Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations II

[TinCow]

SENATE SPEAKER:
When such a contradiction occurred earlier, it was decided that unless later motions explicitly stated "This motion invalidates motion X", then an earlier motion X took precedence. And it will be recalled that later and earlier could simply refer to the order in which they were tabled. Hence, I interpret the current situation as being that motion 10.2, as the earlier motion, takes precedence over 10.6. Thus, the Senate mandates the conquest of Byzantium.

Senators have also passed a motion 10.8 ruling out conquests unless authorised by previous legislation on establishing a frontier bounded by the Danube. I do not interpret this as ruling out conquest of Byzantium, as Byzantium lies south of the proposed Danube frontier and would be a natural part of a Republic bounded by that river. However, in the event of their being a contradiction, motion 10.2 would still take precedence being the earlier motion.

What logic is this? Two motions are voted in that specifically reject the conquest of Byzantium and one which favors it, yet you pick the single over the two? Senate Speaker, I have seen you spending a great deal of time with Numerius Aureolus lately. He was an outspoken proponet of the single motion that you now favor. Could it be that he has bought his way into favorable legislation?

Let us examine the exact text of the language I myself proposed. In reference to Motion 10.8, it reads "No provinces will be conquered except those specified by the previous legislation authorizing expansion to the Danube. This Motion will be void if Rome is attacked by any currently neutral nation." Speaker, you have so conveniently ignored what the actual language of the previous legislation was. This clearly refers to Motion 9.18 which reads: "This House proposes that the wars with Thrace, Illyria and Macedon be directed towards establishing a frontier along the river Danube."

In this legislation, the Thracian, Illyrian and Macedonian lands are specifically named, but there is no mention at all of any Greek territories. Thus, Motion 9.18 does not refer to expansion to Greek territories south of the Danube and as such Motion 10.8 cannot possibly allow the conquest of a Greek territory south of the Danube. So, contrary to your statements, Motion 10.8 specifically rejects any conquest of Byzantium, as does Motion 10.6. It is an unjustified abuse of power to simply declare that the legislation supported by your 'friend' Numerius Aureolus is that which is superior based on nothing more than the fact that Tiberius Coruncanius spoke only 20 minutes before me!

I fully believe that the two enacted motions are superior to the one, but if you will not bow to that clear logic, I demand an emergency vote to determine whether Motions 10.6 and 10.8 invalidate Motion 10.2 or vice versa.