

On the other hand the Salica laws were unchanged for 10 years! When tested they prove to not work as expected or prone to abuse so they are here change and only because once more they are not protected by a 2/3 majority.

So it seems our record is not so bad to justify such protection.

We have simple structure, simple and logical, fundamental rights and procedures like citizen rights and independence of the several comitia, Senate and so on in constitution. Constitution protected by a simple majority in the centuriata and 2/3 in the Senate. All other legislation needs a simple majority. Are the disciplinary procedure need to be in the constitution? No. So it is a lex passed by a comitia, changeable by a comitia period. No more protection. If it is really a good legislation it will resist the test of time with none or little change, if not it will be changed by the same process it was enacted with no drama at all.

As they are I will vote against it and ask all citizen to vote also antiquo on both proposals.

Valete,
Crassus












Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92045 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-28
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Salve, Sulla!

I cannot vote for something that I believe to be unconstitutional.  If it passes in its present form, it's difficult to change.  If it doesn't pass, it can quickly and easily be reintroduced without the problem clause.  The substance would not be changed.

And, by the way, I appreciate the fact that we are able to engage in this type of spirited debate in a professional manner.  Nova Roma can only be strengthened by the frank exchange of views.

It being midnight in Canada Citerior, I'm signing off.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:41:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave,

So you are going to vote against the law, when you basically agree with 95% of it (roughly) because of the 5% (roughly) that you do not like?

Sulla



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92046 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Ave,

There is nothing in the Constitution that states by letter or implication that it is unconstitutional.  It is just innovative, which the ancients were familiar with doing.....whether it was Tiberius Gracchus seeking the impeachment of a Fellow Tribune to remove his veto.  The ancients were innovative when they felt that the need necessitated it.  Heck, even the Dictatorship as the ancients had it prior to my namesake was an innovative office that was created to meet specific needs.  The ancients evolved from having Praetors as the heads of government in the earliest days of the Republic to having Consuls and the Decimverate.  Again, the Ancients were innovative when they felt the need necessitated out of the box ideas to resolve issues.  This is no different.

As you are soon going to be a Tribune of the Plebs you need to realize that there are legal guidelines to do an intercessio in Nova Roma.  Under the Lex Didia Geminia, just thinking something is Unconstitutional is not enough.  http://novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Didia_Gemina_de_potestate_tribunicia_(Nova_Roma)

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92047 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Cn. Iulius Caesar sal.

There is the rub - Quadratus "believes" as do some others it is unconstitutional, yet not one of them NOT ONE, has pointed to any specific section. So they say in effect it is against the spirit of the Constitution. The super majority exists within the Constitution as a requirement for constitutional change but the Constitution does not reserve that device for its own use, nor does employing it impede a lex from being amended or revoked...it simply sets the path there on items involving structural change a bit steeper than normal...but the result can be obtained.

No section of the Constitution has been violated nor any lex, nor the spirit of the Constitution. 

Quadratus wants you to vote against it as he "believes", but without evidence. I can believe I am the King of Siam, but without evidence I am simply deluded and quite possibly a lunatic.

Please support all the consuls's proposals.

Optime valete


From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@...  
Salve, Sulla!

I cannot vote for something that I believe to be unconstitutional.  If it passes in its present form, it's difficult to change.  If it doesn't pass, it can quickly and easily be reintroduced without the problem clause.  The substance would not be changed.

And, by the way, I appreciate the fact that we are able to engage in this type of spirited debate in a professional manner.  Nova Roma can only be strengthened by the frank exchange of views.

It being midnight in Canada Citerior, I'm signing off.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:41:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave,

So you are going to vote against the law, when you basically agree with 95% of it (roughly) because of the 5% (roughly) that you do not like?

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92048 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: CONTIO is CLOSED
Avete Omnes,

As of 1 hour ago the Contio Period has closed.

Thank you to everyone who participated.

Here is the updated schedule of the Comitia:

The schedule will be as follows:

9:00 pm November 21st - Contio is Open
9:01 pm November 28th - Contio is Closed
9:01 pm November 29th - Voting is Open
9:01 pm December 5rd - Voting is Closed
9:01 pm December 6th - Comitia is officially closed.

I do apologize for any inconvenience.  

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92049 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Omnibus in foro S.P.D.

As a Consular candidate its only fitting that I respond to this more candidly than I did in previous posts.

There have been many good points raised from several citizens in regards to this matter.  Everyone has their opinion and also perception on what they feel is right.

I will admit the first time I read both Lexes, I wanted to vote simply no.  At first glance they were both long and complicated.  By the fourth and fifth reading finally those "light bulbs" had hit. It made sense and I'm now more prone to voting yes.  Whatever you all may think about Sulla,  he has presented very good laws.  These two laws replace the Leges Salicia, with a more sound approach.

The Super Majority, seems to be only issue that people are having with this.  Then many kudos to Sulla and his Consular staff.  The Super Majority in the end are simply an extra layer of protection.  That is all and really nothing more.  So instead of an upstart who wants to prove himself by making unnecessary changes, these Lexes with the super majority clauses in place.  Stops him/her dead in his tracks.  They also give us a form of stability. After such a rough few years.  We need stability more than ever.  Do we really need to continually change laws all the time?   Laws should made or changed when a true need arises.  We needed something better than the Leges Salicia and now we have it.  That need is getting filled.


Next year is very important, more important than what people actually realize.  We need to grow, we need to rebuild a stronger Roman community.  Its a travesty that the only activity the Main Fora has is when we are arguing.  What happened to the days of conversation and promoting Romanitas?  There has to be something more exciting than watching Caesar and Lentulus playing whack-a-mole with each other.  (No offense gents)

This year was very Law heavy, and although I understand that it is what much needed.  Well guess what we also need a breather from it.  If we do not grow and flourish, if our citizenry decides to dwindle.  What happens then?  Yes Nova Roma is always getting new citizens but how long do these members stay?  How many decide after seeing months of inactivity do they decide to leave?

Romans, we have a decision to make with these very very important laws. We can vote yes and move on to that brighter horizon.  Or we can vote no and stay where we are, rehashing, debating, plotting, until there is NOTHING left.  I did not dedicate the last 15 years of my life, for Nova Roma to dwindle because we cannot get past the ego train.

