Wikination
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
in: Forum, Congress

Forum:Second Chamber

Revision as of 15:21, 15 September 2012 by Ooswesthoesbes (talk | contribs) (→‎Pro)
View source
Seal of the Second Chamber

Seal of the Second Chamber

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

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.

001. Government

This is the government proposal, known as the Ilava I Government, that will rule for the duration of the 2012 First Congress, unless a dissolution is passed. The proposal includes the Speaker of the Congress and each ministerial position.

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

Contra

  • Contra Contra 1 vote (Ron Nash) I opppose a governemnt with conservatives Pierlot McCrooke 11:07, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 1 vote Joshua Katz, 16:41, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • ...

Abstention

  • ...
  • ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! By a 79% majority! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:09, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

What I learned today: Me + Oos + krosby + Kurnian = half of congress Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:55, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Gotta take advantage of that è :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:25, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I know right :D By the way why is education now education and science again? all of the departments use science to try and improve their ministries. Kunarian 14:30, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

It will support science in the genericity (in het algemeen in dutch) Pierlot McCrooke 14:35, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
I understand but it would be easier just to call it the minitry of education. Kunarian 14:57, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. In Lovia we can use an abbreviation like "MES" (ministry /of/ education /and/ science). Anyway, we need to have a place for science in a ministery and in the Netherlands it's very common to group it with education. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:28, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

@Marcus: Could be useful, except your political views are all totally different. :P --Semyon 16:42, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Pikapi changed it back, because he thought you can't change active proposals. That is true, but in this case you can, because name has little meaning. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:10, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well the point i was making was a good and bad one. A good one beacuse we invest our power in the more advanced and experienced users, who are also more active. Thorugh the two elections i've seen the Younger at the time inactive users only have maybe 7 seats but now have let's say 9 or 10, Movin' on Up!!! Bad cuse we might also invest too much power in too little users. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:01, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

002. Educational Reform Act (Part I)

The 2012 Educational Reform Act - (Part I)
An act requiring the education of Lovia to be reformed and for the Standard Knowledge Assessment to be implemented as the official state-sponsored and subsidized test.

  • The theories of creationism and evolution will only be taught with permission from the parent/legal guardian.
  • The SKA may not include any topics about evolution or creationism.
  • If a school's average grades are below 80 (C-F), the school must offer tutoring every morning and afternoon, unless excused by a reasonable reason from a parent/legal guardian.
  • Students may choose to be absent for religious holidays, including Passover, Easter, Chinese/Lunar New Year, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, etc. They will not be marked absent. Any missing schoolwork will not be required to be turned in, or the due date will be delayed.

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  • Pro Pro - 3 votes - -- Bill An 05:21, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro - For our children's right to propaganda would be great too! Lee Feng 05:21, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

  • Contra Contra 8 Votes - please fix the thing, write it more as a law and make things less vague then propose it to the second chamber again. Kunarian 10:26, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra (4 votes). This law is against reasonable principles. The part about the telling of thew theories is possibly illegal. Children should be not withheld information due to their parents Pierlot McCrooke 11:26, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 14 votes - It's just random school related laws, like why? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:52, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention

  • Abstention Abstention 17 votes --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:02, February 5, 2012 (UTC) still too vague: is this just a standardized test or really an entire school program?
  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes --Wabba The I 11:05, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:23, February 5, 2012 (UTC) not fleshed out enough. edit: Pierlot's point is very good.
  • Abstention Abstention I oppose the teaching of creationism, 'religious holidays' must be better defined, the SKA testing looks inhumane, and I have no idea what it actually is. --Semyon 14:49, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Another, more amusing, flaw just occurred to me. When I was young and less responsible than I am now, I would quite happily have claimed to be a member of every religion on the planet to get days off school. And I'm pretty sure that any student with real dedication could find a religious holiday for every day of the year. :D --Semyon 19:16, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

006. Settlement Act Addition

The addition is as followed (also note: this is how is was done when the smart expereniced users were in charge so yeah it's actually for the better of Lovia)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  • Pro Pro – 14 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:41, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Pro Pro – 6 votes. --Semyon 14:45, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro – 8 Votes - Kunarian 15:35, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro – 17 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:43, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro (4 votes) to approving Sjorkskingma's version. --JT (is not my name) 16:14, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...

Abstention

  • Abstention Abstention 11 votes - not as an addition to the settlement act. Only a recognition of existing localities. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:57, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 17 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:06, February 11, 2012 (UTC) I fully agree with TM, we need a recognition of Plains, not an addition to the law.
  • Abstention Abstention (5 votes) If we want Plains to become official, we recognize it in the vote below. We don't need an unnecessary addition to the settlement act. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 17:32, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Fine, would you two be open to making a National Congressperson Order but just for Cities and Hamlets and such? It would just keep things clarified, which is all I want. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:23, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

007. Recognition of Plains

I find it ridiculous that we have something important that we all agree on, the recognition of Plains as a hamlet, but a really small point causes deadlock. (Deja vu anyone?) So, let's at least pass this, and argue over the rest later on:

Congress recognizes Plains as a hamlet located in the north of Asian Island

--Semyon 17:17, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

Accepted This proposal is accepted! with a 51% majority, in just over three hours. Not bad. :) --Semyon 21:49, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

