National Archives/Chambers/10 Ten

041. Building stop towers

I remember in Libertas we once had the so called "torenbouwstop". All multi-storey buildings (=apartments/skyscrapers) were empty and yet we kept on building them. In Lovia it's time we do a same thing. Users like f.e. Horton11 keep building high buildings while the old buildings are nowhere near filled. Just like a stop on building new towns/neighborhoods we should also stop these towers. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:12, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Pro, there must be a good regulation. Otherwise it'll become like Bucharest Everyone who has the money does what he wants, but there must be some restrictions to avoid it to become a chaos. Bucu 16:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Martha Van Ghent 07:45, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

surprisingly not alot of attention, but i agree.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:19, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

So, what's up with this one? Are you gonna do sth with it, owtb? Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the idea, but I don't think this is a law adaption.. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Naah, you proposed it, we support it, you better get writing then Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:52, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's quite the problem: what should I write? :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:53, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

whatever you want to be regulated Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:58, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wach ef.. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:00, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Tower block act

1. In Lovia there shall no longer be built any towers:
   1. A tower is a building consisting of multiple floors of which several floors have a different apartment or company place for sale.
   2. A tower may only be built in special cases if the governor of the aforementioned state agrees.

Something like this? :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:03, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

I really like the 'desbetreffende'. An addition for Lovia English maybe? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:05, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

hmm yeah, but not really quite there Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 14:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Hahah, can't find a translation for it :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas to improve this? Otherwise I'll put this into vote. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:04, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's not finished, is it? :p Martha Van Ghent 21:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's inhoudelijk finished :P As a Waldener, I'm sure you would support this simplified, easy-to read and short bill :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 05:40, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Pierius Magnus 08:25, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Quite interesting that most congress men look over this part :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:19, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Another try

Since it's getting urgent again (with more megalomanical phallus symbol lovers), I'll rewrite it myself.

FedLaw, 50%+. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_restriction_laws

Height Restriction Act

1. In the Kingdom of Lovia, no structures surpassing the maximum height of 165 feet or 50.3 meters may be constructed, in order to preserve the cityscenes and landscapes, and in order to bar projects of megalomaniacal size.
2. Congress may grant exemptions to this law, by a normal majority.
3. Governors of the states are entitled to introduce height restrictions for the entire state or for the designated localities, such as historic neighborhoods, which may not surpass the federal 165 feet height restriction, and which must allow for the construction of regular two-storey residences.

So: no extraordinary high buildings allowed. Congress may vote on exceptions (exemptions). Governors now have the explicit right to introduce height restrictions in their own states. They may introduce one in the entire state, or perhaps local restrictions (e.g.: no four-storey buildings in a rural zone). Acceptable to everyone? Dimitri 07:23, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Good for me Martha Van Ghent 07:24, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Looks great :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 16:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need this. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 05:54, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yup Cristian Latin 14:19, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

If no MOTCs are going to fix this I am going to use OwtbBot to put a comment on every MOTC's talk page :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:47, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

And why not fix this yourself? You want to get it passed. You fix it. Makes sense to me. Dimitri 19:09, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with it, so I don't know what to fix :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 20:26, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

044. Initiation of a Federal Planning Bureau

I do not have a large knowledge of the laws and the constitution in our country. But I suppose for this we need a new section in our constitution/lawbook.
I want to start up a Planning Bureau, a bureau that advises congress when it faces economical troubles, or when it comes to policymaking, or when new economic/financial laws need to be voted.
I propose the following:

1. The Federal Planning Bureau is an official authoritative section situated on the federal level of Lovian government.
2. Its powers are limited to:
   1. The proposal of economical and financial laws;
   2. The provision of advice on proposed bills conerning on economical and financial matters;
   3. The suspension of proposals on economical and financial level in order to re-calculate the consequences for Lovia and its inhabitants.
      1. The maximum suspension period is two weeks' time.
3. The Chairperson of the Federal Planning Bureau is chosen every six months by Congress and must be a Member of the Congress. [After Federal and Mid Term elections]

JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 14:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Made some adjustments. It's pretty okay

One more question: what is it? An agency, a council...? Dimitri 14:09, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

That's a question I was asking myself to (answer:It is what it is :p). I'd define it as a council: what structure do you prefer? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 14:14, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of council seems fair. But then you'll have to add a definition to your bill, I think. Which says how it works, how many members it should have, etc. Currently, it would have only one member who can uphold quite a lot. A council with one member isn't really a council, though, is it? Perhaps just give one MOTC the power to do the things you would have wanted this council to do? Some sort of "Economic and Financial Planner"? Dimitri 14:33, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hm we could do that, indeed, but maybe we can add two more 'members' the secretary of IAT (hence the 'trade') and the PM, to make it more democratic. I'll add some info on how it must work this eve JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 14:42, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. It does need some work as Dimitri pointed out above. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

hummm...This could be good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:20, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I must be enlightened, but what is the point of this? I can hardly see how a council could fix problems that congress could do on its own. Edward Hannis 17:40, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a central bank than? Why do we need any kind of department than? Why do we need a congress whatsoever than? We need this because this 'council' can focus it self on the economics en finances of lovia, which is needed in these hard times JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:21, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

How could Congress not be able to achieve this on its own? We don't need advisers, we don't need complication. On its own, Congress can fix any problem to come its way (if applicable). This advising system promotes seperating Congress to different levels, so that some people are "elite congress(wo)men." Elitism is the very reason the anti-cabalism ordeal came around. The solution to a nonexistent problem is a problem in itself. Edward Hannis 20:41, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with elitism! It's just a way of making it more easy to respond quick and sufficient towards sudden economical/financial situations. It's a planning bureau, every country in the world has it! Lovia cannot stay behind! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 05:55, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Lovia doesn't actually have 150+ senators. There's only around 15 of us. If we do this, we end up having a mini-Congress making decisions, and hence leaving the rest of Congress behind. The Congress is good as it is, and if you have a problem with people who are elected MOTC, then tell the people to stop voting for them, but don't try to cheat basic democracy. If 15 people is too much for this nation, then we're already doomed to fall into total disorder. Edward Hannis 16:59, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hannis here, not the Elitism part but otherwise he has a very valid argument. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:53, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

All the people who will be active in the council are from within the congress, so that not making congress any larger, and secondly they are only focusing on a primordial issue in the country, and that's a good thing, because our congress is just voting on everything, mostly not knowing the effects, this will be stopped partly by this initiation JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:36, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Then why not have one for every small issue? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:44, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's how in the end it should be, but we are too few to realize that! And so we need to start with the most important issues, so in that way economy is a normal choice. You are disappointing me marcus by calling economics a "small issue" JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 21:11, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I would support congress members to be in smaller orginized comitties, then they would write and approve them and introduce them to all of congress, 15 congressmen, each in two comitties, 6 comitties. Economics is not a small issue but people will interperet and create 20 small committies "The Committie to Decide upon Committies and Committie activities" . Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:18, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing the effects? C'mon, don't pretend this is an actual nation. There are sufficiently few of us so that we can be perfectly aware of a national and subnational situation easily. What you are doing right now is just making matters more complicated. We do not have economic problems, and if we do, then we already have three options: department of Finance, state government, and national bank. Isn't that enough? We do not have a problem, so we do not need a solution. Edward Hannis 23:54, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Since we are not a real countries we do not have any problem at all! And the creation of this nation as a solution to a non-existing problem is a problem in itself! We do not need anything at all, we could just 'funny about' and enjoy ourself a bit, but hey, this is not what I want, I give my self fully for the country (for you nothing more than a site seemingly) and that consists of getting us out of the economic crisis, because it great fun only adapting the good things in life to our site! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:17, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Woah, there. Calm down. If you're incapable of remaining calm when you have all the time in the world, I dare not imagine what you may be in reality. So, going back to your argument/patriotic speech, which I don't care to refute at the moment, you must keep in mind that by adding bureaus, departments, councils, etc., you make things complicated. I'm from France, so I can tell you that a country that fails to unify everything into a single, non-complicated, organized, and unified body, becomes a "bureaucratic nightmare" (Inception quote). Edward Hannis 16:46, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to see with bureaucracy, I only want a 'body' which can act (with 'knowledge') easy and correct when needed, and I don't think many people in congress have the knowledge to do so. When I look to the currency debate, I see many just lurking towards an own currency, but does anybody know the consequences? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 17:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it sounds like you don't like the result of democracy. If people elected those who are dumb into the highest positions of the nation, and your solution to is make a better-leading congress, then what you're fighting against is the result of a (possibly) uneducated or deluded electing people blindly. If you don't like who people vote for, tell them not to vote for them. I respect the decision of the people, and I will not prevent democracy from running its course. Representative democracy makes decisions, not appointments to a higher level of representative democracy, which it in turn makes the decisions. It seems like all you want is a smarter congress, and you're looking for a means of keeping those you judge "dumb" out of power, at least in the topics that you find important. On a final note, in my defense, I am against the national currency, but let's keep that out of it. Edward Hannis 16:37, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

What you say is 'dumb' :p. It comes to this: in every government, so in every country in the world, the ministers have one special authority, and they are for that period specialized in it (they read the bills, they make arrangements,... this improves the government! And this is what Lovia also needs! It's not that congress is dumb, it's that congress cannot focus itself on every little topic, so I propose that a council can focus itself especially on economics, so other MOTC don't need to understand the bills fully, so we can make progress faster! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 16:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Whoever said Congress can't take care of every little thing? If you haven't noticed, Congress is basically inactive at the moment, and proposals are rare and separated. It's not like Congress is overloaded or anything, it's just that there isn't much change going on. If Congress was overloaded, which it isn't, then we would have a problem. But it isn't. Edward Hannis 17:46, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

It has been overloaded in the past (when you were absent). I don't think that it is a good idea to make laws when needed and to abolish them when the problem is gone, laws must be constructive, this one is! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 09:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

045. Formal recognition of Mäöres

I've been scanning through the archives and I can't find anything on whether Lovia actually formally recognizes Mäöres as a souvereign country (all I could find was the recognition of Kosovo). So, could we propose this to the Second Chamber? --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 16:30, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Edward Hannis 17:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary. This is why: we don't recognize the US or Belgium, do we? I think we can presume Lovia recognizes most internationally (and wikinationally) recognized states. New states we can either recognize or not recognize. That's what the Kosovo thing was about :) Dimitri 18:02, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

"we can presume": We could also presume that I may build a huge nuclear reactor in Oceana (there's no law forbidding it), so I don't really think "we can presume" is something satisfactory :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:17, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