Vote yes, Vote no, if you choose to do so.  But please vote let your voice be heard.

I'm voting yes to both laws because I want to see the sunrise on that beautiful horizon.  It would be nice if others decided to join me.

Valete bene,
Statia Cornelia Aeternia





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92050 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Salvete,

Sorry I was kinda typing a wee bit too fast.  The Lex Cornelia Poenalis  replaces the Leges Salicia..  Not the full two..

Just wanted to clarify.

Vale bene,
Aeternia


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92051 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Salve amica

"There has to be something more exciting than watching Caesar and Lentulus playing whack-a-mole with each other.  "

None taken, but allowing assertions that are patently false to go unchecked does Nova Roma no service. we endured the departure from logic under the former regime, calls to "feelings", "beliefs", signs, portents and all the other devices they pulled out of their toolbox. Requiring people to prove, really prove using facts, and sections of leges and the Constitution may seem like whacking a mole, but we know that today's mole can become tomorrows wolf. 

So when people refuse to abide by logic and engage in evidence based debate, yeah i will whack the mole until it hits the sand. The price for not doing so is too high.

Vale bene
Caesar


From: Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@... [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Omnibus in foro S.P.D.

As a Consular candidate its only fitting that I respond to this more candidly than I did in previous posts.

There have been many good points raised from several citizens in regards to this matter.  Everyone has their opinion and also perception on what they feel is right.

I will admit the first time I read both Lexes, I wanted to vote simply no.  At first glance they were both long and complicated.  By the fourth and fifth reading finally those "light bulbs" had hit. It made sense and I'm now more prone to voting yes.  Whatever you all may think about Sulla,  he has presented very good laws.  These two laws replace the Leges Salicia, with a more sound approach.

The Super Majority, seems to be only issue that people are having with this.  Then many kudos to Sulla and his Consular staff.  The Super Majority in the end are simply an extra layer of protection.  That is all and really nothing more.  So instead of an upstart who wants to prove himself by making unnecessary changes, these Lexes with the super majority clauses in place.  Stops him/her dead in his tracks.  They also give us a form of stability. After such a rough few years.  We need stability more than ever.  Do we really need to continually change laws all the time?   Laws should made or changed when a true need arises.  We needed something better than the Leges Salicia and now we have it.  That need is getting filled.


Next year is very important, more important than what people actually realize.  We need to grow, we need to rebuild a stronger Roman community.  Its a travesty that the only activity the Main Fora has is when we are arguing.  What happened to the days of conversation and promoting Romanitas?  There has to be something more exciting than watching Caesar and Lentulus playing whack-a-mole with each other.  (No offense gents)

This year was very Law heavy, and although I understand that it is what much needed.  Well guess what we also need a breather from it.  If we do not grow and flourish, if our citizenry decides to dwindle.  What happens then?  Yes Nova Roma is always getting new citizens but how long do these members stay?  How many decide after seeing months of inactivity do they decide to leave?

Romans, we have a decision to make with these very very important laws. We can vote yes and move on to that brighter horizon.  Or we can vote no and stay where we are, rehashing, debating, plotting, until there is NOTHING left.  I did not dedicate the last 15 years of my life, for Nova Roma to dwindle because we cannot get past the ego train.

Vote yes, Vote no, if you choose to do so.  But please vote let your voice be heard.

I'm voting yes to both laws because I want to see the sunrise on that beautiful horizon.  It would be nice if others decided to join me.

Valete bene,
Statia Cornelia Aeternia







Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92052 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Avete Omnes,

I will be honest, frankly I feel insulted that I have been accused of acting in an Unconstitutional manner by someone in my staff.   I can take criticism but this debate has been going on for multiple days and frankly anyone going to be a Tribune of the Plebs who will be essentially one of the protectors of the People I expect better.  

I, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, who stood fast and defended Nova Roman law and our Incorporation and Head of the Executive Committee of Nova Roma being accused of acting in an unconstitutional matter is an insult.  Especially when NO ONE, not Quadratus, not Crassus not even Lentulus can pull a part the Constitution and state in terms of the Lex Didia where I am violating?  If you cannot pull out a part of the Constitution that I am violating then I expect a public apology to be posted on the ML for tossing out such a serious accusation with no standing or fact to back it up.

You toss around the seriously dangerous word of Unconstitutional you need to back it up with facts.  

Most Respectfully,

Sulla
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92053 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Aeternia Caesari Censor sal:

I thought I made some pretty good points besides that amice. 

That was a rather interesting visual.  But I do see the point you were trying to make over there.

I think that's the only response I can really give.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia 







Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92054 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Salve amice

No, you made excellent points, which of course I agree with 100%. I just wanted to clarify why I absolutely insist on evidence versus "beliefs:. Always have, always will.

Vale bene
Caesar


From: Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@... font-weight:bold;">Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Aeternia Caesari Censor sal:

I thought I made some pretty good points besides that amice. 

That was a rather interesting visual.  But I do see the point you were trying to make over there.

I think that's the only response I can really give.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia 









Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92055 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Su
Avete!

Does anyone here understand the purpose of a "governor" on a diesel engine? The purpose is to keep the engine from winding up to the point that it explodes itself.  When there is "no gov on the engine" it will eventually accelerate to the point of explosion.  The 2/3 majority issue is a governor that is being used to plane the engine out to run smoother.  NR has run without this little device for 15 years on too many important issues.  How many times does our engine have to run amuck and explode?

If the law is that bad, the people will fix it or kill it.  Period.  If a smooth talking Consul lays it out just right, plays on everyone's emotions, and offers a somewhat legitimate argument, he/she can easily win a simple majority on anything. That has been proven in politics since there has been politics. NR has done it time and time again, then everyone does a face palm and says, "Why did we do that?" It is called "simple majority."  That is fine for lesser important things, but critical legislation requires a more thorough examination of the issue at hand and need some form of protection.  If it is a flaky law, it won't pass anyway.  You don't put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound.

