| | | Part 3 of the articles. One fun bit, I got to actually understand the history and the reasons for Cesar crossing the Rubicon. I never knew the full story.
So in short, Cesar had an "interesting" life getting both extra privileges not afforded to anyone else and extra persecutions and pressures not done to most.
The last bit was this, Cesar had executive immunity, but his term of office was in the north was coming to an end. His best way out was to be elected as the Consul. His enemies passed a law barring remote campaigning. So if he wanted to be elected, then he'd have to be in Rome in person. BUT, entering Italy proper with an army was a capital crime. So to do it legally, Cesar would have to resign his commission as a general. And when/if he were to do that, then he would no longer have executive immunity and he'd been vulnerable to being prosecuted. It was heads we win, tails you lose kind of situation for him. In the end, he decided to cross the river Rubicon with his army and take control of Rome.
The author compares this with the events of this past January in DC. Whether you agree with him or not, the thread of the articles and especially some of the comments make for an interesting read.
=====
Will the U.S. Pass a Point of No Return?
3 days ago — Over to Eric Schnurer: Crossing the Rubicon: If the United States, in recent years, has been tracking the decline and fall of Republican Rome, ... |
|