There's the green energy act, I saw Hillbilly Boy 18:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean a nuclear reactor for energy supply :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:39, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

(I hate kovoso) But on subject...We could propse a law that states "Any countries that has declared independence or has its own formal government is reconzined as a nation by Lovia, Unless otherwise or a congressional stating that they won't reconzine it"

In Common terms: We reconize all countires anyway, and any we don't we vote on it. Considering the fact that we could deal with 99.9% of existing countires it's okay. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:06, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, then there's still a long list: don't forget Transnistria, Abchazia, South-Ossetia, Basque lands, Biafra, Sealand and all that stuff. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 20:15, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget political recognitions. For example, France does not recognize the PR of China, as far as I understand. Edward Hannis 00:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I seeMarcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 01:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

We could make a list of countries recognized by Lovia and vote for all of them once. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:05, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think that's necessary. It's more or less safe to assume that Lovia recognizes all commonly recognized nations, right? I mean, it's not like we don't recognize Kosovo, and we're not going to say we recognize South Ossetia or (:P) Sealand, right? Edward Hannis 17:04, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, (to get back on the original subject) Mäöres is not really commonly recognized :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:46, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is better to make its recognition by Lovia entirely official. To avoid problems in the future when certain politicians may change their minds. There is always the possibility they'll do just that, we have to take that into account. Pierius Magnus 17:59, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're right. So how do we enact this? A vote? I don't see what the Constitution says we should do. Edward Hannis 18:26, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

With the Kosovo recognition it was a simple vote. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:36, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's the way to do it, yes. If one person knows it, it's gotta be that fellow who wrote our consititution, Dimitri his name is, I believe. :) Pierius Magnus 18:38, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So, do we put forth a bill with a list of all possibilities? That'd be a huge bill. Maybe it'd be best if we just vote on what not to recognize. Edward Hannis 19:50, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

That'd be easier, yes. Pierius Magnus 19:57, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I say we don't reconzine Fiji! To not reconize a country is a bit to odd. Don't you think? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:51, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh*. Not Really, Marcus. Inform yourself before making conclusions. Most nations do not recognize certain other nations. For instance, France does not recognize China. China does not recognize Taiwan as independent. Most countries do not recognize South Ossetia, but Russia does. Recognition is a basic value for a nation; it's what helped Kosovo, for instance, become an accepted country. Edward Hannis 23:10, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

And there are some people who still think that Kosovo should and should be a country. but in this case I don't think we will be helping and people declare there freedom to form a new country. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 23:18, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say so, Edward, but France does recognize the PRC. They've done so for quite some decades. They switched sides (no longer supporting the Republic of China, Taiwan) in the sixties, I think. Dimitri 07:23, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: France established diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1964. Dimitri 07:28, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

@Edward: I think it's best to "presume" (it saves a lot of work) that Lovia recognizes all commonly recognized countries and for those not commonly recognized, but of which some users same it should be recognized, Mäöres for example, we hold a vote. The number of not recognized countries is larger than the number of recognized countries.. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:47, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

@DimiTalen - Whoops! Thanks for catching me there, Dimi. It's weird. I really, honestly thought that France did not recognize China. Huh. Well, once again, thanks.

@Oos - Sounds good. Edward Hannis 16:18, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I feel like an idiot. I just realize that France does not recognize North Korea, not China. *self-facepalm* Edward Hannis 16:20, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closely the same thing but not quite . Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:41, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

And Adlibita then? :P Cristian Latin 16:46, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah why not, on the Page Lovia it says "Lovia would like to join the United Nations and the NATO. Lovia recognized the Republic of Kosovo on March 1, 2008, and wanted to show that it was tolerant towards new nations and all people." It also went on to say: "Though, in Libertas and Lovia a successor for the United Wiki Nations has been proposed, probably the International Wiki Organization. The reactions are mostly positive in Lovia, although negative comments from Adlibita have a bad influence on the popularity of the new IWO. " I think that answers two questions. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:57, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna put this to vote. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:01, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

047. "State-run education" - offering a solution

At present, our legal system does not allow for state-run enterprises. The McCandless bill now in the Second Chamber will allow the states to perform their powers through agencies and state-owned corporations, which is good. But, since education is not within the realm of the states, official state-run schools are off limits. Nevertheless, Noble City has several such schools, and I perceive other states are no different. Schools, one of government's most basic occupations, are not properly covered by our legal system.

We need to solve this. LAP proposes the following:

1. All state-owned and/or state-run schools will be transferred to the federal state. Congress will own the school buildings and grounds, and the schools will be (de jure) run by Congress.
2. The Department responsible for Education will appoint directors to each such school. The Department will have authority over the management of these schools. The Secretary of Education should be able to summon a school's director if the legal requirements are not taken into account by that specific school. Of course, REAC's involvement will be demanded if rules are broken.
3. By making the Department liable for the schools' management, parents and pupils in Lovia have someone to write to or call when things go wrong. At present, there was no one to blame when something went wrong. This system will make the educational system more responsible.

State-run schools will remain free in the areas they have been free in recent years. Curricula will still be chosen by the schools' principals - within the legal framework - to fit the neighborhood's demands for good education.

I want to poll whether the 2010 Congress has a connection with this very important and rather urgent issue. Then, LAP will work on a Federal Law Article. If you Congressmen don't feel the necessity of this small but urgent reform, then I will put it to the next Congress. Please provide me with feedback asap. Percival E. Galahad 10:45, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is not the complete story. Only "five-day schools" should be transferred, not "saturday schools". --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:49, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I am not sure we consider them official primary/secondary schools, anyway. Percival E. Galahad 10:50, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Eh.. No, I don't think so, but you didn't mention "official schools" :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:51, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry :). That's what I meant though. I only mean schools which currently fall under either the Primary or the Secondary Education Acts of Congress. Could I count on your support here, Mr Secretary? Percival E. Galahad 10:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

You sure have mine. Education is core business when maintaining a healthy society. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 10:57, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a huge reform necessary and I think this is a very good beginning :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:57, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Idem! Good work. Dimitri 11:02, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is very fine. Walden supports! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 16:14, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

As a govenor, and already created one school, this law gives the states to do as they please. Also is the law andy proposed passed yet? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:56, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

048. Congressial Journal

I propose to keep a record of all Congressial activities. It's kind of laborious to look up when Congress passed or rejected which bill. What I propose is to make a simple page, which says:

[date] - [name bill/proposal/amendment], as proposed by [name MOTC] on [date proposal]

Votes cast: pro ([number]), contra ([number]), abstain ([number]) - [percentage pro]

So:

31/01/2011 - FedLaw: Amazing Act, as proposed by Andy McCandless on 01/01/2011

Votes cast: pro (10), contra (2), abstain (0) - approved by 83.33%

Amendment

I propose to add this line to Article 6 of the Constitution, as section 4:

4. For each motion that has been moved to the Second Chamber by Congress, and that is in due time either approved, rejected or proven unable to gain the required support, Congress must keep a record, starting February 1st of the year 2011, which will be known as the Congressial Journal.

I'll need a two thirds majority to pass this bill.

Comments

"Simplify simplify" is my motto. This bill is perfect in doing that: we insert one section in the constitution to solve all problems looking up when and how a bill was approved. Anyway, what's a state that doesn't keep track of its own activities? Also, it's the people's right to know what Congress is doing and has done! Thnx. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:33, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Very much pro! Though this is more like "regulate, simplify". Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:39, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Well yes . That's the Walden approach since August, really. In order to make the lives of the people we care for easier, the government should foresee some things. A journal is a pretty easy thing to keep up with, anyway Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:41, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the need for this. Also, I can tell from experience that it'll not be regularly updated. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:41, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

It can be done. It's not difficult to update it while the bills are actually being accepted or rejected at that very moment. It's rather difficult to do it after that. It's about tidiness. How could you not see that? Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:43, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Eh.. :P I still don't see the need for this.. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:45, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

People have the right (and duty perhaps) to check what their government is up to. We've just accepted a whole bunch of civil legislation and most won't even know about it. How's that "representing the people"? Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

If it's about that I'd call it useless bureaucracy :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

It stuns me you don't care about informing the people. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

btw, even your homeland has it. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if my homeland has it, why don't I get it? :P I really have no idea what the people in the Dutch government are doing actually, but back to the topic. I understand why you want to do this, but I don't think it's necessary in a country with only 22.000 inhabitants. It's like the municipality (or however you write that word :P), you simply know it, because it's close to you. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:51, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

You can access it online if you want: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/zoeken. Anyway, it's not a big deal to just write down our past activities and it saves people like me, who want to learn about our laws and who wants to know what has been done in the past Congress (which is of crucial importance to your constituency, too), a lot of trouble. The National Archivs are amazing if you want to know it all, what's being said and who voted for what, but it's a pain in the ass for basic information. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:56, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

But that's on the internet and I can tell you that a lot of people don't have access to internet :P Well, the wiki has a "search" thing at your left :P But I'll no longer be irritating (I like it though :P) so I'll support. If it turns out not to be working, we could still abolish it. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:59, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, I am willing to promise my electorate I'll pay careful attention to updating it in due time. If we all (or some of us) do that, it will work out just fine; Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 14:02, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Okay :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:05, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Nice Andy! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:52, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Got my support. Dimitri 16:53, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Shall I put this to vote? --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy would've liked to do this himself, but I suppose you can . It's got at least 50% support. Dimitri 19:15, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Nah.. I'm making a mess of it, I'm running on alcohol now, so anything I might say at this moment might not be conform the truth :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

You are? I'm on Coca Cola, coffee and Dr. Pepper ^^. And water. Dimitri 19:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

If there's one thing I hate to drink it's definitively water. I always have to vomit when I drink lots of it :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 05:37, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I support this too. Martha Van Ghent 21:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Main article: Forum:Second Chamber.

