Mos Maiorum- Does America Have One?

[SEVERUSMAX]

America has a written Constitution, which is good. However, it seems to me that we also have developed a "mos maiorum" not all that different from the Roman Republic. It was the unwritten Constitution of Rome. So, basically, do we have TWO Constitutions in effect? Sounds like it to me, as disturbing as that can be in a way. Such a thing would explain how many federal programs that are technically illegal (not to mention Federal agencies) under the 10th Amendment, are still accepted as legal and are virtually untouchable (Social Security, for instance- no one can try to abolish that). It seems that the New Deal and parts of the Great Society have become part of the mos maiorum here. Like it or not, they're here to stay. Very odd, how that works out. I can understand such a thing in England. The mos maiorum is that country's ONLY constitution, unwritten as it mostly is. It's just odd to find in America.

 

[amicus]

Interesting, Sev...never heard of that before...


Mos maiorum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Mos maiorum are traditions of ancestors, an unwritten constitution of laws and conduct in Rome. It institutionalized cultural traditions, societal mores, and general policies, as distinct from specific laws.

The six cornerstones of Mos Maiorum are:

• fides - fidelity, loyalty, faith

• pietas - piety, devotion, patriotism, duty

• religio - religious scruple, reverence for higher power(s), strictness of observance, conscientiousness precision of conduct

• disciplina - discipline, diligence

• constantia - firmness, steadiness

• gravitas - seriousness, dignity, authority

• Parsimonia - stinginess

• severitas - strictness in the moral sense

~~~~~~

I would suggest that the concept goes as far back as human history does and represents that part of man that desires to be directed, managed, taken care of, looked after, missing the security of the womb and then childhood.

I see it so often in the political and psychological positions a person takes; they rail against freedom and choice but never offer to explain just which protective wing they wish to hudle beneath, God, King Dictator, but surely the very concept of freedom, scares the hell out of them...


amicus...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Interesting, Sev...never heard of that before...


Mos maiorum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Mos maiorum are traditions of ancestors, an unwritten constitution of laws and conduct in Rome. It institutionalized cultural traditions, societal mores, and general policies, as distinct from specific laws.

The six cornerstones of Mos Maiorum are:

• fides - fidelity, loyalty, faith

• pietas - piety, devotion, patriotism, duty

• religio - religious scruple, reverence for higher power(s), strictness of observance, conscientiousness precision of conduct

• disciplina - discipline, diligence

• constantia - firmness, steadiness

• gravitas - seriousness, dignity, authority

• Parsimonia - stinginess

• severitas - strictness in the moral sense

~~~~~~

I would suggest that the concept goes as far back as human history does and represents that part of man that desires to be directed, managed, taken care of, looked after, missing the security of the womb and then childhood.

I see it so often in the political and psychological positions a person takes; they rail against freedom and choice but never offer to explain just which protective wing they wish to hudle beneath, God, King Dictator, but surely the very concept of freedom, scares the hell out of them...


amicus...

Interesting and revealing commentary and input on that subject, ami. Though I half-expected you to approve of it, rather than disapprove.

 

[amicus]