Abstention

  • Abstention Abstention (14 Votes) Read perivous vote comment above ^^^^ i think we can find a comprimise there. --Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:31, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but I think it's unnecessary.
  • No just willy-nilly approving new settlements and not even putting it in a law book in unnecessary. a NSO i needed and will be approved. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:13, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • If it's needed, then how come we've done fine without it before? We can just recognize the existing municipalities and localities, like before, periodically. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:15, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • IDk i find it quite uncivilized =P, idk why there should be oppiosition to this, it just helps people, at the most it dosen't do harm just good. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:18, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably because it's like the Congressional Journal, which in theory is helpful but turned out to be not that helpful. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Marcus, why don't you at least vote pro for this, so we can make Plains official? Then we can consider your plan afterwards. :) --Semyon 19:07, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying no to this, Like first we adopt the outline and then fill it in with plains and other settlements. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:32, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need for an outline (we have the settlement act and lists in several places, NO NEED), and what's wrong with first approving plains, and then adopting the outline? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:34, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Uhhh Wait so can we then approve the NSO after this? Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:38, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Depends if it gets the required support. But possibly. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:44, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I support Plains, but the NSO also needs to pass too. I would also like to propose a settlement after the NSO passes, I think it promotes new settlements and boosts the lovian population. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:48, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

008. Eleventh Amendment - Judicial Reform

Article 9

Article 9 – Supreme Court Trials

  1. The Supreme Court is an independent institution and the nation's only and supreme judicial organ, led by three Supreme Court Judges.
  2. A lawsuit is a civil or public action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy, from the defendant who is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint.
  3. A lawsuit can be opened by a plaintiff or a public plaintiff.
    1. Any person in Lovia may be a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
    2. A public plaintiff is a representative of the federal government or any institution of it or any other level of administration in Lovia.
      1. The federal attorney is the public plaintiff representing the federal government, the entire population or any other administrative institution of the federal level in court. He or she is appointed by the Minister of Justice.
  4. A defendant is the party accused by the plaintiff.
    1. A public defendant has the same status as a public plaintiff.
  5. The Judges, plaintiff and defendent must all be different people. If one of Judges are involved in the case, he/she must resign and a replacement be nominated.
  6. Both parties may opt to be represented in court by a lawyer.
  7. Every lawsuit before the Supreme Court must proceed in this manner and order:
    1. The plaintiff opens the lawsuit.
      1. The plaintiff makes an accusation and names the defendant in the lawsuit.
      2. The plaintiff may make a demand. This can be a period of imprisonment, a fine or/and any other punishment not contradicting the laws of Lovia.
    2. The Supreme Court Judges must investigate the accusation. They may find the accusation not suited for Supreme Court; that is when the accusations made are in no way a violation of the law.
    3. The Supreme Court must notify the defendant that he or she is accused in court.
    4. The Supreme Court Judges must read out the case, including accusations and demands.
    5. The plaintiff's party must speak before court in order to convince the Supreme Court Judges of the truthfulness of the made claims. He or she may bring forward witnesses, that can be asked questions directly relating to the accusations, and/or evidence material. He or she may ask the defendant's party questions directly relating to the accusations.
    6. The defendant's party may speak before court. The defendant or his or her lawyer may plea guilty to the accusations, or unguilty. He or she may also try to convince the Supreme Court Judges of extenuating circumstances. The defendant is free to bring forward witnesses and evidence, both directly relating to the accusations or to the extenuating circumstances.
    7. The Supreme Court Judges must consider both pleas thorougly and by interpreting the laws of Lovia.
    8. The plaintiff's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account.
    9. The defendant's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account, but only if the plaintiff's party has made use of their second round.
    10. The Supreme Court Judges must consider the entirity of the lawsuit. The Judges must, within two week's time since the last plea, come to a conclusion. They may conclude:
      1. That the defendant is guilty of the accusations, or of a part of the accusations;
      2. That the defendant is not guilty of any accusations.
    11. All Judges must agree on the conclusion, except in the following circumstances:
      1. One of the Judges does not make an edit for a full week. In this situation, the agreement of the two remaining Judges will suffice.
      2. The Judges disagree completely over the verdict to give. In this case, the Judges must announce their inability to judge the case and stand down. Three new Judges must be appointed and continue with the case.
    12. If the Supreme Court Judges find the defendant guilty, he or she may choose to sentence the defendant, by means of:
      1. A period of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary;
      2. A fine;
      3. Any other sentence, including penal labor or contributions to Lovian society.
    13. All sentences issued by the Supreme Court:
      1. Must be in agreement with the laws of Lovia;
      2. Must be in proportion to the violation;
      3. Must respect the personal integrity of the individual; therefore death penalty, corporal punishment and inhumane forms of humiliation are prohibited.
  8. The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.
  9. Potential candidates for the position of Supreme Court Judges must give their names to the Minister for Justice, who will officially announce the candidacies in Congress.
    1. The three candidates that receive the most votes, after a voting period of two weeks, will become Judges.
    2. Not more than one candidate may stand from each political party.
    3. The term of each Supreme Court Judge does not necessarily coincide with the Congressional term, nor with the duration of a federal government. The Supreme Court Judge must maintain his or her duty until another is appointed and confirmed; only then is his or her service terminated. lasts for six months, or shorter, if he/she resigns due to personal reasons or a conflict of interests, or if the Judges declare their inability to judge the case.
      1. At the end of his/her term, the Judge must stand down and another must be elected.
      2. Judges must not remain in office for two consecutive terms, except in exceptional circumstances, such as if there are no other candidates.
    4. If one of the Supreme Court Judge resigns from his or her duty, the Department of Justice is bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time. It is the Supreme Court Judges' duty to continue their service until another Judge is confirmed, and until all ongoing cases are terminated, or prepared to be passed on to his successor, without causing disturbances.
    5. Congress has the unique power to discharge a Supreme Court Judge forthwith, by a special majority. The Department of Justice is then bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time.