Please vote!! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 12:12, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

049. Firearms Act

Federal Law

Firearms Act

1. Ownership and use of firearms by any person within the Kingdom of Lovia is prohibited;
   1. With the exception of Federal Police officers, and with any other exception enshrined in the national laws of the nation.
   2. With the exception of hunters, who must obtain a license in order to hunt living animals for food, recreation, or trade, using a firearm.
      1. Licenses can be obtained with the Secretary of Welfare, who has the authority over the Federal Police and who has knowledge of the practices and potential dangers of firearms to the people's welfare.
      2. Licenses can only be granted to hunters
         1. who have taken shooting lessons at a Federal Police bureau and who have passed the associated exam, in which perfect knowledge of the Firearms Act, unproblematic fine motor skill, the acquired shooting skills, and the hunter's uncompromised vision are required and shall be tested;
         2. who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted;
         3. who have their legal residence in Lovia;
         4. who have the intent to use it only for hunting, be it recreational or professional;
         5. who have not been convicted or arrested within the last two years before the license is to be granted;
         6. whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed.
      3. Licenses must be obtained for each firearm and may only be registered to one person.
      4. Licenses are immediately repealed, together with the firearms in the possession of the hunter, when he or she is arrested or convicted, or otherwise involved in a police or court case. It must be regranted without further ado if the arrest or involvement is proven to have been without proper cause.
      5. Licenses cannot be sold or given to somebody else. Licenses always adhere to the person who has passed the exam and who has met with the legal requirements.
      6. Hunters are legally bound to register with the Secretary of Welfare, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month.
   3. The Federal Police is authorized to confiscate all firearms without proper license found within the Kingdom of Lovia.
      1. If a firearm is known or suspected to be used by somebody else than its lawful owner and the person who has obtained the license, then the Federal Police is authorized to confiscate the firearm and all other firearms registered to or used by both persons, and start an investigation in the matter.
2. A private militia is any organization, either formally and nominally military or not, that is characterized by the presence of firearms, and that is not operated by the federal government of Lovia to ensure the nation's safety.
3. The organization of a private militia is prohibited within the Kingdom of Lovia.
   1. It is unlawful to establish or participate in such a militia, as well as to allow them to exist and exercise their activities on one's premises.
   2. It is unlawful for militias established outside of Lovia, or led by foreigners, to operate or organize activities in Lovia.
   3. Private security services are not allowed to let their officers bear firearms.
4. It is prohibited for officers of foreign police forces and armies to bring firearms into Lovia, or to otherwise obtain or use firearms. Exceptions may only be granted by Congress.

Comments

This bill will prohibit:

• private firearms-bearing militias;
• bearing and owning firearms, unless if you have obtained a license;
• foreign armies and police forces to use arms in Lovia.

Percival E. Galahad 13:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Very good! Didn't know you were so skilled in writing legal texts :) Dimitri 14:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I give my support! Very good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly in favour, mostly... I still think it needs some minor changes though, as this law would make The Brigade illegal, if it passes. Pierius Magnus 15:18, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

and that would be a good thing Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. How else could one defend himself? Also: how does one define "private firearms-bearing militias"? The Brigade is made up out of licensed hunters, all above the age of twenty-one, clean of record and of good conduct. Pierius Magnus 15:22, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Guns are for weaklings: A) If your so scared someone's gonna kill you, your paranoid you should be in a mental hospital and B) You probaly can't fight with or hands and/or are too scared...but knowing you mangus that your like a kickboxer...your probaly insane Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

@Pierius: It would render The Brigade illegal. Percival E. Galahad 15:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

No it would not, it is all perfectly legal. Why? Because they (the Brigade) are no militia. They are licensed hunters, plain and simple, and not on my payrole. Pierius Magnus 15:57, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read the bill. Any group, even informal groups, that is characterized by the presence of firearms. By the way, please read the hunting license requirements: "who have the intent to use it only for hunting, be it recreational or professional." You can try and try to evade the law (that is, if this would become a law ), but it would only show one's dishonesty. Percival E. Galahad 16:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I included a clause that solves the issue. Group hunting is now allowed. Percival E. Galahad 16:09, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. Most appreciated. Pierius Magnus 16:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Man this bill is bulletproof Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:23, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

It should be :). As you just saw, someone like Ygo would try to find loopholes, and would be willing to use them. Percival E. Galahad 16:24, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm against all guns! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:25, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the problem in not allowing the creation of militias within this nation? It is a fundamental right of the people to overthrow their governments should they not be given what they want, and have reason to believe there is a better option. If we do not allow the creation of militias, how is the people supposed to overthrow its government? The government is only so through the consent of the people. Not having the right to have a militia is a powerful message, like it or not: you cannot fight back. "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." Edward Hannis 17:04, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I now see why you're with the conservatives.

Now look. We have four elections every year. Come on, don't tell me you need virtual gunfire to change the government. Government-overthrowing armed militia would cause deaths, also civilian deaths. A simple vote or a Supreme Court case goes without casualties.

And by the way, I really really love Thomas Jefferson. But libertarianism sucks. Dimitri 17:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I would support this bill but it seems unconstitutional. I like the part about no guns but the Milita part is a bit too far, soon people will be interpiting it and saying a club about the enviroment is "too far, or extrimist" and well have to go through this whole thing all over again. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:21, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Marcus: it's not unconstitutional. I've written 95% of the Constitution and I can tell you, there's no such thing as a "right to kill" or a "right to bear arms". Also, nothing else is prohibited except groups who bear arms. People with rifles on the streets. You should all read the laws better, really. Dimitri 17:24, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Don't discredit Jefferson, Dimi. John Basil Barnhill said that quote. Check Wikiquote if you like. And people have the right to happiness and all that good stuff, and if the government does not give it, they have the logical right to ask for it. If you refuse to allow militias, then you have to give the people the right to vote their government out of power, and put it in the constitution. That way, if the government were to infringe upon that vote and still stay in power, then the people would then assume the right to create a militia, taken their government no longer recognizes the constitution. Edward Hannis 17:31, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, bad research . Sorry for that.

I believe it is so: if a government breaks with its own laws, then the people may stand up against it. I agree. Perhaps we should indeed incorporate that in the laws (although I must point out we have an independent judiciary which could just as well settle these issues). But a nation that is governed according to the laws which were voted democratically, and which do not discriminate in their own right, does not need weapons. Dimitri 17:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's all good.

The judiciary system is part of the government, and I think it best that the power to end a government would be outside of the government. So, to summarize, we could take that stuff about militias in this bill, and then pass an amendment to the constitution allowing a referendum of some sort to overthrow the government, which if ignored, allows the people to create a militia. Also, I do believe we should give trained experts firearms so that they can defend stuff. I'm talking about security and stuff. Of course, standards would be very high, but to prevent potential crime, we need officers to be armed if they want to protect valuable goods. Just a thought. Edward Hannis 17:46, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm btw very glad it was my dearest Thomas Jefferson who said that . I really like him.

Check the proposal again: it's already in there. Police (and a future army) can bear arms.

Referendum is tough one: we've had weeks that only progressive politicians were around. Any referendum would have been extremely biased (and therefore, unjust in its own right). Dimitri 17:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Article 1A - 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.

I too hate interperating the Constitution of any knid, but this goes both ways. I think it means that we have the right to do anything within the law, but in the way of "democratic traditions" we have the write to form a small group.

Article 2 - The right to: Privacy, Of freedom though and meaning, of Property, to relax and recreate

That's all that applies right now. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

@Marcus: No explicit right to bear arms, as you can see. Dimitri 17:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I guess but as i said i can think that the right to privacy and proprty can be my guns or handbombs. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

You could try, but I wouldn't bet my money on that one Dimitri 17:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's quite okay. But I think it's too much to f.e. ask: "who have not been convicted or arrested within the last two years before the license is to be granted." --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the period could be lowered to one year. I agree. Dimitri 19:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think six months is way better, but I can live with one year too :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I think we could find a comprimise on this bill. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I support this and would also back up the change to one year rather. Martha Van Ghent 21:41, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a politician (nor a citizen, as of yet), but there are a couple contradictory statements in the law.

I quote:

"With the exception of hunters, who must obtain a license in order to hunt living animals for food, recreation, or trade, using a firearm."

" Hunters are legally bound to register with the Secretary of Welfare, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month."

While I'm not saying this scenario is likely in Lovia, wouldn't this law prohibit a group that is of three or more hunters from gathering food needed more than twice a month if these people need food for survival? I have a friend whos' dad got into some serious debt and had to sell everything. He ended up living out of the back of his SUV for three years with nothing but a change of clothes, a water filter, and a .22. Some revision may be needed there. Also, this law seems to say that self-defense is not a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be kind of appalling. BoredMatt 23:13, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

See Forum:Second Chamber! Percival E. Galahad 13:08, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

050. Wikination:Census

I think we could regulate it, if it isn't regulated yet . What do you think? Setting a specific date, like let's say once a year for calculating Lovia's population. Cristian Latin 16:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dimitri proposed a "fixed number" before, so it would no longer change on sellings of houses. F.e. a town has 5.000 inhabitants in 2011, and 5.100 in 2012 (making a growth/shrink limit of f.e. 5% per year) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 16:46, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

That could be possible too... maybe a bit more boring but yay Cristian Latin 16:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I really wouldn't "calculate" it. Choose understandable, logical, normal figures. Every year is fine. Dimitri 16:53, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me ;) Cristian Latin 16:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, who will be taking charge of this? :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 16:57, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ehem, I suppose a Congressman :P Cristian Latin 17:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Someone appointed by some Secretary. Welfare, IAT, Finance... Dimitri 18:10, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i would like a up-to-date census...finally. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:49, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think the PM should choose this person directly. It's highly important, and no small order. Edward Hannis 22:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Good solution but I also think we're overthinking this. We could just make it as simple as NC = 15.000, HU = 7.000. Lovia is a good country why wouldn't you want to live here! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:57, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Our approach is not too complicated. We need to account for population growth, and do so in a reasonable manner. Edward Hannis 23:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

PM appointment is fine with me. If we want a "Census Bureau", though, we should place it under some department. Dimitri 06:57, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I think the first thing I ever said in the first chamber was: "So when are we gonna have a census?" Glad were finally having a disscussion about this. I'm all for a census bureau of three congressmen/women to decide census issues. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:22, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

You could also say that the governor decides the numbers of inhabitants. That would take all needs for a census bureau away. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:25, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Would get quite political . You could raise your number of inhabitants just out of pride. I rather go with this option: someone appoints someone (the PM appoints one of the MOTCs, for example) who "does the census" and comes up with the figures. He/she presents them to Congress, who have to "confirm the reliability" of these figures in a vote. This way, we keep it real, but we also involve the democracy in it. Dimitri 09:32, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's a little strange to let the state decide the demographics.. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:35, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