For those in opposition to this, how many of you have been involved in the current penal/trial system within NR?  I have.  It does not work.  It is designed for a much larger citizenry.  When I joined 8 years ago, AND WE HAD SEVERAL THOUSAND MEMBERS, it did not work then either.

Finally, we have a proposed system that everyone agrees on and it is being attacked as "unconstitutional" and not in the "best interest" of those who will be in the Consul's Chair in the future? And this appears to me to be what this is really about.  Somewhat akin to the philosophy that every year, the Consuls should be allowed to "toy with the system" to get what they want, whether or not it is in the best interest of the people or not.  THAT is the definition of Empire. And, THAT we have a damned fine record of. We have mastered ineffectiveness in this area in the modern age. 

We have gone through 15 years of idealist, fruity-minded, mumbo-jumbo in so many areas it almost is nauseating. I keep expecting the Fruit Loops Toucan to appear in the Forum with bowl of cereal in hand. If any of you have your eyes set on the Consul's Chair with the idea of throwing ideas down with the intent of sliding everything through on simple majority to "get your way" or "because you should be able to," then I would advise you to understand, after what NR has gone through in its most recent past, you should reread the nature and purpose of the Tarpeian Rock and prepare yourselves for some of us to utterly release the hounds of hell on you when you try that. That day and age is over. We are past that. This will be come an effective working Respublica again instead of Romper Room. That, I can promise you.

Our government will become a well-oiled machine that works for the best interest of the people, or we will become the political whore that Rome did and lose our Respublica.  Guess what? It's not gonna happen anytime soon.  I cannot understand...in any concept of my mind...that the people would not pass these laws as promulgated with a super-majority. We have lost so many, many fine cives due to the constant toying with the system. We need to stop that now, continue our progression forward toward success, and stop playing.  In a macronational setting, we would have already have become toast. If the laws are that good, which it is apparent that they are (even from the endorsements of their clause adversaries), then they are good enough to be passed with the super majority clause to protect them.

I remain vehemently in support of both Leges, and urge you to support them.  If they do not pass, and you voted against them, please forward your name to the Censors, so we can get you directly involved in the next few legal issues and see how you call it then.

As far as the Ordo Equestor, previously, if you were an equestrian, it meant you had a store in the macellum.  I cannot, cannot, stress the importance of a super majority to protect this Lex in its current form. Lentulus, really? This is your baby and your against protecting it? (Beats head on desk repeatedly) You of all people know that a simple majority vote could easily flop this one into the trash heap with the rest of the broken pottery outside the gates...

Do ya really want to be an equestrian tribune of the cafepress legio?

VOTE YES on both!

Optime valete,

L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 12:02 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...  
Cn. Iulius Caesar sal.

There is the rub - Quadratus "believes" as do some others it is unconstitutional, yet not one of them NOT ONE, has pointed to any specific section. So they say in effect it is against the spirit of the Constitution. The super majority exists within the Constitution as a requirement for constitutional change but the Constitution does not reserve that device for its own use, nor does employing it impede a lex from being amended or revoked...it simply sets the path there on items involving structural change a bit steeper than normal...but the result can be obtained.

No section of the Constitution has been violated nor any lex, nor the spirit of the Constitution. 

Quadratus wants you to vote against it as he "believes", but without evidence. I can believe I am the King of Siam, but without evidence I am simply deluded and quite possibly a lunatic.

Please support all the consuls's proposals.

Optime valete

From: "charlesaronowitz@..." <charlesaronowitz@... font-weight:bold;">Subject: RE: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 
Salve, Sulla!

I cannot vote for something that I believe to be unconstitutional.  If it passes in its present form, it's difficult to change.  If it doesn't pass, it can quickly and easily be reintroduced without the problem clause.  The substance would not be changed.

And, by the way, I appreciate the fact that we are able to engage in this type of spirited debate in a professional manner.  Nova Roma can only be strengthened by the frank exchange of views.

It being midnight in Canada Citerior, I'm signing off.

Vale!
Quadratus

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:41:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [BackAlley] RE: [Nova-Roma] A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities

 

Ave,

So you are going to vote against the law, when you basically agree with 95% of it (roughly) because of the 5% (roughly) that you do not like?

Sulla




Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92056 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: A Question of Constitutionality - Supermajorities
Lentulus quaestor Sullae consuli sal.

Just an important correction. You wrote the following: "You stood by your idol Piscinus".

M. Piscinus former pontifex maximus has never been my idol, and he is even less so today since he has left Nova Roma the way he did. I maintain what I wrote in the collegium pontificum, that he was a super active pontifex maximus and he had both the energy and charism to generate a very active cultus deorum and Roman religious life within Nova Roma, which, with his departure, has almost entirely disappeared, since a large part of active practitioners followed him. These are facts. One can dispute whether he was a stubborn SoB, a law twister and partisan, or just an overly authoritarian, heavy handed leader, but no one can dispute that he, with M. Lucretius Agricola, Corvus, T. Iulius Sabinus Q. Metellus and mine and many others' help, created a functioning cultus deorum and Roman religion community, and he continues to do so even now, without us, where he is. What we need, and have to do, is the same thing -- by different methods. Piscinus as idol? Not at all. After all those things I would not want him to come back. But the concept of active religio Romana is my idol, and I try everything to live up to this concept.

Vale!

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92057 From: Scipio Second Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Avete Omnes,
 
Personally I was shocked to hear that Sulla was accused of acting in an "Unconstitutional" manner.   It is indeed a serious accusation, not to be spoken lightly.   If a magistrate cannot propose, discuss, and defend  what he or she perceives as an improvement for Nova Roma and its governance, then frankly I am at a loss as to why senior officials exist.   The alternative can only be a dictator and the effective emasculation of the Senate and other officials.
 
I have watched with interest the various proposals of Sulla and the debate thereon.   I do not necessarily always agree with his proposals, but I always admire the thought, logic, and effort placed therein.   His obvious purpose has consistently been a relentless dedication to Nova Roma. 
 
If anyone is determined to make such an accusation or charge against Sulla, or any magistrate or official of Nova Roma, it should be incumbent upon that individual, if simply as a matter of courtesy, to delineate the charge carefully, specifically state what provision of the lex or constitution has allegedly been violated, and provide a bill of particulars.
 
Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus


On Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:29 PM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...  
Avete Omnes,

I will be honest, frankly I feel insulted that I have been accused of acting in an Unconstitutional manner by someone in my staff.   I can take criticism but this debate has been going on for multiple days and frankly anyone going to be a Tribune of the Plebs who will be essentially one of the protectors of the People I expect better.  

I, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, who stood fast and defended Nova Roman law and our Incorporation and Head of the Executive Committee of Nova Roma being accused of acting in an unconstitutional matter is an insult.  Especially when NO ONE, not Quadratus, not Crassus not even Lentulus can pull a part the Constitution and state in terms of the Lex Didia where I am violating?  If you cannot pull out a part of the Constitution that I am violating then I expect a public apology to be posted on the ML for tossing out such a serious accusation with no standing or fact to back it up.

You toss around the seriously dangerous word of Unconstitutional you need to back it up with facts.  

Most Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92058 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Cn. Lentulus P. Quintio s. p. d.


Dear and esteemed Petrus Augustinus, I have read the emails of the debate, but I don't find anywhere that anyone would have stated Sulla "is acting in an unconstitutional manner". I don't think anyone has said this. What I remember having read it was a criticism of the closing Section of the law proposals, what people have found contradicting to the spirit of the constitution. I have learned some jurisprudence and the topics in which a 2/3rd majority law can be required is normally something listed and allowed by the constitution of a state. Legislation which defines and introduces such an institution like 2/3rd majority laws must everywhere exist before the 2/3rd majority laws can be used.

So far I did not see ad hominem attacks in the criticisms which were all directed the ideas or certain elements of the proposals.

I hope this and other future debates will continue to be civilized.

Vale optime!
Lentulus

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92059 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Ave,

Quadratus did.  He said by including the Supermajority that itself is unconstitutional.  No back up given.  Its just a Feeling.  Not acceptable.  Using that word is dangerous and frankly unacceptable when it cannot be explained in terms of the Lex Didia Gemina where it spells out step by step the justification of a Tribune to issue an intercessio.  According to the standard established by law there must be a section of the law that is being violated.

I certainly do not mind differing opinions but tossing out that particular word is not something to be thrown out lightly.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92060 From: cmc Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Thoughts on super majorities
Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I think that such devices as requiring super majorities to amend or repeal
legislation should be used, if at all, very sparingly, so my initial
reaction was to not support these leges so long as they contained such a
requirement. However, having read at least much of the commentary (I have
last night's harvest to finish), and having given considerable, and I trust
careful thought to this and relevant supporting issues (and yes, I am
capable of careful thinking), I have come to realize several things.

A super majority requirement does not enshrine a law in stone. It can be
amended. It can be repealed; but doing so cannot be done either casually or
can it be accomplished by seeking to use a tide of public opinion to carry
it over the simple majority. In short, if a future Consul wants to change
such a law, that Consul must gain the support of 2/3 of the voting citizens.
While it doesn't guaranty that any law will never be changed, such a
majority functions as a set of brakes, so that, hopefully, any changes will
be well considered and well debated.

I have seen laws promulgated for several reasons. There are the laws which
have been necessary for one reason or another, and clarified or stabilized
some aspect of the way the Res Publica functions.

Some laws have been proposed specifically to undo the work of a former
Consul by one of his political opponents, and there are consuls who either
want to enshrine their political agenda into law, or who just enjoy the "law
game" and find it amusing to write and have laws passed for no better reason
than to see their own names in the Tabularium. The 2 laws under debate,
particularly the law revising our conflict resolution mechanism, fall under
the 1st category, and both address what I consider core structural issues.
At one point I considered, and even discussed, having these issues added to
our Constitution, after some thought, I think they are best as legislation,
because the Constitution should not become bogged down with legislative
detail.. It is both a founding document, and the framework upon which the
Res Publica is built. It should contain only those things which are
expected to be almost immutable, and which define us as an organization.
The rules of how the institutions it provides for should not be detailed
there. Because I am most familiar with the Constitution of my own
Government, I will use it as an example. It establishes a Governmental
structure having 3 branches, executive, legislative and judicial. It also
established the checks and balances that prevent one branch from usurping
the functions of any other, but each branch has its own rules and
procedures, and *these* are not part of the founding document. I think we
should do the same, when it comes time to address the Constitution, but that
topic is for future consideration.

One of the reasons given for not accepting the super majority requirements
is that it should not be harder to change a law than it is to pass it. On
the surface, that makes sense .but, again, I have come to the conclusion
that, in passing any Lex, the people are engaging in an act of trust, for
lack of a better word, and that they realize, or should, that, like any
untried plan (as in architectural drawing or military strategy), the proof
of its value will not be in its passage, but in its application. If it
works, well and good, but it might need some changes to make it function as
intended, or it may prove unworkable. If these happen, the mechanism to
improve, repair or remove it must be present . but they need not be so easy
that they can be achieved casually. Requiring that laws which deal with
core, foundational issues must have no less than the approval of 2/3 of the
voting citizens is reasonable because of the seriousness of these issues,
and the very fact that such a requirement exist tends to encourage most
magistrates and citizens to take these issues and the legislation effecting
them with greater seriousness. In short, we, the citizens are the check
that balances the super majority requirement. The existence of the
requirement puts the responsibility where I, at least, think it should be to
prevent its misuse (and of course, misuse is possible, and that holds true
for any rule, law, policy or institution.) However, the mechanism to
prevent that misuse is also there, and that mechanism, citizens, is us. If
we don't take responsibility for the way our institutions function, then we
will deserve whatever we get, because we will have created a vacuum which
*will* be filled by anyone with the ambition to do so. Requiring 2/3
approval to change legislation simply reflects the importance of the issues
being considered, as seems right to me. It does not make it impossible to
change the legislation governing them; but it does make it more difficult
for a future Consul to make those changes, and it makes it essential for
voting citizens to spend time and effort evaluating those changes.