I think we have enough support for this bill to pass, and it has been open for discussion for long enough. --Semyon 12:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Another 15 votes needed. --Semyon 19:43, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  • Pro Pro 6 votes --Semyon 12:11, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes -- Wabba The I 12:26, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Although, the exceptional circumstance thing is a bit undemocratic.
  • Pro Pro 13 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 14 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:19, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes --JT (is not my name) 13:28, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes - Kunarian 22:36, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 votes HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:32, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

  • Contra Contra 1 Vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (nothing against you, I still don't like judges and strong courts at a federal level) (Progressive Conservative Party)
  • Contra Contra 2 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:20, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (PNO)
  • ...

Abstention

Accepted This proposal is accepted!, which is good. --Semyon 18:04, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

009. The Other Parts of the Judicial Reform (take 3)

Article 1

Article 1 A - Lovian National State

  1. Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
  2. Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Lovian people and shall be guaranteed.
  3. Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.
  4. In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
  5. The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
  6. No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.

  1. The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
    1. The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
  2. The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogeniture. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins.
    1. All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.
  3. The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. They are a member of the royal family, but they do not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
  4. The person first in line to the throne is known as the heir apparent, and becomes monarch after the previous monarch has abdicated or deceased.
    1. The heir apparent to the throne will sign the Constitution upon their coronation.
    2. The heir apparent assumes the throne after they have presented themself to Congress on invitation of a normal majority in Congress. After this, the heir is officially declared Monarch of Lovia.
  5. The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finance, in which case the Minister of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
    1. The maximum amount of financial support that can be given is 4000 Lovian dollars per month.
  6. With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.
  7. The ruling monarch's functions in the government are ceremonial.
    1. The ruling monarch should preside over Congress, in partnership with the Speaker of the Congress.
    2. The ruling monarch does not have a vote in Congress, but is free to discuss and make opinions on the laws and activities of Congress.

Changes: Added two lines at the bottom.

Article 4

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

  1. The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
    1. The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
      1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the ministers of the federal government, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
        1. The Prime Minister and other ministers are Members of the Congress; however, the heads of government institutions and civil services do not need to be Members of the Congress.
      2. All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are either democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia or who are Member by Right (the ruling monarch). Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
      3. All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
    2. The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania.
      1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
      2. The local level, consisting of cities and towns, and the sublocal level, consisting of neighborhoods and hamlets, are governed by the state authorities.

Changes: Added a fourth level line that says the PM and ministers are MOTCs.

Article 8

Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government

  1. Federal Elections:
    1. Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
    2. The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
    3. Election procedure during Federal Elections:
      1. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
      2. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
        1. Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
        2. Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
        3. Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
        4. All citizens must receive at least three points to receive any seats in Congress.
      3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
      4. All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
        1. The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
          1. The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
    4. New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
  2. The Prime Minister and Ministers of the Federal Government:
    1. A coalition of political parties and/or Members of the Congress that control more than 50% of the seats of Congress should form between the end of elections and Inauguration Day.
    2. The coalition should create a proposal of which Members of the Congress should become the Prime Minister and the ministers of the federal government. This proposal must be approved by a normal majority in Congress.
      1. If no government proposal is approved, then the former government should continue its duties until a government proposal is approved by Congress.
    3. A Member of the Congress should be elected by a normal majority of Congress to become the Speaker of the Congress, who presides over Congress in conjunction with the ruling monarch.
      1. The Speaker of the Congress has the power to appoint a special session of congress in the case that more than half of congressional members are inactive and elections are not being held.
    4. Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
    5. When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
    6. If the Prime Minister or a minister resigns, a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
    7. The Prime Minister may schedule new federal elections at any time. If he or she decides to do so, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
  3. State Elections:
    1. Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
      1. It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
    2. The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
    3. Election procedure during State Elections:
      1. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
      2. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
        1. Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
        2. Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
      3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
      4. The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
        1. In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
        2. The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
      5. The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
        1. The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
        2. Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.

Changes: Added and revised some stuff about the part titled "The Prime Minister and Ministers of the Federal Government", and reinstated a 3-vote legal requirement, to make sure that inactive people won't get elected.

This is the old non-judicial amendment that didn't get passed due to inactivity--you can read what it does. I've also changed federal secretaries to ministers of the federal government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

Contra

  • Contra Contra 4 votes - Confederate members of the CNP voting - Kunarian 22:40, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 4 votes --JT (is not my name) 23:52, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

  • Abstention Abstention 3 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:03, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (Me, PCP, LCP) (I'm now seeing the benefit of abstain, it means not bad, but needs more or isn't 100%, i think this law dose something but really not much. I still like departments over ministries.)
  • Abstention Abstention (4 votes) No ministries. In case I support it I will repropose it with the term department Pierlot McCrooke 16:11, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
    I don't support this. ^points s better. With this inactive people will be elecgted even faster Pierlot McCrooke 16:12, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
    Pierlot you also need to put how many of your congressmen you want to vote Abstain for this, right now it's only 1 vote abstain for you Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:13, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
    Formerly, it was zero. There was no legal requirement, as it was deleted in the 2011 State Reform. I'm adding it back. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:33, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Can we get this over with and approve it already?? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted!, which is good. (mocking Semyon :P) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:32, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