No no, that's why I added the "_" thingies. We don't let the state decide. We appoint someone who goes from door to door with his crew (not for real, duh) and who presents his data to the population. Just to make sure that person doesn't do silly things, Congress checks whether his data has been "obtained correctly". You get the gist? :) Dimitri 09:39, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I understoor, but I don't know.. :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:42, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I know it sounds weird . Look at it this way: (fictional example) Medvedev is PM, appoints Johnson to the job and he makes Portland second largest place in the country. We all know that's stupid. But hey, the Dude's appointed by the Chief. Other example: Governors choose demographics. Andy perhaps wants Oceana to stay small and "overzichtelijk", but Marcus and Van Ghent might want to expand their states. Silly, right? So, we do need a check-up, and who's better qualified than an elected Congress. But Congress can't make up the statistics, that has to be the work of one person with one uniform vision of how the Lovians live and so. Dimitri 09:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I at least think that if we'd choose this system, we should have the 5% barrier: a town can't grow or diminish with more than 5% of the current number of inhabitants. The guy appointed by the PM should think about these things: 1. Have there been a lot of houses sold in the state last year or have a lot of people moved away? -> decline of f.e. 3%. 2. What is typical for the population? F.e.: conservative, generally spoken more children, but really orthodox people might not want to take inentingen, which results in a moderate growth -> growth of f.e. 4%. 3. The economical situation of the area, f.e. bad -> decline of f.e. 2%, total: -1% growth. Something like that. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:59, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there should be limits. As prescribed by the Constitutution: it's the (Deputy) Governors' duties to assist the federal government on all issues that concern the states/local politics Dimitri 10:03, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the census ain't politics è :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:07, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

In a fictional nation like ours, everything is :) Dimitri 10:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Dacht jij :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:12, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yap Dimitri 10:17, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

051. Public Transport Bill

• Each state shall issue a system of public transportation systems at an affordable rate to the citizens of that state.
  • Each state system is required to have one of system of bus lines that allow citizens of all kinds to have an affordable bus system that last at least three miles long.
  • The route, prices, and overall state system of the train or bus system are ran by the state governor.

This was just a though I had, but i wanted to see if anyone else would like it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:36, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I could agree on buses, but we already have a national train operator. Dimitri 18:39, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

We do? In what bill? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:41, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Economic Involvement Act. Dimitri 18:45, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

We don't need more trains, but we do need public busing systems. Instead of the train e could have short light-rail transit or maglev trains, or a subway system. Horton11 18:49, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

No subways we'd be digging overselves into a hole. I'll check that bill out and I'll see what i can do. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I changed it after seeing that a train system is suppose to occur soon. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:59, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I was seeing it differently, King with thy permission I'd like to put forward an idea: The executive power must be replaced to the state level. It solves many issues: (1) the states become active, and gain some 'power', without actually interfering in the federal level (2) Secondly the inactive departments will become an unofficial 'leader' of the state level: helping the states with coordination etc. All to gather we are a bunch of isles: I cant imagine that people of Kings moving to seven to follow education: so a bit of liberty in the execution of bills and laws won't hurt. What about it? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 19:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, buses are fine. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:27, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

So can I have some more feedback? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:15, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

A couple of buses, and maybe some ferry boats too as Lovia is an archipelago... Cristian Latin 21:03, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should take the part from the economic law and put it here, and name this the Lovian transportation bill giving people cheap and accessable transportation. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:52, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the first chambe is that we need alot of input beforer second chamber...and that takes two months! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:39, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

052. Highway 6

I would like to propose an extremely short sixth highway, which would be a ring road of Hurbanova. This highway should connect the Highway 2 to Highway 7 and Overbanken Regional Airport. For the entire plan, see here below. Cristian Latin 21:16, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Sketch

More details (highways won't have 90 degree curves though!)

This is not going to work with the Highway 2 which has exits to Downtown and Drake Town, unless this Highway would be placed just south of Hurbanova instead of north. However then it wouldn't intersect Highway 7, as - read Overbanken Regional Airport - Highway 7 ends in Millstreet, coming from the north across the Hurbanova Stream. What shall we change then? My proposal:

1. Highway 7 stays as it is. There should come a bridge across the Hurbanova Stream. Then finally Hurbanova is connected to its airstrip.
2. Highway 2 will be put south of Hurbanova as described above. Practically nothing is changed. It won't intersect Highway 7 though.
3. There will be constructed a rather short highway, let's say Highway 6 (from northwest to southeast), which will have a length of just a couple of miles. This one should connect Highway 7 to Highway 2. Then, Hurbanova will be the first place with an orbital :P
   1. This highway will have 3 exits: 1. Overbanken. 2. Regional roads to the north east. 3. Hurbanova-East.
   2. Because there are so many exits on a relative short distance and to reduce the noise, the max. speed will be 100 km/h or 60 mph.

Arguments:

• To avoid traffic from entering historic neighborhoods of Hurbanova. Without Highway 6, traffic coming from Highway 7 will have to go through Drake Town to get to Highway 2 in the direction Noble City. Vice versa, people coming from the east or south also have to intersect Hurbanova in order to be able to arrive at the airport.
• Good connections. Airport & all parts of Hurbanova will be very accessible. No more slow traffic in the town itself. Traffic will avoid Hurbanova.
• Extremely low costs. It is actually an upgrade of an already existing road. The bridge is already there. A "normal road" is turned into a "highway". However in the current state, this road is more of an agrarian road.

Cristian Latin 20:24, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Extremely short but i'll give a "yea" vote! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:43, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Niceee. Cristian Latin 21:44, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Mmm.. Let me think about it. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's upgrading the profile of a normal road to a highway. The bridge, the road, everything is there already. We just expand this road a little bit to connect those highways. The costs would be minimal. It makes Hurbanova, its historical neighborhoods and its airport more accessible from outside and as a result there will be less traffic in Hurbanova's historical center. Cristian Latin 11:16, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Je sais. I've made that map myself è :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:22, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It's the only possibility to avoid all those outsiders () to pass along my house in Drake Town when they want to go to the airstrip... or airstrip restaurant! ^^ Cristian Latin 11:26, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

You ain't got no home in Drake Town :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:27, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I had one though :P But my little churchy is like my second home, isn't it? Cristian Latin 11:28, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, even then. The road between Drake Town and Newport is not on street level, but below it. :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:34, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Why is it marked as a street? Well we could always add or delete an exit. It's about the principle :P. Cristian Latin 11:53, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

? I think you don't know which street is which :P --`OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:57, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well if I had to guess, I see one street with a width of 1 pix and another one with 3 or 4 pix. :P Cristian Latin 11:58, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the one of 1 pix is the paralel road, which is not very large, and the other one is the 80 km/u road :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:00, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I already deleted "Exit 2 on the map" ^^. There is now another exit on the other bank of the Stream. So you're pro? :P Cristian Latin 12:02, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well, veuroed denne :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:07, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

053. Landwirtschaft so what is it?

Umm...I just want to know what you all think about this? Like should we have it or not? If not it's okay i'll just make truth island a mountinous beuatiful region and island and try to get it protected by the wildlife department. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm not a big fan. It's not up to me tho' (Off topic: do you really need 3 hospitals in Clymene? ) Semyon 21:55, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

I think Congress has already decided which places should be recognized and which not in August/September 2010. Unfortunately, Landwirtschaft didn't seem to be very desired. Let's accept the decision of the Congress I'd say. Cristian Latin 22:01, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay actually about Lanwirtschaft...it can be deleted. The three hospitals are needed tho. If we only had like four hospitals in Lovia tens of people would dies from not making it to the hospital in time. I just want the option to get to the hospital fast and operate quickly. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:59, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

The solution: trauma choppahs :D Cristian Latin 22:02, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, a minor medical facility on every isle, one that can carry out emergency operations, seems no luxury to me. I do however doubt we need major hospitals outside NC. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:57, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. Semyon is right on this one (Category talk:Hospital) Cristian Latin 14:00, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

054. Appointment of the Supreme Court Judge

I know some of you have already considered the issue I would like to bring up today. Our supreme law states that "the Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice in agreement with the Prime Minister". This has major implications. One of them could be that a Supreme Court Judge, who is appointed by Prime Minister A from party X and Secretary B from that same party X, would lead the "independent judiciary". In a court of law against the government, the court's independence would be highly dubious.

I propose to rewrite section 7 (of Article 9, of course), resulting in:

7. The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.

7. 1. The term of the 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.

7. 2. If 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 Judge's duty to continue his 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.

7. 3. 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.

This new amendment will allow Congress to break the "ruling party's" monopoly over the judiciary. More than half of the Members of the Congress must approve with an appointment - which will result in the appointment of moderate and consensus-seeking judges.

Furthermore, the term of the Supreme Court Judge has been specified. It will now be so, officially, that the Judge stays on even without a government or Congress - which must allow Lovia to maintain its laws in such periods of governmentless (being from Belgium, I know the implications).

Furthermore, the regulations to discharge a Judge and appoint another Judge have been specified in a better way.

I now also included a clause which allows Congress to fire a Judge forthwith (without delay, stante pede), by a special (two thirds) majority. If a Judge proves to be corrupt, Congress should have the power to intervene immediately. The two thirds majority (instead of a normal majority) was chosen to bar the majority party from ruling over the judiciary. No party can reach a two thirds majority in Lovia. Therefore, Judges can only be discharged forthwith if MOTCs from different corners of the spectrum agree on the urgency to discharge that person.

I hope you read this through carefully. Our current clauses on these subjects were insufficient. --Arthur Jefferson 12:35, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Good stuff, Jefferson. It became about time our judiciary gained more independence. Dimitri 14:01, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Seems only fair. I support the bill. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:07, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Idem. Cristian Latin 14:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Pro. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:46, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Why not hold separate elections for supreme court judges? Horton11 19:19, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

They would get very political. As a matter of fact, as there are more progressives, the judge would always be a progressive. With a Congress that has to agree on a judge, we open up to centrist and consensus candidates :) Dimitri 19:31, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

But even then, if congress was more conservative (or progressive) the judge would always be conservative (or progressive).

A better solution would be for all citizens to vote on several (2 or 3) judges. Then there will be a greater chance for judges on both sides of the political spectrum to represented. Horton11 19:39, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Arthur's plan is better; if we make things more complicated, we'll undoubtedly grind to a halt. Edward Hannis 20:30, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Election are the biggest sign of popularity and nowhere near impartial. Judges should be impartial, not popular. A hated, impartial judge who puts away honoured killers is better than a loved, partial judge who puts away his political opponents who've done nothing and gives allied killers undeserved freedom. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 20:34, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Walden gives support! I love this idea! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:38, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, Marcus. Edward Hannis 20:43, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Marcus is right. Walden supports =) Martha Van Ghent 21:20, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

@ Oos- but if we have several elected judges, it will be more likely to have representation from both conservative and progressive sides.

