Wikia

Latest revision as of 11:10, May 22, 2013

National Archives of the Congressional debates and votes:
1. First series
2. Second series
3. Third series
4. Fourth series
5. Fifth series
6. Sixth series
7. Seventh series
8. Eighth series
9. Ninth series
10. Tenth series
11. Eleventh series
12. Twelfth series
13. Thirteenth series
14. Fourteenth series

In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The Second Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, located in the Capitol in Downtown Noble City, in which the Members of the Congress vote bills that originated in the First Chamber. Paradoxically, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see 2012 First Congress.

Whereas all national citizens may propose bills in the First Chamber, only Members of the Congress may vote them in the Second Chamber. Article 6 of the Constitution states that "all Members of the Congress are expected to vote on the motion in the Second Chamber". They have three legal voting options: "pro (in favor of the motion), contra (in opposition to the motion) and abstention (the wish not to vote)." Further more, they "have two weeks’ time to cast their vote in the Second Chamber. Voting may be closed earlier if the required majority is reached. The proposer may also choose to lengthen the voting period."

A normal majority ("fifty percent of the valid votes") is required to pass a motion amending the Federal Law. To vote on Constitutional amendments, a special majority ("more than two thirds of the valid votes") is required to pass a amendment. The special majority requirement was lowered from three quarters to two thirds in the 2010 State Reform (Sixth Amendment). All proposals approved by Congress, by the required majority and in due time, must be implemented by the government of Lovia.

1 001. Government
- 1.1 Voting
- 1.2 Comments
2 SCJ
3 004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite
4 007. Voting Rights
- 4.1 Voting
5 Libertas becoming a full member of the IWO
- 5.1 Voting
- 5.2 Comments
6 009. Repeal of Twelfth Amendment
- 6.1 Voting
7 010. One millionth State Reform
- 7.1 Voting
8 011. Repeal Green Energy Act
- 8.1 Voting
9 012. Approval of the Headlands Cross State Line
- 9.1 Voting
10 013. Approval of the Emerald Railway
- 10.1 Voting
- 10.2 Comments
11 014. Referendum Act
- 11.1 Voting

001. GovernmentEdit

I propose the following Government, Government Oos Wes Ilava II:

VotingEdit

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

ProEdit

Pro 13 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 07:54, February 7, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB)
Pro 4 votes. 77topaz (talk) 08:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 8 votes. But we should have the people with two posts use another character for their second post. I'll probably keep Galahad on Finance like last year. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 7 votes. fantastic stuff, here's to a new year of success Hoffmann KunarianTALK 12:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 4 votes. Wabba The I (talk) 17:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes. Fantastic. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 5 votes. OK, I'll support this. --Semyon 18:53, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 6 votes (Read comments made by Hoffmann, totally correct. The users, and while I'm against QZ as health minister (i'm proud hes active), are inactive and wouldn't be able to fufill there jobs) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:49, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 2 votes. Daembrales (talk) 23:00, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 5 votes. -Sunkist- (talk) 00:08, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 9 votes Happy65 ^{Talk CNP} 07:12, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

ContraEdit

Contra - Oh, I see how it is. - 5 votes — Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 21:29, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

AbstainEdit

Abstention 1 vote. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 07:54, February 7, 2013 (UTC) (RTP)
Abstention 5 votes. Horton is right. --Semyon 19:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Abstention 2 votes .Granero (talk) 01:06, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
...