:O --Semyon 18:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

008. Settlement Recognition Act

  1. To organize all existing settlements, as defined in the Settlement Act, the National Settlement Order (NSO) is created.
  2. The duties of the National Settlement Order are:
    1. To list all existing settlements in Lovia.
      1. This includes all settlements, such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets.
      2. Recognized neighborhoods will be listed together with their respective settlement.
    2. To list the population and state of each settlement.
  3. All settlements recognized by Congress should be written in the Order.
    1. To recognize a settlement, the settlement must be approved by a normal majority in Congress.

In addition it will be added to the Public Law book when it passes.

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

Contra

  • Contra Contra 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC) I think this is quite pointless. We already have lists, such as the main page, or hamlet, village, town, etc. I believe this would just have the same fate as the Congressional Journal: unnecessary complexity. You can just look in other places. Simplify, simplify.
    • Not really, the pages we list the hamlets and stuff aren't officical, which i could just add anything. By you saying this would get out of hand, leads me & should everyone else, to believe your not in favor of the NCO, which is just a different version of this. Think about it. It's quite simple and helps everyone. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:46, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course, you couldn't just add anything to the NSO either, right? Your argument is invalid, the NSO could get changed the same way the front page could be. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:29, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
      • No it says it needs a 51% to change, so yeah proper parlimentary procedure. But just for the record we don't need to re-approve the places like NC or HU they're already approved. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
        • Right, we have already approved them in recognitions of the existing localities. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:53, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 5 votes - I have to agree with Time on this one — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 16:39, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Accepted This proposal is accepted! Over a 50% majority!!! I will now add it to the Public law book. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:46, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

You're not speaker. --JT (is not my name) 16:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter (unstroke). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:04, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Then I will make a act that abolishes the speaker Pierlot McCrooke 17:27, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't help Lovia. It's roleplay. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:36, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

012. Lovian National Sevens Team Recognition

By a simple 50% majority we shall now recognize the LNST with this amendment to the Sports Act:

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  • Pro Pro 14 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:49, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 17 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:50, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 votes - Wabba The I 18:18, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 votes. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 18:32, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 6 votes. --Semyon 19:30, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:11, February 21, 2012 (UTC) though, perhaps it should be at the bottom, not the middle, like the involvement act.
  • Pro Pro 8 votes - Kunarian 00:19, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

Abstain

Accepted This proposal is accepted! with a 53% majority. :) --Semyon 19:31, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

013. Lovian National Soccer Team (Lovian National Football Team)

I would like congress to finally allow this team to become official. We can decide on the name later, if not we'll just be trying to haggle out a name and nothing will be achieved (it's been over a year trying to get the team recognized). HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:47, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we use association football, btw. It's neutral, and more formal (both soccer and football are short forms of it). Also, Horton, why don't you vote yourself? :) --Semyon 19:52, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
On wikipedia most teams are styled "national football team", except for the US (where it's soccer). Football sounds better to me, but we can decide on the name later. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 20:06, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
Good point. --Semyon 20:09, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  • Pro Pro --Semyon 19:52, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 votes HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 20:04, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 Votes, though, how will this be implemented if we haven't decided a name? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:10, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'll just add the page to the main namespace as "Football Team", and then we can have a discussionin the oub to work out a definite name. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:36, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

Abstain

  • Abstention Abstention 17 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:25, February 29, 2012 (UTC) we can't, unless we have decided that it will be "(Association) Football"
I plan on using "football team" (see the above discussion with Semyon). Calling it a "National Associaltion Footbal Team" it too long and it just doesn't sound right. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:36, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
I don't recommend it. Many of us are actual football fans, and personally, I can't stand when soccer is referred to as football. What if someone later on, someone wanted to establish a football organization? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 15:31, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
Because logic dictates that calling American football "football" is stupid. The ball is not even a sphere, and it's mostly a hand game. A game that's all about feet is much more deserving of the name "football", as it was originally called. Anyone up for handegg? SmileD —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:41, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
I'm swayed by Horton's logic that every national football team on Wikipedia is known as 'national football team' apart from the American one, where 'football' means something else. Now, as American rules is not played in Lovia at all, there seems little point in using the American version. --Semyon 17:30, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, so real football is called "football" and American football "handegg"? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:38, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
In Lovia? That's what I'm recommending. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:59, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
American Football isn't really played here, so it would be ok to refer to it as a "football team". HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:28, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of football, the US national team beat Italy for the first time yesterday, 1-0. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:52, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted!, with a 55%+ majority. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:06, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

016. Weights and Measures Act

  1. The primary and official system of measurement used in Lovia is the International System of Units, which may be referred to as the metric system.
    1. All information provided by the government shall, where relevant, use SI units.
      1. Where convenient, SI units may be prefixed with the appropriate SI prefix.
      2. The sole exception is that degrees Celsius shall be used for the measurement of temperature, rather than degrees Kelvin.
    2. The secondary system is the imperial system as used in the United States of America.
      1. Information provided by the government should, if possible, provide the imperial equivalent of any SI units used.
    3. Any purveyor of goods bears responsibility for providing information in the metric system associated with the goods being traded.
      1. The level of precision of measurement shall be left to the discretion of the purveyor, as long as it is not so precise as to hinder the purchaser, nor so imprecise as to deceive.
      2. Where possible and legible, the imperial equivalent of the metric units should also be provided on the goods being traded.
  2. Mathematical punctuation:
    1. The period is used as a decimal mark to indicate the radix point.
    2. The comma may optionally be used to separate digits into groups of three.