My amended section seven would be:

7.1 The Lovian supreme court judge(s) are to be elected by citizens of Lovia in a general vote.

7.2 All supreme court judges must be impartial and have no affiliation with a Lovian political party. (Must renounce party membership for duration of term)

7.3 All judges elected are to serve a term of 2 years.

a. Congress has the right to remove a judge from office if he is not impartial or is i violation of sec. 6.10 (Article 9) or the Lovian constitution.

b. Congress may remove a judge if over 50% of congresspersons are in support of his/her removal.

this would be a good democratic alternative to the current system in place. Horton11 22:10, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

No, why? Very simple: Lovia is not active enough for more judges and also if we'd elect them you'd get 2 progressive judges and 1 conservative judge, so still the progressive judges would have a majority, but that's not the only thing. If we'd elect them it will have other influences. Elections cause expectations. You vote for someone, because you expect him to help you achieving things and that's exactly what we shouldn't have for judges. I can't think of a single country where judges are elected... --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 05:45, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. @Justin: unlike a parliament, we want a Judge to be "righteous" above all, not just "representing people". Dimitri 06:25, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the constructive comments. I believe the bill enjoys enough support in Congress, and I will therefore move it to the Second Chamber. --Arthur Jefferson 15:44, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

That's what happened in the american Judical system, The supreme court in america doesn't uphold the contistitution just there belifes. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:13, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

055. Postal system

I was thinking that Lovia should have a postal system with stamps. Most (if not all) countries have one. Even the Vatican City has its postal system and stamps! I think a postal system can improve daily life for people and businesses, plus it can help achieve less dependence on other countries for these kinds of services. Horton11 22:00, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

You know that having stamps is even a must if you want to be recognized as a country? Cristian Latin 22:02, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the postal system. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:03, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, Horton and I love those stamps you made, very beautiful. I am all for it! Pierius Magnus 22:04, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i think everyone wants it only if it's good! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:06, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

THanks guys! I really think this is necessary. If the Vatican has stamps, why doesn't Lovia?Horton11 22:08, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

If we get a better image-maker to work on it, I'm all for it. No offense, Horton, but you're image-editing doesn't compare to that of some of our Photoshoppers. Edward Hannis 23:09, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes but some people can't afford Photoshop like me. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 23:59, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Then get good at Paint.NET, like me. Or settle for letting others do it. Edward Hannis 01:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hannis here. Also, we (the state) would first have to establish a good, national postal service, before we focus on those stamps. Although they are nice Martha Van Ghent 07:41, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

The postal office would require an extra line in the Economic Involvement Act, so that's an easy one. I'd say we design three official stamps to be co-voted over with the establishment of the Lovian postal service. Any objections to the method? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:21, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

You mean that the service is completely owned by the state? I'd like to prefer the Dutch system, a private company, not a state company that hired too many employees for too high wages. Cristian Latin 13:35, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be an autonomous company, but it would have a state-given monopoly (The Belgian system, and I believe it is the same in the Netherlands?). Such a private company would put up bench marks in cooperation with the government, but it's not like Congress is going to run the postal offices. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:53, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

I never said such a thing... Cristian Latin 19:47, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, I was only hinting that there are many ways for the state to regulate a sector. A national postal office should have a decent amount of economic freedom, just as the state should be able to prescribe guidelines for it. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:30, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Guess so . Anyways, postal systems are not really my pakkiean :D Cristian Latin 08:36, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

056. Request to read

I'm working on three major bills, the first two are already finished:

• The Labor Law Act with minimum wages, working conditions, etc. (replacing the out-dated Laborers Act)
• The Social Security Act providing Lovia with pensions, health care, etc.
• The Financial Outline Act about the federal budget and some general taxation principles

It is very important these acts are read carefully by all MOTC. I would like to get this voted in February, with the new Congress. Also note that the bills are complementary - they support each other to form the core of our social legislation. I'd rather have them voted at once and without endless whining about details. Small changes can be made afterwards too. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:44, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'll print them off and read them carefully by somewhere mid-next week. Martha Van Ghent 15:14, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll read them when the third is finished :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:43, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I already read the first two half-a-year ago! They were fine! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:10, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Good work! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 17:11, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm onto it! Dimitri 18:26, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Percival E. Galahad 18:50, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

057. Political Rights

We need a new element in our constitution, this element protect the active users of the site. Therefore we have to make a devision between political rights and civil rights. In general we could define those two respectively as the right of Lovians towards the state/congress and vice versa and the rights of Lovians towards one another.
1. Why do we need a devision?
Several reason can explain this need: (1) First of all, it is necessary to strengthen the position of congress, political rights can be used by the congress (e.g. for the claim of goods without compensation) to handle severe and quick when need. (2) Secondly, it could make a devision between users who "come and go" and the real active users, without really making it impossible for new users to join. (3) There is also the problem "running for the running sake (Pierus (C)): some politicians are claiming a political post and they leave afterwards, when we introduce political rights, they can lose those, meaning an immediate stoppage of their term at that post. (4) Last but probably the most important is certainly the change which will occur during the elections. In a country as Lovia, which is rather small population wise citizens who live abroad can directly influence the country by voting based on their civil rights. This is of course perceptive, since they leave after the casting of their vote. The direct consequence of this is, that the chosen politicians are not fully/directly supported by those people, who are active. Several solutions to solve this last are possible.
2. What do you think should incorporate POLITICAL RIGHTS?

JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 19:20, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I know you were talking about "if you haven't made an edit in the last 2 months you can't vote" Well that's wrong but we can comprimise on this say six months? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:25, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I you have to be around for the past month, with at least 20 edits over that past month. That way, we prevent from making the elections decided by those who aren't as informed or concerned. As Dimi said, "the elections are chosen by the last five voters, not the first." (or something like that, I paraphrased) Edward Hannis 19:46, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Great things, I hear. Marcus, I don't know what you mean actually. Could you further explain? And Edward thanks for the support mate! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 06:53, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking Jon. I'd say we make a division between citizen rights (only support vote) and political rights (all three votes). The division should be based on a certain grade of activity. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:18, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I certainly support a debate and the writing of a bill on this topic. If it turns out to be a piece of superb legislation, I'll back it up Dimitri 09:51, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

058. Garbage

Anyone ever thought about the garbage, water supply, electricity and gass of the Lovian people? --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:57, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well I am going to become the supposed IA&T so I think I should plan for this. I should have a Written bill for this by June, beacuse I'm getting a Netbook in april then I should be able to stay on longer and write more complex and fullproof bills.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:01, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Ok :) But before you start working on huge bills in April, I think a little bit discussing would also be helpful :) Anyone some ideas? --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:02, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well I think all should be supplied by the government, at a low affordable rate. Lower Income families = lower payments. Garbage of couse free and pick up twice a week with different days for different objects. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:06, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, to reduce costs I believe it would be useful to say something like Monday: Oceana, Tuesday: Seven, Wednesday: Kings, Thursday: Clymene, Friday: CR and TV, Saturday: NC. That way you only need a few garbage teams and they have full jobs. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:09, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

But it would be hard beacuse there are Recyables, Garbage, and the large objects. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, for recyclable things we could have a central place in each town where it is collected, like this. Larger objects are usually brought to the dump here and if they're iron, the local schutterij takes them. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:18, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could have house collection for recycling; the 1st week is paper, 2nd week is metal and 3rd week is plastics. HORTON11 19:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Nice Idea! I see you'll be good for congress! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:44, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

When I lived in Canada, they had something like this. But garbage was collected weekly. HORTON11 19:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Still needs more added to it, but this is just one of the things I've been working on my personal page, I also have another one. Nathaniel Scribner 23:06, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Okay hopefully it's good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 01:08, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

059. Safe Drinking Water Act

All public drinking, swimming, cleaning areas shall all be directed to this law. All sources to public drinking water shall be streamed trough a government adminstrated purificaton plants before supplied to the public. All of the following rules are to be regulated and seen under the eyes of the Department of Industy, Agriculture and Trade and the Department of Welfare;

(a) the action level for lead is 0.015 mg, and for copper is 1.3 mg/L. All pipes with a higher level then this shall be replaced, all materials seen dangerous for use as a pipe are too be replaced.

(b) all public drinking waters shall be inplaced with Fluoride to combat tooth decay.

(c) bottle water shall also be inspected before going to the public.

The Department of Welfare and The Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade specifies the optimal level of fluoride to range from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L depending on the average maximum daily air temperature; the optimal level is lower in warmer climates, where people drink more water, and is higher in cooler climates.

The creation of Waste Plants and purification plants shall be issued by the co-joint operation of the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade and the Department of Welfare. The two departments shall have a approprite ammount of federal reserve money to work with in order to create these facilities, determined by the Congress.

Water is a free substance, and everyone has the right to have free clean drinking water. The government shall provide parks, public places, government owned property, drinking fountains. All private owned places are to have a zero price on the serveing of tap water.