This proposal is accepted! The Ilava II Government is now in power. :D —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments Edit

Users like Granero and Daembrales have all shown interest in having a ministry position, so we should include them. HORTON11: • 13:27, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

To a degree I do agree however I think that the lack of year round activity and lack of a well developed position known to the citizens of the wikia makes it hard for us to confidently include them. I think a good idea would be to have a reshuffle of the government in maybe 3, 4 or 6 months and review the positions that they have shown interest in and see if they: a) are active enough to assume positions and b) have shown attempts to develop that area of interest in lovia. Personally I think a review in three months would be good and would hardly be unfair. We address concerns and ensure that if they are properly addressed they get the positions they deserve. Hoffmann

KunarianTALK 14:33, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

When starts it? Wabba The I (talk) 17:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Then again it might be better to include more users than having a select few with two or more (Oos being the exception). And going on the year round activity, Granero and Pikapi have been as active as Sunkist, yet they have none and he has two. I would like to see further inclusion now, and in a few monts when we do the review we can reshuffle the ministries of less active users. HORTON11:

•

18:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

The few who have two are normally the ones who were unchallenged in the positions they chose or whose positions were only challenged by other people with multiple positions. It is impossible to include users in positions that they want when that position they want is occupied by a person with that position only. This is the problem you do not seem to see. On the matter of Sunkist, Sunkist has been a lot more active than Granero and Pikapi (who didn't even show interest in a position) recently (over the past three months) and you fail to also consider he was almost completely unchallenged for those positions. This is inclusion as far as we can get it with the people who want these positions. Too many people want the same positions, we can't please everyone so we've chosen the people we think are best. I'd hope you'd agree rather than bring up points that have been repeatedly addressed. I'm glad you're on board for the review though, I think that if we have tri-monthly reviews we can keep government active and reward users with commitment and interest, it's good to have you on board for that. Hoffmann

KunarianTALK 19:20, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We could just give Daembrales and Granero one of the relatively unchallenged positions. ~~Though I would still like to review the Health position~~ (nah, his Bismarck ideas are a step in the right direction, so it's fine) HORTON11:

•

19:30, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We don't want to give them a position they don't want and ask them to be responsible for it, that's unfair on both them and the people who take and interest too. Glad you've come around, the Bismarck model is a model for universal healthcare, he's on our side with this, truly. Hoffmann

KunarianTALK 21:48, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with not having a post. =) I think that there are better candidates than me, as i am not too active and not too experienced either. However, i would appreciate a ministry if someone thinks i am fit for the job. :D Daembrales (talk) 23:00, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

@Daembrales - Remember you have multiple congresspersons, (2 i think) vote with them Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:10, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

@Pikapi - You didn't sign up for any ministries. Even if you are active, a major party head, and former Minister of Commerce, you didn't sign up for anything :/ @Horton - A lot of Americans don't support universal healthcare at all. I just don't want taxes funding things like gender switches and what not. For legitimate medical treatment it makes sense to pay for people, but when it's something like that, I don't see a need for others to pay for it. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Sunkist seems to prefer simply the name "Ministry of Agriculture". Should we continue using that name or use the new longer name, or perhaps a compromise between the two as simply "Food and Agriculture"? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:21, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Should or shouldn't separate people be used for separate ministries (e.g. Nicholas Sheraldin for Minister of Environment, Levi Straszev for Minister of Tourism and Sport)? 77topaz (talk) 02:58, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you get to decide. You could even use one of George's or Viva's users. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Should a page Ilava II Government be created, and the ministers be listed there? 77topaz (talk) 03:41, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Eventually :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 06:10, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Why not yet? :P 77topaz (talk) 07:18, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

@ Quarantine Zone- Are boob jobs and sex changes medical necessities? No, so we should not include those in any law. You are right in that I'd like to fund our healthcare through taxes, but we need limits. Cosmetic changes for vanity purposes should not be covered. HORTON11:

•

14:05, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

SCJ Edit

This is where the supreme court judges shall be elected.

Kevin Madison (Happy65)Edit

Pro 9 votes Happy65 ^{Talk CNP} 11:05, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:46, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 1 vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes Wabba isn't going to win, and I'm voting for you over Ismagiloff --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:06, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 4 votes HORTON11: • 13:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Ygo August Donia (TMV)Edit

Pro 7 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 06:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Ismagiloff (Semyon)Edit

Pro 2 votes Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:46, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
- I would vote Pro, but in character, I don't think this guy has enough experience. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 5 votes -Sunkist- (talk) 05:26, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 7 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 06:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Victor Veldhoven (GP)Edit

Pro 2 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 1 vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 4 votes 77topaz (talk) 19:07, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 2 votes HORTON11: • 13:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Ucchi Kirishima (QZ/CDP)Edit

Owen Stanton (Wabba The I)Edit

Pro 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 17:34, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes. Nathan of Fleffenstool (talk) 23:55, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Samantha Brown (TimeMaster)Edit

Pro 2 votes Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:46, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 6 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 1 vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 03:25, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 11:19, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 2 votes. HORTON11: • 13:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

AS IT IS NOW THE 1ST OF MARCH, THE SCJ VOTING IS CLOSED. THE NEW SUPREME JUDGES ARE KEVIN MADISON (20 VOTES), ARTHUR ISMAGILOFF (17 VOTES) AND SAMANTHA BROWN (17 VOTES)

Ministry of Justice.

004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite Edit

As a concerned Lovian, I propose to change our Marriage Act in subtle ways to make it more open-minded. Lovians - progressives and conservatives alike - are open-minded people, who care deeply about liberty, but also equality, justice, and harmonious living. I found that the Marriage Act was well-written, but did not account for a few things, and had a few very old-fashioned and liberty-restricting elements.

The rewrite I propose is not a radical overhaul. My own politics are those of radical overhaul, but with this proposal, I just want to bring minor, beneficial change to Lovia. I hope it shows I am serious about politics, and that I care about coalitions, alliances, and goodwill in politics.

The original text can be found in the Federal Law.

Proposed version Marriage Act Edit

Marriage is an understanding between two adult people, referred to as parties, who voluntarily agree to take up certain rights and duties.
1. The spouses have the duty to live in harmony with each other, offering each other respect, affection, consolation, and care and treating each other in fairness.
2. The spouses have the duty to communicate with each other and make informal agreements concerning both the personal and professional including work, the household, sex, parenting, and finances, and to verbally resolve any conflicts. Considering the possibility that the spouses cannot come to an agreement on their own terms, it is the duty of both spouses to counsel for advice from a third party.
3. The spouses have the right to retain their autonomy within their marriage including the right to choose and perform the profession of their liking, the right to keep personal finances, and the right to individually see and meet people.
4. The spouses share the responsibility to take care of their children or others in their custody as well as of their possessions and properties.
  1. Both spouses share the liability to all expenses made for the benefit of the spouses’ child or children, which can be proven to be essential to the well being of the child.
  2. While the spouses have the right to make any informal or formal arrangement as to whom pays what, the law can enforce the shared liability of expenses of the above-described type in the case that conflict arises and the existing arrangement is fundamentally unfair to either or both spouses.
5. Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with vitals.
Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met:
1. Each of the parties is at least 18 years old, or 16 given that the parents or custodians of the less than 18-year-old party fully consent with the marriage;
2. Each of the parties agrees with the marriage on a voluntary basis;
3. None of the parties is already in a standing marriage under Lovian law or under similar law in the country where the marriage was carried out;
4. The parties are not genetically related in the first or second degree ruling out marriages between parents and children, brothers and/or sisters, aunts and/or uncles, and nephews and/or nieces, and cousins.
The solemnization of a marriage is carried out in public before a representative of the law.
1. A representative of the law is the Governor of the State in which the marriage is solemnized, a person appointed by that Governor, or any person who is in public service in the federal or state government.
2. No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met, unless he or she conscientiously objects to the solemnization, in which case he or she shall report his objections to a Deputy Governor or another representative of the law who must then contact the parties to arrange for solemnization to take place under his or her supervision. The government is legally bound to solemnize any marriage that conforms to the demands set forth by the law.
3. The parties sign a marriage contract at the public solemnization agreeing to the conditions laid out by the law. The representative of the law acts as a witness and validates the contract by signing it as well.
A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases:
1. If the marriage is proven to not have been legally solemnized;
2. If one of the spouses obtains a cancellation of the marriage contract;
  1. A spouse can cancel a marriage through a lawsuit if he or she proves that the other spouse has neglected his or her duties as a spouse;
    1. In this case, the neglecting spouse can be sanctioned to provide financial support to the neglected spouse.
    2. In this case, the judge must decide upon an arrangement concerning raising the spouses’ child or children, taking into account the opinions and wishes of both spouses as well as of the children concerned.
      1. Unless one of the spouses is considered an immediate threat to the health and security of a child, every person has the right to have regular contact and communication with his or her child.
      2. Every arrangement decided upon by a judge must take into account the health, security, and happiness of the child and the spouses’ ability to provide for those.
3. If both spouses agree upon the termination of their marriage, effectively cancelling the marriage contract in the presence of a representative of the law.
4. Upon the death of one of the spouses, or both, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.
5. One year after one of the spouses has been reported as missing and has not been found, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.

Proposed changes Edit

In the proposed version, some of the terminology has been changed, either to increase uniformity and clarity, or to reflect a more open-minded spirit. No mention is made of homosexuality, though: our law already allows for same-sex marriage.

The duties and rights of married people change, so that they are no longer obliged to actually live together (it is possible to be married harmoniously and live in separate places) and are no longer legally obliged to be sexually faithful to each other. Instead, extra emphasis is put on the emotional duties of married couples. Also expanded is the section on how to resolve marriage conflicts, including those with children.

The age at which marriage can be solemnized is lowered to 16, given the parents' consent.

The solemnization is simplified. A couple in want of a marriage only needs a representative of the law, more broadly defined now: the governor, someone appointed by him/her, or anyone else representing Lovian government. The "announcement" period is no longer needed.

The law explicitly states that "No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met". At the urging of Ooswesthoesbes, a provision is included to allow for conscientious objection by the representative of the law. A simple but efficient procedure is included to arrange for such cases.

Termination of the marriage contract by a single party, through a lawsuit, is rewritten. Provisions are included on what the judge can decide, financially and in the matter of children. The stress is on making harmonious arrangements and looking after the child's interests. A divorce should not be a war, and the child should never be its victim.

Thank you for your consideration. Punarbhava (talk) 17:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Voting Edit

Pro Edit

Pro 13 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 15:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB)
Pro 2 votes Wabba The I (talk) 17:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 6 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:21, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (a bill written by a progressive, supported mostly by a christian conservative. Seems like Pun has found some good fame in Lovia :D great job!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:21, March 5, 2013 (UTC))
Pro 8 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:56, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes - It's not that I particularly like the law, but it's a lot better than the old one, so I'm voting pro.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:58, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 4 votes 77topaz (talk) 02:37, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 3 votes. Bart K (talk) 08:31, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 7 votes - The first bill of the new government, let's keep on moving! - Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:52, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 5 Votes -Sunkist- (talk) 02:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
Pro 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Contra Edit

Contra 1 vote. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 15:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (RTP)
Contra 2 votes Wabba The I (talk) 17:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Contra 3 votes 30px Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:41, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
...

Abstention Edit

Abstention (4 votes) HORTON11: • 17:56, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Abstention 1 votes. Bart K (talk) 08:31, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
...

This proposal is accepted! With a 51% majority. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 07:47, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Comments Edit

Thank you, Lovians! Punarbhava (talk) 09:50, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

007. Voting RightsEdit

This since we're adding to the Constitution must have at least ~~75%~~ 66% a tall, tall order. But I think we have enough general approval for this no? Within it we secure the right to vote for those 18 or Older, and with approval of governors (extending state's rights and devolution) to 16 in statewide elections. We also protect minorities in their right to vote and the right to exercise that right without interference.

Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.
1. The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote.
  1. Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.
No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.
1. Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
  1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
2. The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order.
3. Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
  1. Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
    1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.