Could future consuls add even more stringent requirements to future
legislation? Sure, and citizens would have to carefully evaluate whether
those requirements are warranted, then vote accordingly, without regard to
the rhetoric on either side. If a Consul were to include a super majority
on every piece of legislation he or she promulgates, it is up to the voting
citizens to decide whether such proposals are appropriate and vote
accordingly. We are, after all, voting members of the corporation, and
citizens of the Res Publica, and we should act accordingly. We will only
gain the respect we elicit by our own involvement and actions. If we think
we are helpless to prevent abuses, we will be considered, and be treated as,
helpless. I am not a proponent of pro forma super majority requirements, but
I do think that the closer a piece of legislation is to effecting our core
structure, the more difficult it should be to change or repeal.

I have come to the conclusion that certain core issues mandate a higher
level of approval to be changed or repealed, not because either a Consul or
a Censor tells me this is so, but from my own evaluation of the issues under
debate, and I intend to vote accordingly. Of course, these are only my
thoughts and beliefs, not supported by citations or proven facts, so are, no
doubt worthless maunderings. So be it.

Valete!
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92061 From: gattarocanadese Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Salve, Sulla!

Have you yet read the private email I sent to you with the title "No Insult Intended?"

It would be fine with me if you forwarded that email to this list.

Vale!
Quadratus


To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: robert.woolwine@...
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:56:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] My Personal comment on unjustified accusations

 

Ave,

Quadratus did.  He said by including the Supermajority that itself is unconstitutional.  No back up given.  Its just a Feeling.  Not acceptable.  Using that word is dangerous and frankly unacceptable when it cannot be explained in terms of the Lex Didia Gemina where it spells out step by step the justification of a Tribune to issue an intercessio.  According to the standard established by law there must be a section of the law that is being violated.

I certainly do not mind differing opinions but tossing out that particular word is not something to be thrown out lightly.

Respectfully,

Sulla



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92062 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations
Ave Amice,

I am about to.  I just woke up and am going through my messages now.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92063 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: My Personal comment on unjustified accusations

Ave,

I just responded to you.  You should have it now.

I dont mind posting both your message and my response publicly.  Give me a couple of moments.

Respectfully,

Sulla

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92064 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Fwd: No Insult Intended
Conversation with Quadratus and myself.  Permission was given to post.

Respectfully,

Sulla

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... To: Charles Aronowitz <charlesaronowitz@...

I do not have a problem that we disagree on this subject.  That is cool.  What I do absolutely care about is the implication of that word, unconstitutional.  It is akin to being labelled a pedophile the stigma sticks regardless of the truth or accuracy of the accusation.  I do hope that you see the difference.  It is the subtle difference of just a difference of opinion and someone tossing out verbal dynamite.

You and anyone can say....oh we disagree and here is why we disagree and that is perfectly acceptable, and encouraged not just on the ML but on the staff list as well - I believe I have proven that over the course of the year.  I dont even really view it as an ad hominem attack, as a couple of mentioned on the ML.  I view it as an attack on the credibility of the work done because it raises the spectre of illegality that go BEYOND the two pieces of legislation being promulgated.  That is why I felt the word unconstitutional crosses the line.  

Respectfully,

Sulla



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92065 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Old Posts

Salvete,

Is it just my inbox, or is anyone experiencing a rash of old posts being reposted as new ones?  Must be a Yahoo glitch.

Valete
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92066 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
what old posts?  I havent seen any coming back.

Respectfully,

Sulla


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92067 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Yeah, it must be my inbox. I just got Caninus' Tribune report from Nov 1, my Oath of Office and three or four more. BUT, I am using an HP laptop, so those gremlins may be at work as well...LOL

L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:15 PM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...  
what old posts?  I havent seen any coming back.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@...



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92068 From: Glenn Thacker Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts

Salvete omnes!

It's not just you. I got all those too, along with six copies of each of Sulla's messages from last night. It's probably just Yahoo being goofy again.

Laterensis

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android



From: Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Old Posts
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 7:22:25 PM

 

Yeah, it must be my inbox. I just got Caninus' Tribune report from Nov 1, my Oath of Office and three or four more. BUT, I am using an HP laptop, so those gremlins may be at work as well...LOL

L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:15 PM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...  
what old posts?  I havent seen any coming back.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@...



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92069 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: NR News Brief
 
VITELLIAN NEWS AGENCY-Roma


We are getting reports that Senator Triarius is currently on the Rostra giving a political oration to the people assembled in the Forum.  He is urging all the cives to VOTE YES for the current laws in debate and support ALL the current candidates for election for the coming year, especially the Plebeian ones.

Servius, his aide, is passing out campaign leaflets and bumper stickers to the masses, urging everyone to take a sticker and put it on their chariot.

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92070 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
It is because Yahoo is owned and run by Carthagenians...It is what it is.
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:53 PM, Glenn Thacker <rajuc47@...  
Salvete omnes!
It's not just you. I got all those too, along with six copies of each of Sulla's messages from last night. It's probably just Yahoo being goofy again.
Laterensis

From: Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@... To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Old Posts
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 7:22:25 PM

 
Yeah, it must be my inbox. I just got Caninus' Tribune report from Nov 1, my Oath of Office and three or four more. BUT, I am using an HP laptop, so those gremlins may be at work as well...LOL

L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:15 PM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...  
what old posts?  I havent seen any coming back.

Respectfully,

Sulla


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@...





Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92071 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Thoughts on super majorities
Caninus omnibus in foro sal.

I did not expect to have so much debate or such such divisiveness on
Thanksgiving - but it is an American holiday, not a Nova Roma holiday,
so the comitia need to do their work.

Regarding the inclusion of the super majority clause:

My concern is that imposing a super majority clause in legislation like
this is somewhat similar to the recent actions in the Senate of the USA
where a 'nuclear option' was used --- a change in rules set a new
precedent and that precedent set a path for future sessions of the
Senate where the party in majority may limit the traditional powers and
voice of the party in minority. In a similar way, imposing a super
majority clause for amendment or repeal in a lex sets a precedent for
future leges where super majority clauses may be included even when
there is absolutely no need for such clauses. But as Caesar and others
have pointed out it is within the power of the people to reject any such
proposed leges. The citizens may also repeal or modify any such leges
that have been approved.