"...Interesting and revealing commentary and input on that subject, ami. Though I half-expected you to approve of it, rather than disapprove..."


~~~

My apologies Sev, did not intend to imply with approval or disaproval, merely had a run of thoughts at reading your post.

I understand and agree with your point, but it set me off to thinking about public schools and as you intimated, a whole host of technically illegal, not constitutionally authorized programs of both state and federal agencies.

The thought that 'women' gaining the vote desired protection to continue from father to spouse to government, flashed by...but, of course it goes far beyond that.

regards...


amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

All societies have such a thing, an 'understanding' about how the society works, what duties and obligations the citizen has to the society and vice versa.

More importantly, this understanding can change. This can be both good and bad.

It can be good because the society now recognises that circumstances have changed and so must the individual and society. Social Security is an example of this. As society became more urban and dispersed, the old were often abandoned. Living less in small rural communities where the elderly were looked after by relatives and close neighbours a method was put in place to make sure the old were looked after.

The 'understandng' can be bad as well. Segregation was an example of this.

The biggest problem is when either the written constitution or the 'understanding' become set in stone and closed to change. There's only one place where no change takes place. And that place is among the fossils.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I listened to one of our federal judges discussing the idea of legal precedent and found him interesting on this general topic. His point of view was that legal precedent was significant and could not lightly be set aside even if one strongly disagreed with the original legal decision and/or interpretation, because such an action would upset everything built from that decision, good or bad, and would invalidate tens of thousands of court rulings, good or bad. Thus, he concluded, even an interpretation that he disagreed with was one that he often had to respect in order to preserve the functioning of the legal system as a whole. I think his example was Roe vs. Wade; his point of view was that whether he felt that the Constitution supported abortion as a right or not, the Supreme Court could not now reverse that ruling without destroying a large body of legal rulings built upon that precedent, many of them unrelated to abortion but instead springing from the central idea of privacy in the medical context.

Looking at that in the context of the thread topic, there's a certain validity to having a set of interpretations or beliefs not necessarily codified as legislation, but not desirable to upset or destroy immediately either. Some of our most prized rights - in fact, the right to "privacy," for one - were not granted to us in the Constitution. They were built up through practice and interpretation.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

A question for Sev.

Here's something odd. What is it with Americans and the 'written word'? There is a pack of Americans who say, "King James forever", and have that little problem of 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

IS a written constitution inherently superior to an unwritten? Is the US 'freer' than Britain?

What is it that gives Americans faith in "the words themselves" and believes words speak *on their own* without interpretation? IOW, it's only that bad guys that 'interpret' or follow what they allege to be the 'spirit' and not the 'letter.'

 

[BlackShanglan]

What is it that gives Americans faith in "the words themselves" and believes words speak *on their own* without interpretation? IOW, it's only that bad guys that 'interpret' or follow what they allege to be the 'spirit' and not the 'letter.'

Great question, Pure - although I think that Americans are not alone in this tendency. Here, perhaps it's our focus on individual rights? People like to go back to the written word as a sort of contract of rights that can't be broken? Or possibly it's that very element of interpretation that drives them back to the words. They're all certain in their hearts that their own interpretation of the words is the only right one, and so they feel that if they can force people back to the piece of paper, they'll have to admit that one "right" reading.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

comments..... and note to Shang

it seems Americans have done these little 'tap dances' since the ink was dry on the B.R.

the BR says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech."

SO, the first step (like Bush with POWs) is to say, "well, the term 'speech' has to be 'clarified.'

it doesn't include sexual material.

and clearly 'yelling fire in a crowded theater is not 'speech.' etc.

words attacking the President or the Jews are 'speech' --yes or no?

how about standing on a street corner of San Diego harbor, in 1942, and listing the departure times of the destroyers and air craft carriers?
---
similarly the Bible literalists always have their dance. 'thou shalt not kill' does NOT include capital punishment for blasphemers.

'resist not evil' does NOT mean something 'really nasty and evil' like Hitler. 'turn the other cheek' does not mean there is a second 'turning' (after the first 'turning' your cheek, if it happens again you get to belt the bastard.)


