Consul Question

[dianamt54]

In 90 B.C., the Roman Consul, L. Juluis Caesar, passes a law giving citizenship to residents of cities not fighting Rome in the Social War.

When the next Consul comes into "office", could the law be revoked?

[Primus Pilus]

In 90 B.C., the Roman Consul, L. Juluis Caesar, passes a law giving citizenship to residents of cities not fighting Rome in the Social War.

When the next Consul comes into "office", could the law be revoked?

 

Any law could be revoked via a legal "abrogatio" (voted repeal) or through religious dismissal after the fact (contra auspicia). This particular law (the Lex Iulia de Civitate) did not face such danger due to it's importance in keeping allies loyal and it's rather moderate nature. It in fact turned out to be too limited in scope and further "de civitate" laws were passed over the next few years.

 

For examples of laws that were revoked:

The initial Italian citizenship of M. Livius Drusus were passed in the face of severe opposition in 91. As a result, he was murdered and his laws were indeed revoked on the grounds of "contra auspicia". (This essentially opened the social war).

 

The Leges Sulipiciae of 88 (that included the incorporation of new Italian citizens into the 35 tribes in such a way as to aid the faction of Marius) were repealed via the Leges Corneliae et Pompeiae de Abrogatio of the same year (after Sulla marched on Rome and drove out the Marians).

 

So yes, a law could be repealed, but it was not necessarily via a new consular magistrate (though they clearly could and did influence such things) Just in general terms, it was the Tribunes via vote of the people in the Comitia Tributa, who were responsible for such things. For more, see the Legal and Institutional Chronology of the Roman Republic

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't think that Drusus' proposal regarding the Italians passed. According to Livy:

Marcus Livius Drusus, a tribune of the plebs who wanted to reinforce the powers of the Senate, appealed to the allies and Italian nations and made them hope for the Roman citizenship; with their help, he carried by force laws on the distribution of land and grain, and also carried a law on jurisdiction to the effect that the juries would be made up from one half of senators and one half of knights. When he could not keep his promise to give citizenship to his allies, the angry Italians started to think about defection.

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, the other sources suggest the same (Vell. Pat. in particular), looks like I have to make a slight revision (at least to the citizenship piece). Re-checking Cicero first though.

 

Cicero (at least in Pro Clusio) also does not suggest that the de Foederatae Civitates was actually passed into law. I've revised the "Leges Liviae" to illustrate that this particular piece was a Rogatio. However, I've left it as an inclusion with the previous simply for the convenience of not editing the actual table itself.

 

Thanks MPC!

 

[edit] somehow I edited over my previous reply rather than add a new reply - alas - at least I quoted part of it above.

 

The rest was a note to Dia that despite this change, the rest of the Leges Liviae are examples of laws that were revoked via contra auspicia.