In the specific cases of the two leges now up for a vote by the comitia
populi tributa, I do feel that the super majority clause in the lex
Cornelia poenalis is justified. I am not fully convinced a super
majority clause is needed for the lex Cornelia de classibus et ordine
equestri. I can certainly see why many citizens may want the super
majority clauses removed from the leges. There have been a lot of posts
both for and against the clauses. I was not endangered by any of the
political infighting a few years ago that caused significant damage to
our organization. I do know a number of people here were hurt or
threatened in the struggle for control of Nova Roma. And the use of
super majority clauses in these leges may seem a bit like overkill and a
bit paranoid. But the super majority clause in the lex Cornelia peonalis
is a good safety measure that offers limited protection to the law and
it absolutely will not prevent us from making changes, corrections,
refinements or improvements in the future. The only thing that will keep
these laws from being changed is the citizens of Nova Roma who do not
vote or do not feel the laws need to be changed after they are approved
in comitia.

As to the constitutionality issues of a super majority clause in a lex:

There is no conflict with the constitution. Any statement that a super
majority clause violates the spirit of section I.D. of the constitution
of Nova Roma is without merit. Any concern that the letter of the law in
section III, regarding the various comitia, is being violated is without
merit. When dealing with constitutional matters in a Roman context
please keep in mind that anything not specifically prohibited is
essentially allowed. The constitution set the basic building blocks for
various groups and offices. The people, the Senate, the magistrates with
imperium and, to a lesser and more limited extent, the Collegium
Pontificum are expected to work out the details of how the res publica
is to be run. The constitution says nothing about whether or not a
comitia can pass a lex that includes a clause to limit the manner in
which it may or may not be modified or revoked.

So, I will be voting in favor of both laws, even though I see no real
need for a super majority clause in the lex Cornelia de classibus et
ordine equestri. Lentulus brought up some other issues related to the
lex Cornelia de classibus et ordine equestri. If the lex passes we may
need to fine tune it. I feel the lex Cornelia de classibus et ordine
equestri merits approval by the comitia and we can consider making
improvements at a later date - after the lex has had some time to be
tested in actual application.

Optime valete!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92072 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
And, furthermore, Yahoo must be destroyed.

Caninus 
 


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92073 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Agreed!


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92074 From: cmc Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts

Salve Canine!

 

Um, Amice, don’t you have to be a Censor before you can say that in public?  J.  Besides, I thought it was the Parthians that owned Yahoo.  Did the Carthaginians acquire it with a hostile takeover?

 

Valete!

C. Maria Caeca

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92075 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Salve Caeca!

I believe you are correct on both points.

I hope I don't get a notae for my outburst.   LOL!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus
Tribunus Plebis
America Boreoccidentalis
 
Vivat Nova Roma!
 
Very little is needed to make a happy life.
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Meditations, Book VII, 67. 
 
 


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92076 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Caesar Caninianius? Hmmm...
 
L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 3:45 PM, cmc <c.mariacaeca@...  
Salve Canine!
 
Um, Amice, don’t you have to be a Censor before you can say that in public?  J.  Besides, I thought it was the Parthians that owned Yahoo.  Did the Carthaginians acquire it with a hostile takeover?
 
Valete!
C. Maria Caeca


Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92077 From: Lucius Vitellius Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Re: NR News Brief

VITELLIAN NEWS AGENCY-Roma


After a short delay from being called away related to "household management," Senator Triarius has returned to the Rostra and is now ready to speak to the people assembled in the Forum. 

...and...

Servius, his aide, is STILL passing out campaign leaflets and "Vote for TRIARIUS" bumper stickers to the masses, urging everyone to take a sticker and put it on their chariot. What dedication!
 
****************************************************

Salvete omnes,

Fellow citizens!

First, I must state officially that I hate Black Friday in the market place. Just absolutely hate it. I digress...

As many of you have witnesses in the past 24 hours, a heated dialogue occurred in the Forum over the two proposed laws, promulgated by our Consul, Sulla. Differing in opinions, the arguments were heated and rash at best, however, no pugiones were drawn and no blood was shed. This is very exciting to see and witness. It is the democratic process in action!

The diversity of views splattered all over the Forum, each with their staunch advocates, show the genuine concern and dedication of each citizen who spoke their mind.  Luckily, we all did not agree. If we all had agreed, I would have been looking for concealed pugiones.  When everyone agrees with everything, no one is paying any due diligence to the subject at hand...or they have other motives. Great care and concern has been shown, without question, here in this Forum.

You have heard the voices of the various candidates for next year's leadership speak, as well as others, engaged in this great dialogue of concern. What you have not heard are the dialogues behind the scenes in the various other closed forums, which were just as heated or more. There are no mild, unintelligent, weak or meek ones in the lot of them.  Others have spoken as well, who I expect will either become leaders or continue to lead our Respublica.  I encourage each and every one of you to vote as "required," as it is not so much a right but a responsibility to do so.

For to continue the progress of our Respublica, we should vote YES to all of the candidates on the ballot. (Except maybe that Triarius guy, he's a little out there sometimes...completely dedicated, but a little out there sometimes).

I pay special tribute to the analyses of the debated issues by Caeca and Caninus.  I only wish that I had a wordsmith machine that I could pour my thoughts in and generate such clear, concise, and valued statements as they have so eloquently stated in their reviews. Amongst us, there are always solid rocks to our foundation. Caeca and Caninus seem to reinforce this every time they open their mouths to speak, and given that, we should always be thankful and blessed that we have such wisdom in our ranks. It is truly an honor to be in their presence.

I urge you to vote for ALL the candidates on the ballot. They have my complete support and confidence, both now and in the coming years.

And, I urge you VOTE YES to the two proposed laws.  As many have stated, the simple majority is not required, nor needed, for every Lex.  I completely agree, however, the important stuff needs to be protected from the ebb and flow of constantly changing politics in the Respublica.  So many important laws, rules and procedures have been changed by the simple majority rule before they ever were allowed to work. The important stuff needs to be protected from this.  If the law is bad, or needs specific reform, I have every confidence that the people of NR will allow that change to occur.  But, it will require that those in responsible leadership positions "earn their pay," work out the solutions, and tell the people what they feel is needed. It is not to much to ask of anyone to do their job. And, no, it will not be easy.

If you cannot support the candidates and laws presented as they are, then that is your choice...but come out and vote.  Democracy does not work without the will of the people present to propel it forward.  Tribunes, your work is at hand!  GO PLEBES!!!

Optime valete,

L VITELLIVS TRIARIVS

Citizen of Nova Roma
Dominus praefectus of Factio Veneta
Senator of Nova Roma
Governor of New Province to be Renamed (LOL)
Wikiworker extraordinaire 

"Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu." 

(The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live) 

~ L. Annaeus Seneca


On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:57 PM, Lucius Vitellius <lvtriarius@... everyone to take a sticker and put it on their chariot.



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92078 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-29
Subject: Vote is OPEN
Avete Omnes,

The Vote for the Comitia Populi Tributa is OPEN. 

Invitations to Vote have been sent out.  Please contact me or Metellus if you have not received your invitation to Vote.

It looks like this:

Advance Notice

You are invited by Nova Roma
to vote in
Comitia Populi Tributa, December 2766.

Visit https://votingplace.net/novaromacista
to cast your vote, sometime during the


Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92079 From: Clifford Hamm Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Re: Old Posts
Cave Caninum!
 
Catus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92080 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Edict
Avete Omnes,

Termination of Scribe.

I hereby terminate the Scribe position of Gn. Cornelius Lentulus immediately, with prejudice.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92081 From: iulius_sabinus Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Report of the CP session - November 2766.

SALVETE!

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQUE SIT POPULO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS.

This is the Collegium Pontificum session report:

The Collegium Pontificum was called into session starting with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d.XVII Kal Dec 2766 a.U.c (Friday 15 November 2013) until 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on pr Kal Dec 2766 a.U.c (Saturday 30 November 2013).

The session schedule was.

Contio:

Starting with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d.XVII Kal Dec 2766 a.U.c (Friday 15 November 2013) until 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d VII Kal Dec 2766 a.U.c (Monday 25 November 2013).

Vote:
Start immediately after contio and ends at 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on pr Kal Dec 2766 a.U.c (Saturday, 30 November 2766).

The following CP members participated in session:
- T. Iulius Sabinus (TIS).
- C. Maria Caeca (CMC)
- Q. Fabius Maximus (QFM)
- Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (QCMPP)

Proxy were not assigned during the contio.

The following CP member was absent:
- C. Petronius Dexter

The following CP member do not vote in sessions:
- M' Titinius Silvanus.

The results:

Item I: Appointment of M. Aelius Geminus (Sacerdos Mercuri).
Details:
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: Uti Rogas   Though we still do not know what the Sacerdos does...
CnCL: NO. (Comment: We don't know his abilities, he doesn't know what his job is. I will fully support his appointment once these conditions are met. No community, especially not a republic, can appoint people with unknown abilities to posts undefined with tasks uncertain. I support him in the position of camillus.)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM I PASS.

--------------------
Item II: Appointment of T. Iulius Nix (Fetialis).
Details:
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: Uti Rogas.
CnCL: NO. (Comment: We don't know his abilities, I personally don't know Q. Metellus fetialis' views, and in the light of this, at this point, it would be inconsiderate to install him as full fetialis. I will fully support his appointment once these conditions are met. No community, especially not a republic, can appoint people with unknown abilities to posts undefined with tasks uncertain. I support him in the position of camillus.)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM II PASS.

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

Item III: Approval of the CP wiki page:
Details:
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: Uti Rogas.
CnCL: NO. (Comment: I am grateful to Vitellius and I extend my thanks for his wonderful work and dedication. We need that page, and we will use that page. The merit is of Vitellius. But there is no need for a decree to have a Wiki page. Everything has a Wiki page in Nova Roma, yet there have never been laws or decrees issued in order to establish pages. The page is made, we have the page. The decree is something reserved for laws of sacred nature, not Wiki pages. It is not a tragedy if we have a decree about a Wiki page, but simply is unnecessary and should be not recorded as a piece of history in the tabularium. Also, the name of the page is incorrect: it should be "Officium Collegii Pontificum". I support the page and I will join to Vitellius to work together on the page and updates.)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM III PASS.

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

Item IV: Appointment of L. Vitelius Triarius as pontifex minor.
In this capacity his primary duties are directed to the maintenance of all areas from the web which enter under the CP responsibility. He is the first technical contact and is responsible for proper communication with NR CIO.
The CP can assign him other administrative and religious duties.
Details;
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Antiquo.
QFM: Uti Rogas.
CnCL: NO. (Comment: The title "pontifex minor" has started to be used from the principate. Although we can borrow ideas (and sometimes we have to) from the principate, in this case we should not. The republic had the same office but the republic used the title "scriba pontificius". There could be more of them and they were assistant to the collegium, just like what Vitellius is here proposed to be. I want to appoint him "scriba pontificius".)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM IV FAILED.

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

Item V: Administrative activities of the CP.
The CP grant permission to C. Maria Caeca to assist in its administrative duties.
Her duties follow the SC NR Senate issued but are not limited to these. For better performance but obtaining the PM approval, she can involve the entire College of Vestals in performing the task, creating a pertinent system with clear responsibilities inside the College of Vestals.

Details;
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Abstinio. (I feel it is inappropriate for me to vote on any item which involves of effects me.)
QFM: Antiquo Sorry I cannot accept this.  The House of Vestals were not recording secretaries.  Vesta would not like the loss of Dignatis. Why can not the CP or PM get a Quaestor like all other magistrates?
CnCL: YES. (Comment: Although I think this is too vague and needs to be modified.)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM V FAILED.

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

Item VI: Decretum pro qui in collegium pontificum et collegium augurum - amendment.
Currently the point VI is:
"Only the pontifex maximus may present a candidate for the position of vestalis maxima, from the ranks of the sacerdotes vestales."
Proposal for completation of point VI is:
"Only the pontifex maximus may present a candidate for the position of vestalis maxima, from the ranks of the sacerdotes vestales. If there is only one sacerdotes vestalis, automatically is vestalis maxima.