---
In Canada no one had a problem with a clause added to the rights list: "all these are subject to limitations which are reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Why is it that most Americans would PISS themselves if someone said, 'let's add these to the BR".

----
Shang, it occurs to me that Martin Luther is a factor here, "sola scriptura'. Yet I don't think the Germans ever went so far. I wonder why it's England and the US, where 'protestantism' often took the "word of the Bible" emphasis.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

it seems Americans have done these little 'tap dances' since the ink was dry on the B.R.

the BR says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech."

SO, the first step (like Bush with POWs) is to say, "well, the term 'speech' has to be 'clarified.'

it doesn't include sexual material.

and clearly 'yelling fire in a crowded theater is not 'speech.' etc.

words attacking the President or the Jews are 'speech' --yes or no?

how about standing on a street corner of San Diego harbor, in 1942, and listing the departure times of the destroyers and air craft carriers?
---
similarly the Bible literalists always have their dance. 'thou shalt not kill' does NOT include capital punishment for blasphemers.

'resist not evil' does NOT mean something 'really nasty and evil' like Hitler. 'turn the other cheek' does not mean there is a second 'turning' (after the first 'turning' your cheek, if it happens again you get to belt the bastard.)


---
In Canada no one had a problem with a clause added to the rights list: "all these are subject to limitations which are reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Why is it that most Americans would PISS themselves if someone said, 'let's add these to the BR".

Personally, I would find that phrase a bit vague for my comfort. Who gets to define "reasonable" and "demonstrably justified". Amicus? You? Some fellow who wants to outlaw smut? Some person who wants to set up a national church? It's a little uneasy for me.

Yes, the written Constitution is valuable. As are amendments. However, my point regarded a practical reality: mos maiorum DOES exist in America, just as in other societies. It just co-exists with a written charter. Of course, the Framers HAD to write one, since they had to replace the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, they saw lessons in the downfall of Rome and the abuses of rights by England, with no clear charter and such. Knowing the necessity of flexibility, they established Amendments too.

Like it or not, we have a written charter. There are drawbacks, such as the necessity of determining legality of all acts under the Constitution. We have to use the Amendment process or somehow find a loophole that permits such and such act, if we wish to be done. There are also benefits to it: unlike ancient Rome and Greece, we have a bill of rights. Of course, the Romans had tribunician protection (the veto) for much of the Republic. However, that didn't stop Sulla. Nor did it stop Marius. There were plenty of cases of atrocities, although they were regarded as atrocities and there were backlashes.

So, to be fair, supplementing a flexible, unwritten mos maiorum with a written Constitution is rather a trade-off. You get more security but also more rigidity.

The question is which you prefer. Personally, if I had lived in the Roman state, I'd have been more liberal and favored more change in the Roman constitution. However, I am nothing if not very committed to the rule of law and protection of rights. Since we have a written Constitution and a formal guarantee of our rights, I feel a certain obligation to be more of a stickler for the formal process of Amendment instead of reinterpretation and loose construction.

The irony is that the Roman state had a lot of crime and public violence, but most Romans balked at the death penalty on a formal basis. Sulla, the same man who proscribed people by the hundreds for supposed treason, abolished death as a penalty for most crimes. Then again, that was mainly in regard to executing Romans. Slaves and foreigners weren't so lucky.

Sulla also abolished most functions of the tribunician powers, which would have made me more nervous and inclined to seek a change or two there. On the other hand, he established standing courts, which were frankly a necessary change. This leads back to the death penalty thing, however. He abolished appeals to an Assembly on the grounds that the Assemblies, under his auspices, created those courts and gave them their powers. He abolished the death penalty on the grounds that only an Assembly should be able to impose a death sentence (that was the usual rule, unless one counted special trials for sacrilege, including violating a Vestal). I wouldn't have liked his abolitiion of appeals and the death penalty, but at least they went hand in hand, instead of one without the other.

The reason that I refer so much to the Roman example, aside from my fascination with history, is that this was the first true republic in human history. It was the first conscious attempt at the rule of law and a system of justice that involved formal due process of courts and such. It was the first time that anyone attempted to establish rules for how laws could be passed, aside from simply allowing a pure majority of voters to pass whatever the hell they felt like passing.