This sets up the weights and measurement system used in Lovia. It will be in the... hmm... I suppose Public Law Book. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:12, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

Contra

  • Contra Contra 2 votes; Lovia should use the imperial system for better accomodation with the US. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 20:11, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 2 votes (same reason as horton stated) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:06, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • But this accommodates for both, and slightly more citizens prefer the metric system. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:09, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Accepted This proposal is accepted! By a 59% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

017. Election of Supreme Court Judges

I hereby open the election for Supreme Court Judges. Each of the 100 congressman or congresswoman has one vote, which should be cast for their preferred candidate, using the Pro Pro template (in case it wasn't clear :P). The election will close at 0300 hours Lovian time on the 5th of May, when the three candidates with the most votes will become judges. Good luck everyone! :) --Semyon 11:03, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Lars Washington (User:TimeMaster)

Rico Wasabi (User:The Master's Voice)

George Matthews (User:Wabba the I)

  • ...

Antonia Tilly (User:Horton11)

John Paul Hrádske (User:Ooswesthoesbes)

Comments

First past the post is a very bad voting system. Could we try single transferable vote for each of our congresspersons? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:29, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence. However, I think that in practice if someone's preferred candidate is losing they will transfer their votes to their second-preferred candidate instead. That will have the same effect as STV, but without the confusion of having 100 separate voting preferences. --Semyon 14:02, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I meant make separate preferential ballots of blocs of congresspersons, not a separate for each one. For example, my bloc of 11 would have 3 separate ballots, 8 sharing one ballot, 2 another, and 1 having their own. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:29, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
Seems like an awful lot of work to me. :P --Semyon 16:28, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not George Matthews! I support him but I don't vote on him! Wabba The I 16:22, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not Matthews, but I thought you wanted to use him as your character to become judge. :) --Semyon 14:39, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, how do we know when to stop? When 100% of MOTCs has voted (that's not going to happen)? 67%? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:32, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. There's a time limit. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:33, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

What now? The thee candidates? I though we had agreed on FOUR Supreme Court Judges? Smile The glorious First Consul of Rome 15:47, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think that was the original proposal, not the one that eventually was accepted. That one also suggested random selection rather than voting. --Semyon 16:22, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm pretty sure it was four in this case awell. Four, because for one, it is an even number. The glorious First Consul of Rome 16:34, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
It definitely says three in the law, as well as in the proposal in the Second Chamber. In any case, you're doing rather well. :P --Semyon 16:41, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

That was the old proposal that was not approved, Magnus. 4 randomly selected jury members plus one judge. A different proposal was accepted. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:53, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I hereby announce the election of three new Judges: Lars Washington, Rico Wasabi and John Paul Hrádske. Congratulations! :) --Semyon 10:12, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

:) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:19, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

018. Census

As it's not included in the law I don't see any reason to postpone this anymore. I propose to increase the population to about 220.000 by retaking a census old-style and multiplying by 10. Any future discussion about how to control population growth in the future can be held separately. If this vote is accepted, I can immediately start fixing everything.

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  • Pro Pro 17 Votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:33, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 Votes Kunarian 10:03, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 votes Wabba The I 10:45, May 26, 2012 (UTC) when Kunarian edit all town pages!
  • ...

Contra

  • Contra Contra 11 votes - I would like to see a new style that isn't based on residences. We should individually decide what population each hamlet, village, and neighborhood should have, add those up for each town and city, and then combine the cities and add some rural population to get the state. Then add the states to get the nation. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:42, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
    You're right. Shall I simply make a proposal of f.e. Oceana in population incl. rural districts? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:48, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
    I've made a proposal for Oceana. It would be very welcome if the other governors could also bring up figures for their states, so we can combine the data and form our first census with rural districts. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:49, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
    Done it. --Semyon 18:45, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry, I didn't see this. I'll do it by tomorrow. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:25, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • ...

Abstain

019. Membership of the IWO

Members of the Congress, please vote to authorise the signing of the Declaration for the Establishment of the International Wiki Organisation (in a side page). I apologise in advance for the awful wikicode and Limburgish. --Semyon 13:57, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

The Limburgish is now sorted; feel free, but not obliged, to fix the wikicode, anyone. :P --Semyon 14:03, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

Contra

Abstain

  • ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! by a 53% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I will bring this to the Mäöreser Landjszaal as well. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:10, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Please do. :D --Semyon 17:56, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
Just to remind you: the Mäöreser law system is efficient, but slow :P I hope to get the results within a week :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:42, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Mäöres has voted pro with 4 pro and 2 not yet voted :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:02, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

020. Abortion Regulation Act

(Social Law Book, Federal Law)