Details:
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Abstinio.
QFM: Uti Rogas.  Thank you.  However, this honor must not preclude the VM from searching for other handmaidens of Vesta.
CnCL: YES. (Comment: Although I think this needs to be modified. The phrase "sacerdotes Vestales" needs to be changed to "virgines Vestales", the phrase "one sacerdotes" is incorrect, it shall be changed to "one sacerdos".)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM VI PASS.

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

Item VII: Decretum de ratione pontificum collegii - amendment.
Currently the point III is (section):
"Any member of the collegium pontificum may convene the collegium pontificum."
The modification proposal for point III is:
"Only pontifices may convene the collegium pontificum"

Details;
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: Uti Rogas  So ends another of the "Pope of Rome's" reforms.
CnCL: YES. (Comment: But there are some problems here. Firstly, the removal of the text "Only pontifices (including the pontifex maximus) may vote" is impossible because it has been already removed by the Decretum Pontificum De Decretis Section 3., as you, too, noticed. It is a basic jurist rule that newer laws trump older laws. If there is a newer law that contradicts to an older law, the older law is considered repealed. So this sentence has been already repealed.)
QCMPP: I am in favour of the item.

ITEM VII PASS.

Currently the point IV is:
"Once each member of the collegium has been given the opportunity to state his position on the issues under discussion, the pontifex who convened the collegium pontificum shall call the issue to a vote. Voting shall be done openly before those privy to the debate, and shall be decided by majority vote unless otherwise mandated. Only pontifices (including the pontifex maximus) may vote. The method of voting depends on the mode of communication"

Removal text proposal from point IV is:
"Only pontifices (including the pontifex maximus) may vote"
Comment: that was in contradiction with point 3 from Decretum pontificum de decretis at:

Details;
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: Uti Rogas.
CNCL: No.
QCMPP: I am in favour of the item.

ITEM VII PASS.

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

Item VIII: Decretum pontificum de membris collegiorum - amendment.
Currently point I. A is:
"The Collegium Pontificum shall be limited to the following members, in rank of dignity:
1. The Rex and Regina Sacrorum
2. The Flamen and Flamenica Dialis
3. The Flamen Martialis
4. The Flamen Quirinalis
5. The Pontifex Maximus
6. Eight Pontifices
7. The Virgo Vestalis Maxima
8. Five Vestales Virgines
9. The Flamines and/or Flamenicae Minores
The modification proposal for point I.A is:
"The Collegium Pontificum shall be limited to the following members, in rank of dignity:
1. The Rex Sacrorum - voting member.
2. Regina Sacrorum
3. The Flamen Dialis - voting member.
4. Flamenica Dialis
5. The Flamen Martialis - voting member.
6. The Flamen Quirinalis - voting member.
7. The Pontifex Maximus - voting member.
8. Eight Pontifices - voting members.
9. The Virgo Vestalis Maxima - voting member.
10. Five Vestales Virgines
11. The Flamines Minores - voting members.
12. Flamenicae Minores.

Details:
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: Uti Rogas However, my research shows there are too many voting members right now.  Again, are we following Rome or are we making it up as we go?
CnCL: NO. (Comment: Flamenica is incorrect. It is flaminica. And I don't like that the married couple priesthoods are separated in the list; and since the question of who is voting member has already been settled in another decree, I don't like that it is redundantly listed here. And, a bigger problem, the flamincae majores aren't listed anywhere. The wives of the Flamen Martialis and Quirinalis are missing.)
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM VIII PASS.

Currently point B is:
"Each of the individual members of the Collegium Pontificum shall hold a single vote and not be given a vote for each office he or she may hold in the Collegium Pontificum.
The modification proposal for point B is:
"Each of the voting members of the Collegium Pontificum shall hold a single vote and not be given a vote for each office he or she may hold in the Collegium Pontificum."

Details:
TIS: Uti rogas.
CMC: Uti rogas.
QFM: I still don't like "hold" I prefer receive.  Antiquo until rewritten.
CnCL: No.
QCMPP: I am opposed.

ITEM VIII modification for point B FAILED.

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

Item IX: Decretum pontificum de ratione comitorium curiatorum.
The proposal to complete the decretum is:
"IV. If for any reason the pontifex maximus is absent, two pontifices and an augur can convene the comitia curiata as described in points I, II and III of the decree and can issue the lex curiata de imperio."

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92082 From: iulius_sabinus Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: The CP is called into session.
SALVETE!

The Collegium Pontificum is called into session starting with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on pr. Non. Dec 2766 a.U.c (Wednesday 04 December 2013) until 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on ad V Kal Ian 2766 a.U.c (Saturday, 28 December 2013). . Please observe the two dies ater from the interval.

The session schedule.

Contio:

Starting with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) pr. Non. Dec 2766 a.U.c (Wednesday 04 December 2013) until 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on ad. XI Kal Ian 2766 a.U.c (Sunday 22 December 2013)

Vote:
Start on ad IX Kal Ian (Tuesday 24 December 2013) and ends at 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on ad V Kal Ian 2766 a.U.c (Saturday, 28 December 2013).

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQUE SIT POPULO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS

A. Items:

1. Revision of Decretum pontificum de pontificibus minoribus.
2. Revision of Decretum pontificum de ratione comitorium curiatorum.
3. Nova Roma religious school.
4. Other items presented during the contio.

B.The Collegium Pontificum members can add new items during the contio (recommended!) but not later than 18.00 hr.(Rome time) on ad. XI Kal Ian 2766 a.U.c (Sunday 22 December 2013) .

C. Proxy.
A CP member who is unable to vote can give his proxy to another CP member during the contio.

D. The Collegium Pontificum session can be observed by the entire Nova Roman community at this address:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/ 

VALETE,
T. Iulius Sabinus
Pontifex.

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 92083 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2013-11-30
Subject: Re: Report of the CP session - November 2766.
Ave Amice,

Thank you for posting this.  I am very disappointed that the College has chosen to ignore the Senatus Consulta.  I hope the item gets placed back on the agenda.  I would like to see the day when the Pontiffs who are in a state of Contempt cleared of that status.  The only way that can get done is to adopt the Senatus Consulta.  

It is, ironically the reason I had to reject a candidacy request.

Respectfully,

Sulla