The kind of success and failure of the Roman experiment is certainly worth noting. Certainly it failed, but that's almost inevitable with the very first experiment in anything. What is remarkable is that lasted for basically half of a millennium. If we can manage to exercise both flexibility and restraint in amending either Constitution or mos maiorum, we just might last half as long at least. The question for controversy remains, of course, what acts are reasonable and what changes are irresponsible or illegal.

 

[Pure]

yes, i think there is a kind of mos maioram, which is why there is literotica and porn movies in the mom and pop motels. it is why people living together are not pariahs and don't have to do it under wraps.

some kind of consensus against slavery emerged, at least in the north.

there is a kind of sense of 'fairness,' that emerges around criminal matters, and this derives from England; i guess habeus corpus is one manifestation. (lately being attacked by patriots GWB, Cheney, Gonzales, etc.)

sev, i'm not as much of a Rome fan as you seem to be. i'm influenced by Simone Weil who characterized it as essentially a fascist state***; its methods of waging war, for instance, exceed the brutality of the Nazis (compare Carthage and Lidice). internally, too, it was fascistic, e.g., with the father having the right to execute his son.

i know very little about Rome, it's true, but aside from the Stoics, i don't see much there**; ever notice how 'Roman Philosophy' is a pretty weak suit? Roman myth is pale by comparison to Greek?
all this is just my gut and my bias, but....

**OK, civil engineering and military 'science'
*** If you're interested, I could probably find the essay in question.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

yes, i think there is a kind of mos maioram, which is why there is literotica and porn movies in the mom and pop motels. it is why people living together are not pariahs and don't have to do it under wraps.

some kind of consensus against slavery emerged, at least in the north.

there is a kind of sense of 'fairness,' that emerges around criminal matters, and this derives from England; i guess habeus corpus is one manifestation. (lately being attacked by patriots GWB, Cheney, Gonzales, etc.)

sev, i'm not as much of a Rome fan as you seem to be. i'm influenced by Simone Weil who characterized it as essentially a fascist state***; its methods of waging war, for instance, exceed the brutality of the Nazis (compare Carthage and Lidice). internally, too, it was fascistic, e.g., with the father having the right to execute his son.

i know very little about Rome, it's true, but aside from the Stoics, i don't see much there**; ever notice how 'Roman Philosophy' is a pretty weak suit? Roman myth is pale by comparison to Greek?
all this is just my gut and my bias, but....

**OK, civil engineering and military 'science'
*** If you're interested, I could probably find the essay in question.

Rome was not so much a fascist state as a militaristic republic, in my mind. It had democratic features and not so democratic features. It was not perfect, but many of our concepts of justice and law come from Rome. This is not typical of a fascist state. It leaned more toward an aristocratic republic, especially at first, but it had evidence of a growing popular consciousness. Hence, of course, there were civil wars between populists and reactionaries. Quite simply, it was a once rustic community of citizen-soldiers dragged, kicking and screaming into reform and revolution.

Ironically, the first Roman leader who could qualify as "Fascist" in any real sense was Augustus. He banned daggers. He imposed moralistic laws on the populace. He abolished the republic in favor of a principate. He reduced the powers of the Senate, while posing as a traditionalist who only wanted to uphold the Republic. He used propaganda to an extent that few matched in history. He killed more people than Sulla or Marius combined- 2,700 people, including Cicero (though with help from Mark Antony and Marucs Aemilius Lepidus). So, one might well call Imperial, or Augustan, Rome "fascist". That would fit them better than the Republic.

Not even Caesar or Sulla intended a permanent regime of authoritarian rule in the same way as Augustus. Certainly Marius didn't. Militaristic they were, fascist they were not. Their harsh, archaic laws were just that, harsh and archaic laws. They were part of the Twelve Tables, imposed by the decemvirs (who were later removed for seeking too much power). Did they commit atrocities? Yes. Yet these same men were mostly acting as warlords in foreign lands when they did those things. It's sad, but true, that they had policy for Romans and another for non-Romans.

Caesar was often rather liberal in his ideas (his pretext for civil war was to protect the rights of the tribunes of the Plebs, for instance). Sulla was determined to strengthen the Republic, so that it could last beyond his own demise. He also gave up power when his task was done, rather than rule for life.

However, often the same men who committed those atrocities against non-Romans were very liberal in their domestic politics (a paradox or an oxymoron). Scipio was such a case. He destroyed Carthage, yet he also sponsored the career of the more populist leader Marius. Marius himself was an example. Until he went insane during his last consulship (after 2 strokes) and butchered many enemies, he was far more liberal than most of his colleagues.