  1. Abortus Provocatus (referred to hereafter as abortion), defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
    1. Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Ministry of Health.
    2. Permission has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
    3. Executed no sooner than two weeks after the first consultation.
    4. Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy, except in circumstances considered in section 2.
    5. One or more of the following:
      1. The mother has been impregnated against her will.
      2. The risk to the physical health of the mother is considered to be one hundred times greater than the average risk of childbirth.
      3. The fetus is considered to be inviable before the twenty-fifth week of the pregnancy.
    6. In every case, the mother has to give her approval to carry out the abortion.
  2. Abortion after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
    1. Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Ministry of Health.
    2. Permission has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
    3. Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
    4. One or more of the following:
      1. The risk to the physical health of the mother is considered to be one hundred times greater than the usual risk of childbirth.
      2. The fetus is considered to be inviable before the twenty-fifth week of the pregnancy.
    5. In every case, the mother has to give her approval to carry out the abortion.
  3. Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
    1. To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
    2. To remind the parent of several other possibilities for undesired children.
      1. Any alternatives to abortion must be legal and comply with the Adoption and Orphanage Act.
    3. To ensure themselves of the patient's desire to carry out the abortion.
  4. If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences may follow:
    1. The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
    2. The executing physician will be liable to prosecution for murder and held responsible for the costs of the operation.
    3. The mother will be fined $10,000.

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

Contra

  • Contra Contra 13 votes - Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:09, July 16, 2012 (UTC) (GPL,Labour,ARP,Walden) - Strike the clause 3.3 and make 3.2 more understandable
  • Contra Contra 2 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:21, July 24, 2012 (UTC) (LAP)

Abstain

  • Abstention Abstention 2 votes Until there is more clarification in 3.2 (or expansion). HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 1 vote (PCP) Thomas Bale comment: "As a liberal conservative I understand women's rights, but needs clarification" Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:13, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • ...

Comments

We should put more detail into the law and perhaps explain what options may be considered "legal alternatives" to abortion. Cause under this a doctor could perfectly get her to sell her baby on the black market. Something sad, but it does happen and we should strive to minimize the number of loopholes in our law.HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:46, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Not the first thing i thought of, but i mostly voted contra because of the vaugeness...hopefully more clear language will get people to vote contra .Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:31, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we would have to create a separate law about adoption and orphanage. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:28, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

It is vague, so we need to specify which alternatives are legal and what the punishment is for engaging in illegal alternatives. We should also start an awareness campaign on good alternatives, cuase in the end having lots of abortions isn't good. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:29, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
As I said above: these alternatives should not be placed in an abortion law. If this law is accepted, we can start working on an Adoption and Orphanage Act. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:58, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
See now honestly I'm seeing this is now partisanly driven and not trying to further this law. I just think then this furthers the right for a women to choose and then i think women are smart enough to know what they do with ther bodies. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:49, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's about time we're getting laws passed, but it seems nobody's willing to cooperate. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:17, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
We should create an Adoption/orphanage act (we should also include foster care) and pass it along with the abortion act. Right now my only issue is with sec. 3.2: To remind the parent of several other possibilities for undesired children. We should either list the possibilities in subsections to 3.2 or or have a single subsection saying "Any alternatives to abortion must be legal and comply with section x.x of the Adoption and Orphanage act. I will not vote contra because it is overall good but it should be sent back to the 1st chamber to fix this. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:38, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
That's not necessary. We could fix it right now if you want to. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:46, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Sure. If we can fix it here it would be great. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:47, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the new clauses had an "Or" added, while older classes didn't get an "Or". I think that should be fixed. Although, personally, I would prefer to not have those "Or"s, and instead simply have an "any of the following" in the earlier clauses. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:19, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

021. 2012 Federal Police Reform

Preface

The present situation:

  • The Federal Police has an unnecessary number of sub-divisions.
  • These sub-divisions are not divided in any feasible way, and their descriptions are very broad.
  • Some sub-divisions are improperly classified as "units", while others are considered branches and others aren't labeled at all.
  • Individual traffic units have been localized to serve in individual states, and operate much like local police without much cooperation between other local units, which can be troublesome.
  • There are supposedly local bureaus for individual states, yet they aren't documented anywhere on the site.
  • It is unknown how these local bureaus would relate to the sub-divisions.
  • There is no clearly-defined rank structure.
  • There is no clearly-defined structure in general.

Reform plan

These items are being proposed:

  • The Federal Police will become known as the Lovian Federal Police to make it more distinct and to make documentation easier.
  • The current, "local bureaus" will be re-organized as precincts. They will eliminate the need for individual local police agencies. They will be:
    • Clymene Federal Police Precinct (CFPP)
    • Kings Federal Police Precinct (SKFPP)
    • North Sylvania Federal Police Precinct (NSFPP)
    • Noble City Bay Area Federal Police Precinct (NCBAFPP or NCFPP)
    • Oceana Federal Police Precinct (OFPP)
    • Seven Federal Police Precinct (SFPP)
  • Sub-divisions will be completely overhauled and re-structured as individual bureaus. They will be:
    • Lovian Federal Security Bureau
      • The primary and most visible of the bureaus, its purpose is typically just to patrol the precinct and to respond to local threats.
    • Lovian Federal Investigations Bureau
      • Its purpose is to provide a less direct response to crime in cases where some detective work is called for.
    • Lovian Federal Traffic Security Bureau
      • Its domain is the highways of Lovia, where its handles everything from enforcing the rules of the engaging in high-speed pursuits.
    • Lovian Federal Coastal Security Bureau
      • On an island nation such as Lovia, security is just as important out at sea as it is on land. Its job is to prevent illegal activity in the space between the states.
      • The Coastal Police will become one with this bureau.
    • Lovian Federal Counter-terrorism Bureau
      • The name is pretty self-explanatory here. Its job is to counter large-scale movements of organized crime.
    • Lovian Royal Guard
      • A small unit dedicated to protecting the royal family and providing them with their own security. It has been known to extend its protection towards the Prime Minister and congresspeople also. The Royal Guard is a special case because it lead by a specially-appointed Colonel and is stationed in the Noble City Bay Area Federal Police Precinct.
      • The Royal Guard sub-division already exists, so this will be the only aspect of the Federal Police that won't need to be altered much.
  • Each precinct will contain roughly a platoon of members from each bureau (except for the Royal Guard bureau in all precincts other than the NCBAFPP).
  • The Specialized Forces unit will be dissolved entirely but thats okay because they never did anything anyway.
  • The rank structure that will be used can be found here.
    • Anyone above the student rank of Cadet classifies as an officer.
      • Those who hold the title of Corporal or Corporal First Class are commonly referred to as "Officers" if they serve in any bureau other than Federal Investigations. The proper Federal Investigations equivalent is "Detective" or "Investigator".
  • Those who hold the title of Cadet are not allowed to serve until they become full officers.
  • Corporals are standard infantry, and typically serve as unit members unified under a higher-ranking team leader.
    • As long as there is no higher-ranking officer available, Corporal First Classes are put in charge of lesser ranking officers in their unit.
  • Lieutenants typically lead a fireteam or squad composed of lesser-ranking officers.
  • Commanders typically lead a squad composed of lesser-ranking officers.
  • Each precinct will be lead by a Colonel.
    • Colonels can command anything up-to a platoon of lesser-ranking officers at once.
  • Each Bureau will be lead by a Chief.
    • A Deputy Chief will serve as an advisor to their bureau's Chief.
  • The Chief of the Federal Police is the ultimate leader of the Federal Police.
    • The Chief of the Federal Police does not have a deputy. All of the individual bureaus' Chiefs will form a council and serve as advisors to the Chief of the Federal Police.

Terms

  • Rosana de Oliveira-Torres will retain her position as Chief of the Federal Police.
  • Christopher Costello, who is currently in command of the Coastal Police, will inherit the position of Chief of the Federal Coastal Security Bureau.
  • Lars Washington, who is currently in command of the FP's investigations unit, will inherit the position of Chief of the Federal Investigations Bureau.
  • The "Bureau Chiefs" from the current system will become Colonels of their respective precincts.
  • We will need a list of candidates for Chiefs to lead the unclaimed bureaus and Colonels to lead the unclaimed precincts.
  • Pikapi and anyone who is willing to help gets to overhaul and update the Federal Police article with this new information.
  • Each individual precinct and bureau will get an article of its own.
  • DimiTalen might need to create us some logos and seals.

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

  1. Pro Pro 5 votes — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 16:51, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro 11 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:56, August 21, 2012 (UTC) (CCPL)
  3. Pro Pro 11 votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro 6 votes - though I'm not sure it needs to be voted through. --Semyon 10:16, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
it doesn't need to and on top of it, all of the stuff within it can only be done through the commissioner who is appointed by the Ministry of Defense not Congress. Besides Costello's Reform is being put through. Kunarian (talk) 13:04, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
  1. Pro Pro 4 votes ---It's all here, black and white, clear as crystal. 21:39, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

  1. Contra Contra 6 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:57, August 21, 2012 (UTC) (LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP)
  2. Contra Contra 8 Votes - this is a matter for the police commissioner also, the main problem with this is that you claim there are far too many subdivisions yet create a system which does not minimize them. I would also prefer if my position wasn't undermined through this act and that things were left to the ministries like they are supposed to be. Kunarian (talk) 03:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
I never felt that there were to many divisions, just that they weren't organized well. Also, you had nearly a week to get back to me with your opinion like you said you would. I also didn't realize that the Federal Police fell under the juridistiction of the Minister Defense, however, I am not undermining you by suggesting this, you had no such plan to reform the force in the first place. If you want to work together in the future, I would be happy to collaborate with you. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 03:25, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the amount of ranks is unnecessary, but otherwise I like the reform. And perhaps we can just consider this a referendum on support for the reform from Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:42, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
Mmmm, that we shall do, besides, it would seem that active reform and support are both present. Kunarian (talk) 14:11, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstention Abstention I don't really understand why this is needed, and it should be in First Chamber first. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:11, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  1. I already had this in the First Chamber for a while but for some reason I got very little feedback, and I can see many reasons why these changes are necessary. As it is now, the force is organized in a sloppy and unrealistic manner. This reform will really give the police force the organization it deserves. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 20:41, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
    Fair enough. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Abstention Abstention Agree with TM and this would require a change in law; the text you wrote, isn't approvable of being used in the law. -- OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:21, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
  1. I don't think that would be necessary. As it is, the Federal Police law is very vague and doesn't have any legal documentation on the way the force is organized and/or structured. Clearly, this change can be made within the force and doesn't necessarily require any added legal documentation. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 20:41, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
    You're right. I forgot the Local Police Law was repealed. Still, I don't believe it needs to be voted here. The Federal Police Commissioner has full right to do these changes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:49, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
    Well yes, but our commissioner was Granero and he appears to be on an indefinite leave. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 20:52, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
    Then the Minister of Denfence should appoint a new commissioner. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:54, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
    I don't follow. Even the Minister of Defense would have had to pass such a reform through congress if he was the one to propose it. I feel that the Minister of Defense has just as much of a right to propose a reform as I have, only I thought this up, and I would like to see these changes put into place. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 03:30, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
    By law only the Minister of Defense can appoint the Commissioner, not Congress, and therefore by law only the Commissioner can proceed to fulfil said reforms. Law is law, and these changes shall be put in place sooner rather than later. After all Congress is awfully slow atm. Kunarian (talk) 03:35, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
    Its good to have your support then. Now that its been proposed, should we at least wait until it is passed by congress? When would you like to see these changes implemented? — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 15:58, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
    Well simpler things like rank have already been started to be put in, and along with that a new factor of pay has too. Could you implement the precincts, as in get their pages written, the idea seems to be well developed there in your head. I think things shouldn't be delayed while we have momentum. By the way it's Dimitri that's officially working with Costello to bring in the reforms. Hoffmanns off writing tax stuffs. Kunarian (talk) 16:29, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