Shouldn't the Department of Welfare have a part in this? This has a lot to do with health, and they oversee it. HORTON11 23:09, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this should be a co-project between the Department of Welfare and DiAT.Nathaniel Scribner 23:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well you should contact Oos Wes Ilava or Marcus Villanova, they will be the new secretaries for those departments. I am not in charge of any of them though? HORTON11 23:15, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to talk to people not in charge, get what they're sight it :D, but yea I'll contact them. Nathaniel Scribner 23:20, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should administer replacements to pipes for all dangerous materials, setting the minimum at all official limits of the US FDA. As for the Fluorine, I think it would be best that we keep that out; water should be as pure as possible. There should be another common food additive we could use. We could use salt, just like we do for Iodine. Edward Hannis 23:30, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine is a much much more strong substance then Fluoride. I drink Fluroride every day, its perfectly fine. Now some times fluoride can become overly used in places were water is already abundent with flouride in that area. Nathaniel Scribner 23:38, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a fine idea. The bill would require some minor changes, mostly in style and formal aspects, in order to be adopted. Still, a very fine idea. --American Eagle 12:10, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

'All sources to public drinking water shall be streamed trough a government adminstrated waste areas.' What the @#!*% ??!! --Semyon 19:00, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

You do know when you poop- pee or when you use your sink, its goes to a waste plant? It is then stunned with chemicals, they do alot of things. I live in Indiana, and we call our water purification plants 'waste plants'. -Nathaniel Scribner 19:11, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

To me a waste area means a rubbish dump. --Semyon 19:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it, in American you don't send good ol' pee or poop into the dump- your send it back to the American mouths. Nathaniel Scribner 19:36, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Not sure its that different here in Britain to be honest... there are urban legends about London water having been drunk seven times. --Semyon 19:44, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they do this in alot of nations. I know this act needs alot more work on, but what else I should add? Nathaniel Scribner 19:55, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

You could add a clause for the creation of such water treatment plants. I don't think that there are any. HORTON11 19:59, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait for the big guns up stairs come talk the ammount should be given to the project, but for now, this should work. Nathaniel Scribner 20:14, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

It's an outline which is good let me have this "on your desk" by march also that sports bill you wanted will be done by march. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 20:30, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

060. Possible Exemption from Firearms Act for AAI

I'm not entirely sure where to put this, but here seems a likely place as any. HRH has expressed some concerns regarding the operation of my business, Anderson Arms, Inc. According to Dimi, firearms are entirely prohibited under the Firearms Act (?), so AAI and any related ventures would be rendered illegal. HRH also stated that even if firearms were legal, there's specific clauses that prohibit the importation of firearms. If the first scenario is true, the I'll delete the page. If the second is true, then may I get an exemption from Congress in order to supply firearms to Lovians (from what I've seen, AAI is the only firearms supplier in Lovia, it doesn't make much sense to allow firearms in Lovia and prevent them from ever getting to Lovia in the same bill; especially when there aren't any production facilities here yet!). I just need to know whether to continue with my business or not. Thanks, BoredMatt 21:06, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to sign up as a hunter, but I'll be happy to use my 'hunter only gun' to shoot a man trying to hurt me inside my own house. Also, Lovia is a leading to being unrealistic, PEOPLE CAN STILL GET GUNS. Guns really need to be controlled but not banned! Guns at a Utah Colleges , this is one of the reasons guns can be good in some instances. Will you go to a Utah school, or go to a Lovia College to kill tons of school students, now we are not so far from the United States and I'm sure some loon will drive his fathers boat into Lovia's waters 'which arnt protected by any military' land and go to the nearest school and shoot it up. Nathaniel Scribner 22:25, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. My dad kept (and still does, I believe) a Browning HP in his glove compartment for situations just like that. I don't really think Dimi was being serious about the whole "no guns" thing, but we do need clearer wording in the Firearms Act for this kind of stuff. BoredMatt 22:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

A total ban of weapons is dangerous and unrealistic. Lovia could become helpless and liable to be taken over by another country. As for the Firearms Act, it should be reworded to allow certain uses of guns HORTON11 22:42, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Wish we could be more like Switzerland..Nathaniel Scribner 22:43, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory service in military reserve until age 60? Hooray! That'll go over well in Congress! BoredMatt 22:49, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

We would need something like 1 or 2 years training, in case we ever do go to war. HORTON11 22:53, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Age 60, highly unrealistic. Nathaniel Scribner 22:58, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Nathaniel, I was being sarcastic. That's what Switzerland has. I'm not for any mandatory training/conscription in the least. I'd like a small, well-trained, well-equipped force (ie The Brigade but run by the government) plus a larger part-time government-run militia (also voluntary); there's no point in mandatory training if a good bit of the citizenry has no experience with firearms to begin with. BoredMatt 23:10, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Brigade could be turned into a specialized force or army, under government control. The country will at least have some protection, and there will be the regulation required to make sure things do not get out of hand. HORTON11 23:38, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Firearms will remain ILLEGAL. Also our country does not need an army (and that is not that unrealistic: why?. We are a bunch of isles with no real oil wealth, or other sources of natural energy (I believe), furthermore, we have close friendship with the us, and last but not least, we are neutral in every single war). We do NOT need an army! It costs money that we can use elsewhere. JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: no to the warmongers! I oppose this pseudo-legislation. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

....Firearms are legal for hunters and police, last I checked. The bill only asks for a possible exemption from the Fireams Act for AAI because Dimi thinks firearmsimportation is illegal. This has nothing to do with war, that was unrelated conversation. I'll move it to the talk page of The Brigade. BoredMatt 13:41, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

So, can I atleast keep firearms on my own property- I mean its MY property. Nathaniel Scribner 16:15, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

With this new congress- I hope I'll be able to defend myself in case of an emergancy. I'm not a Warmongers, I'm a very peaceful person and I will never fight unless attacked, I have the policy of Switzerland- don't say anything and carry a big stick. Nathaniel Scribner 16:20, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Firearms should not be completely banned. Our right to self defence and our nation's security and protection could be at risk because of this. HORTON11 16:23, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I completly agree. Nathaniel Scribner 16:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

So can I please keep nuclear bombs? It's MY property! I think statistics are against you. Ever seen Bowling for colombine? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 21:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Although I think people should be allowed to have weapons, they should be used for purposes of self defense. People should not have nuclear bombs and other WMD's in their private possession. Congress should set up a sort of "Weapons Committee", to determine which weapons can be used (for hunting and self defense) and which weapons (like wmd) should be banned. HORTON11 01:32, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Horton, it is the same, only on another scale, people should not have weapons for self defense, in The US people can defend their selves, on the other hand, it's the country with the highest murder rate! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:10, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I support Jon here: individuals don't have the right at anything, they get their rights from society. Widespread firearms are no good for society. If it was up to me I had all firearms banned with the sole exception of policeman. The monopoly on violence should be with the state. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:19, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, what is it with people who think they need to defend themselves? If nobody has arms, their's not need to defend you with one! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:30, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

GUYS! That's not what we're arguing about. The Firearms Act is passed. Read my first post! If policemen and hunters are allowed firearms, then there should be a store to allow them to buy firearms. AAI is such a store. Do they have a license to operate UNDER THE CURRENT LAW, or not? If not, I am applying for an exemption from this act so that I may supply Lovian hunters and law enforcement officers with weapons. BoredMatt 13:28, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Congress will buy them abroad JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 14:35, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

And if they wish to purchase their own weapons? BoredMatt 15:17, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Such unreasonable rules will push these hunters & co. onto the black market. Cristian Latin 19:08, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that all weapons in Lovia before the Firearms Act were imported quasi-legally, since we never had firearms legistlation (that I've seen, that is) prior to said act. I see no reason why that wouldn't continue. Lovia=archipelago=large coastline+low population=easy to smuggle weapons. Prior to the Firearms Act, all firearms used by criminals have been imported over water and dropped off at some obscure little dock. The definitition of "criminal" is more or less someone who breaks laws. Just because a new law is put into place doesn't mean they will stop smuggling. Laws by definition only stop law-abiding people. Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Thus, a full ban of guns in Lovia is highly inefficient because there is just no way on earth to patrol hundreds of miles of coastline without blowing the police budget out of the water for very little results. On the other hand, the partial (but highly regulated) legalization of firearms in Lovia would serve to effectively arm our populace against any criminals that might come to corrupt this nation. Simply put: criminals will always have guns. I see no reason why our citizens cannot. BoredMatt 20:38, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree on this. Citizens should be allow to own weapons, and congress should allow law abiding citizens to be able to have them, provided they are registered. The government should have a gun register, to allow people to have guns and to makesure they are legally used. HORTON11 20:46, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well not in my opinion horton, sorry mate. I'm defending those people who don't want to live next to people carrying a gun. And every country has a black market, every country has his points where it can't control everything, but in Lovia no weapon stores will be build, that's my opinion JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 20:50, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

This is the only option. It is impossible to ban guns nation-wide. The police and hunters should be able to bear arms - and will have to remain. Why then buy guns abroad? For plain economic reasons, buy them in Lovia, and let our own market profit! There are guns - this is a fact. No nation can do without 'em. Let us accept this undeniable fact and try to find out a way to make our country safe despite their existence. Remember: guns don't kill people, people kill people. -- Magnus 21:13, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

What we need is a law that allows the purchase and use of weapons for police, hunters and self-defense. With good laws and regulations in place, we can allow guns without compromising the safety of Lovians. HORTON11 21:22, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to sign up as a hunter, and I'll be happy to shine it up on my front porch, loaded. Nathaniel Scribner 21:56, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Jon, there are reasons why US states with high gun ownership have low crime rates. No criminal in his right mind is going to attack, steal, rape, etc. when there is a high chance that his or her victim is going tobe able to fight back. That's just common sense. We might as well build the store, because criminals are going to have guns anyways. BoredMatt 22:01, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Lower rate of criminality, yes, but also the crimes committed are often with more serious consequences. Why? Because of the easy access to guns. If everyone is armed, that doesn't make it safer. If the whole hunter license is being misused, we should tighten legislation. How about forbidding guns for all with the sole exception of policemen on duty? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

The US is a joke when it comes to guns. After the colombine shooting incident, (you know an incident that would never of happened because someone else would have a gun, to defend him or her self, BULSHITT), this was said in a speech planned after the shooting happened by president of the NRA: [1]. Well let me say this: this man is nuts, carrying guns to defend yourself is nuts! Police should have weapons: correct. Hunters can have weapons: after a procedure the supreme court has to give a permit, this should be the general rule JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 07:05, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

One side will be for guns, another side completly against it, why can't we come to some mid-point? Lets say..heavy background checks for people who would like to use a firearm, small magazines, only allow pistols. Well- the thing about giving good people guns is somtimes a tumbs up, Utah Colleges allow students that have been heavly check to carry guns. My state is getting scared to shit, who will the crazed man go for the heavly armed Utah School, or the Defenseless Indiana School? See in a make believe nation- we have zero crime, zero shootings..so really we don't need a gun, but I'm glad little johnny is in the lock box when you live in Gary, Indiana. Nathaniel Scribner 07:44, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Nathaniel, you do acknowledge that you like to have a gun because there are crazy folks walking around with guns, right? Under Lovian law, there would not be such fools. The state will have total control over firearms, with no illegal firearms either. That's what we're working on. In such a case, it is EVEN SAFER not to have a gun. Dimitri 07:50, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

This is getting silly, every place in this world HAS bad people. There can never be a utopia, and also- were is all of our public housings, or ghettos? Nathaniel Scribner 08:05, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Kid, listen. Hundred people, where one illegally owns a gun (we couldn't catch the guy yet), and where five policemen have guns to catch the bad guys. Or hundred people, where fifty own guns. Which scenario is most likely to get lots of people killed? It's not just about bad people, it's about giving good people a horrible tool in a moment of stress. Dimitri 08:09, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Facts, not opinions

Okay, this discussion is not really leading anywhere. Let's summarize what Lovia needs.

