Navigation

re. 'tribunate of the plebs':
Is everyone a plebe?
Your book is FANTASTIC!!!

As I construe it, the court thinks the democratic element itself is pleb-like, for if they were part of the government, they by definition would fall into the aristocratic or monarchic elements. Perhaps a clearer way of saying it would be that the A.G office of the democratic element would represent the people at large in opposition to the government itself, investigate crimes by the other elements and branches on behalf of the people, and possibly defend the people pro bono.

BTW, I LOVE THIS BOOK TOO! It rocked my world! Two friends are reading it now...and were going to start a discussion group!

And in this new office, to whom would fall the duty of determining from what or who to defend the people? Who appoints this "AG" and when do they leave office? What would prevent those in this office from becoming beholden to powerful interests rather than "the people"? Who would be responsible for investigating crimes committed by the new office?

Watchman, by my read, the officers are determined by "elections on a proportional basis based on party percentages" (p. 315, Llumina press first edition). Chance of Ensnarement by the mighty is lessened by this elective technique...a tribune's constituency is a party with whatever proportional percentage was needed, so even a fringe party could have some tribune-like figure pursuing their agenda. Also, they are removable by majority recall (p. 314). Last, the other three AG offices investigate their any crimes. (also p.314) It HELPS to read the book, dudes...

DOn't talk about READING, El PRes, if u can't read. Williams, as usual, has the court contradict itself. On page 313 (we all know its still the 1st edition, duh) the court says the office is elected by plurality of the people. Totally opposite of its p.315 formula. Remember guys, its fiction. Why is the character of the court contradicting itself on this particular point? My humbe belief: The court is venturing way too far into a political, i.e. non-judical question, and Williams has the court subtly screw it up, in order to make the deeper point that, yes, two elective methods are possible, and no, courts can't and wont ever get it right, as its a legislative question. Read deeeply, pleeeeease!

camillus, you're a dick, but i have to go with u on this one. El pres reads on the surface. Williams writes for him too, but his deeper message is for US, gotta dig deep, man.