022. Census Act

  1. The census is defined as a yearly survey of every household in the Kingdom of Lovia.
    1. Censuses are carried out by a Demographic Center in each state, under the supervision of the Governor.
      1. Congress must send federal inspectors to each Demographic Center to ensure that data collection is being done correctly and to a high standard, and maintaining high statistical reliability.
      2. If there is concern about the census, Congress may choose by a simple majority to order any of all of the Centers to repeat the census.
      3. In extreme cases, Congress may nominate another individual to take over the supervisory role of the Governor.
    2. The data collected must include the following:
      1. Total population by district, neighborhood, hamlet, village, town and city.
      2. Population by ethnic background.
      3. Population by mother language.
      4. Population by religion.
    3. Individual Centers may also choose to collect some or all of the following data:
      1. Population by size of household.
      2. Population by age.
      3. Population by marital status.
      4. Population by country of birth.
      5. Data concerning the possessions of the population, e.g. car or house ownership.
      6. Population by sector of employment.
      7. Percentage of population unemployed or in education.
      8. Population by status of dwelling e.g. rent, full ownership, ownership with mortgage etc.
    4. The census should be carried out in the June of every year.
      1. In the case that the census is delayed in any state for more than a month without prior notice being given by the Governor or Congress, any citizen may take over the supervisory role of the Governor, or request Congress to nominate an individual for this role.
      2. Censuses may also be carried out at other times at the request of Congress, or if a Governor wishes to gather more up-to-date information on their individual state.

Anyone there? :P --Semyon 12:33, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Pro

  • Pro Pro (6 votes) --Semyon 16:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 17 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 11 votes. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes Kunarian (talk) 15:09, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

Abstain

  • Abstention Abstention 11 Votes - I just don't like how things like religion and mother language are required but age is not. I'm afraid I can't vote for this right now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:21, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 5 votes - Yes, age does seem like an odd thing not to require for statistical reasons. Its like the only goal of the census is to track the populous by heritage and that kind of thing. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 00:43, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    It's purely a reason of ease. Making a realistic age table is a job that requires studying and a lot of effort. Effort most governors are probably not going to do anyway. We don't want shitty statistics because it's mandatory to have them. It's better to not have in that case. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 03:19, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    Then why are mother language, ethnicity, and religion required? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:08, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    No-one has shown any interest in collecting any of the optional data, though. --Semyon 12:00, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    Again, then why collect mother language, ethnicity, and religion? From a realistic stance, I don't find those to be more important than say, age, or gender. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:02, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    I think it's very much a personal matter on what you think is most important however I would say that age is something that we should definitely include as mandatory, as it ties in so much with education, employment, pensions and so many other things that are hugely important to both the culture and governance of Lovia, but I believe we need this passed so I support it in this form but for ease of it being passed as well as ease for the future I suggest we include age. Kunarian (talk) 22:23, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not offended that race and religion are required, I just think that age is a pretty major factor and that the government should put some effort into tracking it on a national scale. I feel the same way about a few of the other fields too, but I don't necessarily feel much need to push for that. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 01:38, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
    Keep in mind: if we create age diagrams, we will hardly be able to do population boost in the future. Also: take Amish Kinley: it's mainly younger people living there. I'm concerned that these particularities will not be represented in age figures if we create them too hastily. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:26, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
    Anyway, we first need historical populations before we can go on with age figures. So: if somebody has a few months spare time: I'd say go ahead :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:27, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
    Historical populations (histpops? :P) are going to be a real faff to do. --Semyon 11:30, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed, from 1870 to 2010 we grew about 200,000 inhabitants, which means originally it went fast (lots of immigrations), then slow, followed by decrease (famines of the 50's), in Oceana closures of the mines (60's-70's) and migration to other nations such as Mäöres (80's) and then a sudden boom by immigration and natural birth up until now. Good luck :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:34, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

023. Second Amendment - Speech Reform

I can't believe that this wasn't present earlier, but after shifting through our Constitution, I noticed an unethical and rather embarrassing lack of "the right to freedom of speech". The small but necessary change that I am proposing is as follows:

Article 2, Section 1.1 - Of freedom of thought, speech, meaning and religion.

If you don't approve of this reform, that would suggest that you are also opposed to freedom of speech, one of the most basic civil liberties. — Beer Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 21:11, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro

=Abstain

  • Abstention Abstention 17 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:21, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Not just a little error. This change has a huge impact on the current policies of the wiki.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement