Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:Salvete honorabiles magistrati!
According to the Mos Maiorum - the real one of the ancient Roman Republic - an elected magistrate had immunity for the time he held an office. There is no precedent for a Consul being sanctioned by another magistrate. A Consul is supposed to be the highest magistrate to begin with.
It is within the potestas of a Consul to represent the Republic towards other organization and to choose the words he deems appropriate. He cannot be sanctioned for it.
I do not know the details of the incident and I am a big supporter of joining all Roman-themed organizations together. Therefore I have to admit that offending NR is certainly not helpful in this regard. But my personal opinion is irrelevant here.
It is simply against Roman traditions to subject a Consul to such a humiliating treatment by a Censor. I doubt that such a procedure is legal, especially without a trial, and if it is, then we have to check our leges, because then they are out of touch with Roman traditions and customs and have developed into something else.
C. Florius Lupus
Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:Gratias tibi, Consul.
So far I have not found a Latin source to prove the requirement of two Censores issuing a nota censuria conjointly. My assessment of the situation was based on the Wikipedia article, which states that all notae censoriae needed both Censors to agree. But Wikipedia is no evidence of course and I found no explicit statement by Livy (Ab Urbe Condita XXIV 18) regarding it, which was quoted by the article.
Why is this so important anyway?
Although I strongly support efforts to bring together NR and our Republic and therefore side with our Censor Brutus on this issue, it is not my personal opinion about this particular incident, which is relevant, neither is the incident itself.
The real issue at stake is the question: Who has supreme authority in our Republic, the corporation or the institutions of the Res Publica?
While the Consul is an elected magistrate of the Res Publica, a Censor is essentially an office of the corporation. He was elected by the Board of Directors (Comitia Curiata), not the citizens.
The primacy of the corporation over the republic was what brougjt the downfall of Nova Roma. This is why we have to be extremely cautious here. As it it may be known, I totally oppose the entire idea of a corporation and I have done so from the beginning. This corporation concept is a blueprint how to repeat the fate of Nova Roma.
This is what this issue is about, not Brutus vs. Philo, not about the incident in question. The issue is, whether we can allow a corporation officer (Censor) to reprimand our highest magistrate (Consul) who was elected by the citizens of the Republic or not.
For me the Res Publica must always have the last word, not the corporation. The immunity of the Consuls must be sacred and beyond the reach of the corporation.
Today it is only about a censorial edict, but already this must be made as difficult as possible for the corporation. The influence of the CC must be kept to an absolute minimum. Otherwise we will one day have a real big issue and then we might see the CC taking over the Republic after having eroded the Roman traditions with corporative by-laws. This is exactly what happened in NR, which is now ruled by the CFO and the Board of Directors.
If next year our Censors might be elected by the Comitia Centuriata instead of the Comitia Curiata, which is nothing but the BoD of the corporation, then a similar situation would be far less alarming than it is at the moment.
These are the issues to be considered here, which I wanted to highlight with this post.