PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

The social and political heart of the respublica community

Moderators: Publius Iunius Brutus, Caeso Cispius Laevus, Titus Flavius Severus, Marcus Flavius Celsus, Lucius Aurelius Curio, Lucius Curtius Philo

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:36 am

Salvete honorabiles Senatores et Quirites!

Has there been any recent incident to trigger this lex against Sulla and Caesar? Has one of the two individuals applied for citizenship?

If this is not the case, I think such a lex would be unwise.
First it would be unnecessary to declare anyone "enemy of Rome", if he has no relation with us whatsoever or ever submitted an application.
Second it would create a dangerous precedent. Laws should never be case laws applying only to certain individuals. Laws should always be kept general.
Third we would limit our options in future negotiations with the remnants of Nova Roma. NR is dead, this is an undeniable fact. This situation opens the opportunity to think about a unification of our Republic with what remains of NR. Sulla is still the CFO of NR, so we are talking about a major amount of money here. With this lex we would deny ourselves any possibility to negotiate with Sulla in a resonable way.

Nobody sympathizes with Sulla or Caesar, but they still hold some power. We have to think about what is best to grow our Republic. They pose no threat to us. They will never have any influence in our Republic. But their resources of money, manpower (all the former citizens of NR) and the tradition of the name of Nova Roma can be useful to us.
We should act wise, not driven by anger.

I would like to ask the Senate to take these thoughts into consideration.

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Procula Valeria Messalla » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:02 pm

Lupus, I hope your wise words are considered by the senate. There is room to rehabilitate Sulla and Caesar. Upsetting the "emperors of NR" is not wise if our republic strives for unity.
User avatar
Procula Valeria Messalla
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:59 am

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Lucius Curtius Philo » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:53 pm

Procula Valeria Messalla wrote:Lupus, I hope your wise words are considered by the senate. There is room to rehabilitate Sulla and Caesar. Upsetting the "emperors of NR" is not wise if our republic strives for unity.



Salve Messalla,

Like in most things political you are very mistaken. There is no room for rehabilitation. This lex is about condemning the actions which have occurred by the hands of these men. It is not about any other organization beyond the actions of these two specific people within that said group. To all others we extend a hand in friendship. This is the way of this res publica. This is why we are different from these people.

vale.

Philo
L. CURTIUS PHILO COS. SEN.
User avatar
Lucius Curtius Philo
Consul
Consul
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 am
Location: New York

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Lucius Aurelius Curio » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:30 pm

Curio Sal.

In regards to the opinions of several people who have spoken here, I seek to offer my own, as a citizen of the Republic, not as the Plebeian Aedile. I respect the opinions put forth by Quaestor Laevus and Gaius Florius Lupus. They are both people I hold in high regards. However, I support this ban on Sulla and Caesar wholeheartedly. The reason for this is because of the mayhem they caused in Nova Roma. Now, many of those who went through the worst of it are now here among our citizens, and for that I am glad. However, they are not ones I would welcome. Even in the very short time I was there, I seen more ugliness than I cared to, constant character assassination and false accusations leveled at those who had a difference of opinion. That is not something that I wish to see come to our group. Because that would truly be heart wrenching to watch, especially after so many have poured their hearts and souls into the creation of this organization. So I think a ban on them is in the interest of Roman Restorianism as whole, as they brought the largest organization of its kind to its knees for selfish reasons. I am not expecting everyone to agree with me, but this is my stance on the matter. It is not out of malice or hatred, but logic. To have its best chance at survival, I believe this needs to be done. History is there as a teacher and a guide. I pray we do not make the same mistakes out of a willingness to try to rehabilitate that which cannot be. Some wickedness cannot be corrected, no matter how pure the intentions.

Di vos incolumes custodiant!

L. Aurelius Curio
Vis per Unitatem Romanam
User avatar
Lucius Aurelius Curio
Consul
Consul
Governor of Transborealis Silva
Governor of Transborealis Silva
Lictor Curiatus
Lictor Curiatus
Fortunae Sacerdos
Fortunae Sacerdos
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:04 pm

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Marcus Octavius Gracchus » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:34 am

As a long-time former citizen and one-time former consul of that other place, I urge you most strongly to forbid these two from membership, and to do so *before* they apply.

I also suggest that the proposed remedy does not go far enough - for it merely forbids the Censors from acting on an application from these two. But what if the Censores do so unknowingly, simply by not recognizing the applicant's name, and the omission is not noticed until much later? It will be hard to eject them once they become citizens.

Rather, rephrase it so the lex is not about the censores' duty, but also states that any memberships acquired by these two, by fair means or foul, are automatically and by definition null and void, no matter when they are discovered.

Members have rights. Non-members have none. It's a lot easier to keep a bear out of your tent than to get rid of him once he's already inside.

As for the two persons involved... read the history of that other group and you'll find one or both of them, and their manipulative and vindictive behaviour, at the center of nearly every dispute after their first civil war of 1999, up to and including the collapse of 2015.

Valete, Octavius.
User avatar
Marcus Octavius Gracchus
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:43 pm
Location: Seattle, WA, US

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Publius Sextius Laevus » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:34 am

Salvete Omnes

The Senate and Consul may consider an alternate path. Certainly the Consuls could issue an edict to protect the Republic to cover the time it takes to debate this question. Then discern what the root concern that this Republic has with this kind of threat and address that with a non-personal Lex. It would then be up to the Court and Magistrates to make the judgement on these two.

This other organization is incorporated I think in the State of Maine. The citizens of this organization and its refugees that are now here have a right to be angry with these particular two and bring this anger before a State Court in Maine.

Valete,
P. Sextius Laevus
'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
User avatar
Publius Sextius Laevus
Plebeian Tribune
Plebeian Tribune
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:12 am

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Marcus Minucius Audens » Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:04 pm

Procula Valeria Messalia;
Room to rehablitate Sulla and Caesar??? Just how do you propose to do that?? After thirteen+ years of dealing with these men and their views, I see no way to do that. Men, far better than I, have given up and moved out of NR, even the founders of the organization, simply because their views were different. Both of these men have then followed with a barrage of untruths about these men that firmly settled, that they would not return. The same has been done to me. At one time I was friends with Sulla and Caesar, but when Sulla broke his word to me, and then I was threatened with being thrown out of the Senate for disagreement, I resigned. I wish you would tell the woman that Sulla threatened so vilely that she left NR even though she had done a real service to the organization, about a possible "rehabilatation!!" I should like to be a listener to that conversation (Grin!!)

Marcus Audens
Former NR Consul, Senator and Governor
Marcus Minucius Audens
 

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Spurius Iuventius Catulus » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:53 am

Salvete omnes,

I have no objection to a lex which would bar entry to individuals with a history of being disruptive or hostile. However, I wonder if it is wise for such a lex to be so specific. While Sulla et Caesar are precisely the sorts of individuals we'd want to deny entry, it may be wiser to outline the general reasons why -- e.g. a known history of harassment, disruption, hostility, abuse, etc. -- and craft a lex that allows us to bar entry to individuals on that basis and be well-prepared for any future concerns as well.

Sp. Iuventius Catulus
Spurius Iuventius Catulus
"The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."
Procurator, Province of Missuria
User avatar
Spurius Iuventius Catulus
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Publius Sextius Laevus » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:13 am

Salvete Omnes

I am pleased that there is discussion on the Caesar-Sulla lex. It appears that we are trying them in the Forum by Public Acclamation - not unlike the right of appeal before the people of Rome. It is too bad we do not have a court system in place ( we need to finish that work).

These two now in the dock, being denounced by many true accounts, do not have an advocate representation. I, a 'new man', do not have the unpleasant history at the hands of these two, but from what has been presented and my own research, leads me to support this condamnation. I do ask that we conduct ourselves according to our Republic's Principles of Justice and not as a lynchmob.

This lex should be the outcome of a legal process if not a court hearing.

It is possible for Consul Brutis to issue an edict baring these two from fire and water from 400 miles of any part of our Republic while we work this out.

But if it is the favor of the Senate is to pass this Lex, I will try to be the first to vote in favor of it (which I'm sure will be a race) when it comes before the Citizens.

Valete,
P. Sextius Laevus

'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
'Fiat Lux! Fiat Vita!'
User avatar
Publius Sextius Laevus
Plebeian Tribune
Plebeian Tribune
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:12 am

Re: PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Senate meeting (Session III)

Postby Lucius Aurelius Curio » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:21 am

Curio Laevae Sal.

I understand your feelings on this, and I believe that the Senate will vote favorably on this. I also agree that a court case would be best, if they were citizens of the Republic. This very lex is in place to stop that from coming about. Therefore, our court system would not apply to them, any more than theirs would to us. I think this process we are going through currently, a weighing of pros and cons, a hearing of accounts on whether or not this duo deserves such treatment is as close to court hearing as we shall receive.

As far as the court system, that should be up and running very soon I hope, with the passing of one of the other leges we have on the Senate's docket (LEX IUNIA-FABIA: Criminal versus civil complaints, the court and sentencing process). I too think that it is overdue to be up and running for the benefit of our Republic.

Valete Bene!

L. Aurelius Curio
Vis per Unitatem Romanam
User avatar
Lucius Aurelius Curio
Consul
Consul
Governor of Transborealis Silva
Governor of Transborealis Silva
Lictor Curiatus
Lictor Curiatus
Fortunae Sacerdos
Fortunae Sacerdos
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Main Forum