1. The Firearms Act does not specify how people should acquire these firearms. We should think about a solution which explicitly resolves this issue.
2. Under the Firearms Act, which will be enshrined in the Federal Law tomorrow, all firearms are forbidden. Since we are an island nation we assume that the government is able to make sure no guns come on the islands illegally. Let's just assume this out of good faith. If it is prohibited, there should NOT BE A BLACK MARKET. If there is one, the bill fails (partly).
3. Prohibiting all private firearms possession is not impossible, as one of you said here. It's possible. It just requires strict laws, good procedures (that's what we're working on now) and total control.

Instead of talking about why - let's consider how we shall tackle this issue. How could we legally, and in agreement with the existing laws (which I suggest you all read), solve the issue of where to buy arms?

For those who read TIME Magazine (I do), there was an interesting reportage on fire arms in the January 24 edition, of course in reaction to the Tucson Tragedy. Some short facts?

• In the US, 8 children and teens die from gun violence, every day.
• On a yearly basis, 31,224 people die from gun violence in the US. An additional 7,000 kill themselves.
• 613 people are killed every year - accidentally.

Research has shown that in states with very strict gun laws, less people die or are hurt in gun violence - obviously. If there are no guns, you can't fire them. Think about this. Owing a gun is not a premise of western freedom. Dimitri 07:46, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

What about the people who die in a car accidents should we ban them too, I could drive my car into a large group of people, would that be a weapon that kills people accidentally- I've heard of people suicide with they're car, Nathaniel Scribner 07:59, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

That's a sick argument. Obviously, you haven't had car or gun accidents in your family yet? Should we allow nuclear weapons in our backyards too then? Don't you think there's a degree of danger here? Guns have one purpose: shoot. Cars can also drive, like to your work. Dimitri 08:09, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dimi here. Gun permits may be handed out by the government, though I don't think Congress should vote on every new permit request. What about letting court approve/disapprove of permit requests? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:12, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Dimitri 08:15, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

There should indeed be some sort of control on the control. Clearly, some people would use it for other purpose than those prescribed by the Galahad Act. Court must be able to intervene rapidly if abuse is reported. --American Eagle 08:17, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

And lets say people with a permit have to collect their gun at the police station nearest to their residence? The qualified department could buy and distribute the guns. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:18, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

That's another good idea. We could include a clause which states the fed state is the only one allowed to purchase guns abroad, and to import them. They could then be sold to those who just acquired their license. I definitely support that. Dimitri 08:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Mhm, I thank you Dimi for enganging with me on the questions I have to talk over every day, and these are the things I'm pumbled with every day by Republicans.. the car thing and what not, but I do want more control, less ban. We should let the states kinda have a say in this. Nathaniel Scribner 08:24, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the name . Lovian states are in no way comparable to US states. There's no judiciary, no police, no legislature... on state or local level. Letting one man (the Governor) decide over issues of such political nature, is not what we intended for the states. We have Congress for these kinds of things. It's our most democratic and powerful institution. If the people use it well, it can do virtually anything for them. Dimitri 08:28, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I know. It seems odd to even have a state then. Nathaniel Scribner 08:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do need someone to do the little things :). Like what Martha Van Ghent has done for Clave Rock: that's good Governor's work. Dimitri 08:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Another Fact: The Flint Case

In Flint, Michigan, a 6 year old boy whose parents owned a gun, took this gun to school and shot a 6 year old girl. Is this a bad person to whom we should defend ourself? Don't think so, if this boy did not have access to a gun, this would not have happened, but seemingly this is what some Lovians want to achieve. If we allow firearms, we create a opportunity for 'good people' to abuse their goodness (sometimes (aka the flint case) not even knowing that they are abusing it) JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:37, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yes fine point, I agree with you on gun safety and it being put away properly. Nathaniel Scribner 08:41, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

@Jon: we're on the same line here but as Dimi said it is best to concentrate on the legislation. Otherwise the discussion will never end. I can live with court-controlled permits for professional use. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:42, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

@Yuri: thanks. @Jon: yes Dimitri 08:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I know yuri, however I'm trying to convince some others too, and I know: It was my proposal to do as following

Police: congress buys and provides of necessary tools to exercise the monopoly of violence

Hunters: Need a permit (given by someone, court seems logic to me JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:49, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I've never owned a gun, nor do I live in a area with bad crime. I was really just trying to make the wiki more lively, and see how Dimi could bounce back :D. I'm not a very good conservative. Nathaniel Scribner 08:52, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

You were sort of convincing . American conservatives are already a parody of themselves, so Dimitri 08:55, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I want to react on "I agree with you on gun safety and it being put away properly": What do you need a gun for when you put it away? JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

For safe keeping untill the Zombies come. Nathaniel Scribner 09:01, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

To quote Dimitri: "We could include a clause which states the fed state is the only one allowed to purchase guns abroad, and to import them. They could then be sold to those who just acquired their license. I definitely support that". Sounds fair. But why not allow states to purchase these guns on Lovian soil? That way the Lovian economy would be the one to profit from these purchases, and not the nation the guns are taken from (that being the US). I see no problem whatsoever in allowing a store such as Anderson's to sell guns to representatives of the Federal States.--Magnus 09:27, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Good point Magnus, I only doubt the fact that this will cause no problems. I totally follow you in this case! Inland stores can also provide guns to congress, But that states should be able to buy, is a strange thing to me, some states could provide ammo, others would not, this would lead to the following, person A moves from his hometown to buy guns elsewhere; which is a weird situation JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 09:33, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Why would a state provide guns but not ammo, or vice-versa? Why not just heavily regulate the business itself and then let the business sell guns? I'm all for banning handguns and assault rifles fully and completely if we get to own hunting rifles and shotguns, and get to buy and sell them independent of the state. BoredMatt 14:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Hunters can have weapons that's not the point, but what I fear is, that lovia will suddenly be full of hunters JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 16:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't exactly go around shooting up schools with a bolt-action hunting rifle or a shotgun ;) BoredMatt 16:11, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Matt, I suppose you could. There has even been a case in the Netherlands in which a kid shoot his mother trough the eye with a pencil from a home-made crossbow. You can outlaw guns but violence itself? Impossible. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 16:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Perius (or Ygo, what should we call you now?), I'm not talking about violence, I'm talking about hunting. Violence can never be outlawed, and that's understood by all parties here. We need the ability for private citizens to hunt with their own firearms. Next thing you know, Dimi & co. are going to ban bow hunting, and then crossbows, and then trapping. BoredMatt 16:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

No we are not! Hunting is good i think, but i think magnus is with us on this one (i hope so ). If everybody in Lovia because a hunter we have accomplished the inverse of what we would JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 17:20, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Matt, you may call me Magnus or call me Prime Minister. Or sir. [2] And as for allowing hunters to purchase guns, I'm with you 100% on that, you know that. I have nothing against stricter requirements to purchase guns but to own a gun for protection should remain a possiblity and a right protected by law. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 17:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Your Most Immaculate Eminence ;D. However, I don't think we can get a right to self-defense into this without everybody else bailing on the bill. BoredMatt 22:38, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

061. Order

The First Chamber should remain orderly at all times. Please use the colons before each comment, one colon more than the previous comment. Please keep it orderly. Dimitri 07:48, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

062. Humane

Humane Slaughter Act

1. No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the Kingdom of Lovia unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:

1. in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical,or any rapid and effective manner as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, where rapid is deemed a near-instant neutralization of life and effective means either a single shot, blow or use of force to render it insensible, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or

2. by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.

3. Report

The Secretary of Agriculture, Industry and Trade shall investigate and submit to Congress a report on the scope of nonambulatory livestock; the causes that render livestock nonambulatory; the humane treatment of nonambulatory livestock; and the extent to which nonambulatory livestock may present handling and disposition problems for stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.

4. Authority

Based on the findings of the report, if the Secretary determines it necessary, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock by stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.

Seems to be a good bill. BoredMatt 22:35, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but it is slightly vague; what exactly is meant by 'rapid and effective', for instance? --Semyon 22:41, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Rapid..as in a fast method of killing the animal, effective as in a method that woulden't requice you to do twice as in..using a second bullet. Nathaniel Scribner 22:47, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'm all pro for this but we'll just have to see what others think of it. HORTON11 23:12, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should make a universally accepted means of killing anything short of humans. Something fast and clean. Something like a poisonous drug. Edward Hannis 01:24, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

You can't exactly apply a poisonous drug to a bullet. BoredMatt 01:41, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Poisonous drugs would not be a good idea, if they got into the wrong hands, it could be disastrous. I would agree to traditional methods like shooting or better yet a blow to the head. HORTON11 01:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

There's a special, low-velocity 12-gauge shotgun round on the market that fires a special slug that's supposed to humanely cull livestock through the concussive force of the impact alone. That might be something to consider. BoredMatt 01:49, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

That seems much better than using poison. HORTON11 01:58, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems like a good law. I'd change this sentence, though: I'd change this sentence though "by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith" into "or the Islamic faith" because basically Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter is the same thing. Other then that: great! And no poisonous drugs: the meat should be consumable, remember? We don't want to poison ourselves. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 09:29, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

So my Human Burgers are out of the question? I agree with Seymon in saying that it is very vauge. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 16:34, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

@Zackatron: I know what 'rapid' and 'effective' mean, but terms like this must be very closely defined. --Semyon 21:53, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed it up. I'm giving the DAiT shall have work to do, Mr.Villanova :D Nathaniel Scribner 23:08, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

The first part might need some reworking, but the second part is really great. Its very professional! Hopefully you can run and get elected in the midterms, cause you could do good in congress. HORTON11 23:31, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I added some more, it should clearify the powers of the DAiT. Nathaniel Scribner 01:14, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I would probably rewrite the first part to make it clearer and define rapid and effectiveness:

1. the killing of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and all animals, when they are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow, gunshot or any other means, whether electrical or mechanical, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Such termination of life should be employed in a' rapid and effective manner as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, where rapid is deemed a near-instant neutralization of life and effective means either a single shot, blow or use of force to render it insensible.

This should be clearer and better styled. But the other parts are just great,no need to really change themHORTON11

Looks great now! I'll vote yes, and hopefully the other Congressmen and women can do the same. HORTON11 01:41, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ha it seems like we've been in congress for two seconds and me the DAiT has done more than any other position right now. I'm currently writing a water law and just wrote a short sentace for the Sports act. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 01:44, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

63. National Bank Act

Preamble

Lovia, unlike most other countries in the world, has no national bank. I would like to propose to Congress the establishment of such a bank, as it can prove necessary in most economic aspects of Lovia, and can achieve a greater economic independence for our country.

The Act

1. The National Bank of Lovia will be the official central bank of the Kingdom.

a. The National Bank is to be a publicly owned enterprise under the complete control of Congress.

b. No other banking or financial institution will have the right to proclaim itself as the "national bank".

The official duties of the National Bank are as follows:

2. Issuing and use of currency- The National Bank will oversee the use of all official currencies in Lovia.

a. If necessary, the bank is to issue the official national currency, which would consist of:

i) printing Banknotes (bills)

ii) minting Coins

b. No other Lovian or foreign banking or financial institution will have the right to issue coinage or currency, in the name of Lovia or any other country, office or institution.

3. Keeping Federal And Foreign Reserves- The Bank will:

a. Be in charge of keeping and protecting Federal currency (holding government money) in the bank vaults.

b. Keep international currencies, gold and other precious metals (in the vaults) as a reserve currency:

i) to ensure that Lovia does not stay dependent on any single currency

ii) to ensure that the country does not become bankrupt in the case of an economic collapse of the market or of any Lovian currency.

4. Regulating private banking institutions- The National Bank should regulate Lovian banks in such a way as to prevent economic recessions and banking collapses by:

a. limiting the amount of money a bank may lend to no more than 86% of its total currency amount held in reserve,

b. having background credit checks to ensure customers can pay off the loan

c. ensuring banks employ fair and reasonable interest rates when charging for loans.

5. Assisting congress and the Department of Finance in enacting economic measures

a. Congress (and the Department of Finance) should collaborate with the National Bank when:

i) enacting economic measures or trade-related laws to ensure they will not have an adverse effect on the economy

ii) economic agreements are being drawn up with foreign governments and/or their respective central banks

b.Likewise, the Bank should assist the government in any way to ensure that the said laws will aid Lovia's economy and help it grow

6. The bank is responsible for setting minimum and/or maximum interest rates for:

a. The lending of currency by financial institutions and private banks

b. Accrued interest on persons personal bank funds

If approved, a follow up bill would be one for the creation of a National Currency.

Here is the proposed bill. It would be nice to have comments and suggestions, to improve the bill and see it pass to the Second Chamber. HORTON11 02:28, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

looks nice! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 02:37, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

The Aventis National Bank of Lovia is partially a state owned institution. [...] It acts as the central bank of the country since it fused together with the Lovian National Bank in August 2008. --> So we do have a bank that performs the tasks of a central bank. I propose we fully nationalize this already partially public bank and turn it into our NB. Also, please try to look before saying 'we do not have this or that'. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:55, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Ad yuri: okay, but the name needs to be changed, so it won't really matter in the end i think/ ad marcus: You need to add some lines on how the bank will be ruled and also I say again that national reserves do not exist (so when the cb holds government money, than it is a consequence of a payment from the gouvernment to the cb, which makes the money base smaller and also the money quantity) JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:53, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

064. Notification

My three laws on the social issues of Lovia are finally up for voting in the Second Chamber. I hope all of you took the time to already read the bills. We all know that hope is vanity, right? Anyway numbers can still be adjusted later on, it are the mechanisms I really want to introduce. More information can be found on my sandpit or you can address your questions to me directly. Thanks to all (former) MOTC who offered their constructive criticism; in particular Marcus Villanova, Edward Hannis, Martha Van Ghent, Oos Wes Ilava and Jon Johnson. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks the PCP will support this law. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:10, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

065. Party Loyalty Act

Party-swapping seems to be a key feature of Lovian politics, one that IMO isn't very democratic. F.e. would you have been so keen to elect Edward in 2010, had you known he would join the CCPL? Here is my proposed solution.

1. By joining a political party in the Kingdom of Lovia, a citizen agrees to the following conditions:
2. If that citizen, holding a government position, be it that of a Governor, Deputy Governor, or Member of the Congress, leaves the party of which they are a member, the remaining members of the party have the right to call a by-election if they so wish.
3. In the by-election, a new candidate chosen by the party will stand against the original holder of the post. The winner of the by-election will take up the post.
4. The regulations for by-elections are as follows:
   1. If the post is that of a Member of the Congress, all citizens will be entitled to vote.
   2. If the post is that of a Governor or Deputy Governor, only the citizens of the relevant state will be entitled to vote.
   3. Each citizen will have one vote, which may be cast for either candidate.
   4. Other normal electoral rules apply.
5. This law shall not be applied retrospectively.

I don't expect anyone will like this, but please consider it. --Semyon 16:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I recognize the problem and am open to a solution. The current person-bound positions are indeed undemocratic. On the other hand complete party-bound positions would be undemocratic too. I like the idea behind this solution. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 17:00, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not a solution. And what to think of this: this law also means that if f.e. I am elected as a CCPL Gov and I don't switch parties, but I do change my ideology, it is not contra the law, while it is especially that the law is designed for. And what if someone is thrown out of a party? In my opinion this is not a good solution. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a fine proposal, actually. People will think twice before joining or leaving a party as a result of it. Although not much party-hopping has taken place since McCrooke decided to leave us. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 19:55, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Decided to leave us" lol! Sure. Okay, any way i say nay, very undemocratic. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 20:51, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Soon we will be creating laws like "if you watched 30 Rock on Thursdays that is the only day it can be watched for you personally." Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:06, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Party loyalty is good to some extent, but it should not get in the way of personal choice. So, I have to say no. HORTON11 21:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed we need some common sense here this is a bit facist even to say that you can't switch when ya want to. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

The solution is not optimal but I still believe a solution has to be found. Parties do their best to support 'their candidates', IRL you can't just hop parties without losing your seat to. Maybe our elections need to be reformed parallel to the secret voting? Anyone would be in favor for party lists? Independents can of course still run 'on themselves' (as a one-man party so to say). Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Well.. The first thing is not exactly true. At least here in the Netherlands it goes as following: if you disagree with your party, you have three possibilities: 1. stop complaining and vote like your party does. 2. don't leave the party, but lose your seat. 3. leave the party and keep your seat. If you choose for the third option, then you could still join a different party (btw, only a party which is not already represented in congress). It's not that common at all, but it is a possibility.

The last thing indeed is something interesting. I'm fully Pro trying with secret voting and party lists. There is one thing we should take a look at then: what if a one-man party gets f.e. 50% of the votes? what is done with the votes for this party that can not be used as there is only one candidate? --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 07:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think he would 'transfer' his votes to the party closest to him. The problem I see with this is that if I like Walden but dislike Martha, as she'll be at the top of the list I cannot avoid helping to elect her. (this is of course just an example.) If it were possible to vote for individual candidates as well as for the party as a whole, it would work better. --Semyon 08:35, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

That issue can be expanded to 'what about parties with more seats than members'. I'll take a look into it and try to find a solution to that. Any suggestions are welcome. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:37, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Marcus and Justin: I know this probably won't work, but you can at least read the bill. Members can still move party whenever they want; there'll just be some consequences. --Semyon 08:39, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Yuri: I think an overview of the electoral system would be a good idea; just look at the conflicts caused in the past year. --Semyon 08:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Semyon: I think you propose some kind of combined list-person voting system with preference votes, like in the Netherlands. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:49, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

If you can vote for the party and for the candidate, it could be a good idea. But, we would need to have secret voting, and that is hard to achieve. HORTON11 13:08, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Semyon: I did read it which is why i commented.

I feel like this won't work out and just make things more complicated, too much off the wikia stuff. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:30, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

My conclusion after working out a few scenario's: too complicated and too punitive for smaller parties. I suggest Congress approves a law which allows individual parties to decide whether they wish to 'bind' seats to them or leave them in the hands of their members. In other words: we still keep voting for people but party statutes can legally require that its members have to give up their seat(s) if they loose membership. This solution balances realism, fair representation and ease. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:05, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sounds acceptable. But what happens if a member has to give up his seat? Is the seat replaced by someone else from the party or is the seat simply opgeheven? --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:26, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Where's hannis to say "don't fix it if it isn"t broken" Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 11:28, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I dunno man, I'm kinda missing Hannis right now. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 11:35, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually it is broken. In the Netherlands we call it kiezersbedrog (voter's deception). You vote for someone because you expect something from him, but if he comes to the conclusion that he wants to change his mind, the voter's will will no longer be heard in Congress, which means that it actually is very undemocratic. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:56, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's undemocratic, but its unfair to the voters. Say they voted for a liberal and he became a conservative, they would not be happy and would feel misrpresented. HORTON11 13:01, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, democracy means that the people should decide. They do this by electing candidates who they expect will do what they want. If these elected candidates later on change their views, the people's indirect decisions are no longer done, which means that it is not democratic, because the people can no longer (indirectly) decide. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:05, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly missing something, OWTB. Shall I let you in on a little secret, little goodie-two-shoes? Screwing the voters is a major part of politics. There is no such thing as an honest politician, just like there is no such thing as an honest lawyer. We lie: it's what we do. But we call it differently. We call it "compromising". Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 13:13, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

The new idea:

1. Political parties which exercise power through a mandate required in a recognized election are entitled to 'bind' that mandate to the party.
   1. If bound, the party which the seat belongs to has the right to replace the person occupying the mandate under any of the following conditions:
      1. The person occupying the mandate formally drops his or her party membership on his or her own account.
      2. Through court verdict, the person occupying the mandate loses the right to exercise a political mandate.
      3. The person occupying the mandate is deprived of his or her party membership through an internal procedure.
   2. The person who replaces the former occupant must have membership of the same party the seat belongs to.
   3. The involved political party can opt out on the usage of the replacement procedure if it wishes so.

Any comments or additions? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:38, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a very clear law. Looks okay :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 13:56, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, and as Oos said, its really clear and precise. HORTON11 15:03, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this bill, or any such bill. In my opinion, individuals are elected under the Constitution, not parties or lists. --American Eagle 15:06, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

People vote for them based on their party and ideals, so if they change their party/ideals, the people who elected them in would not be happy. HORTON11 16:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I still hate this law it's so overcomplicting evrything and just way too undemocratic, and i will challange it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:12, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I can very well see what some of you have against it, but please consider it. The bill fixes an actual problem and you all can still vote contra its implication within your respective parties. If the bill is passed, the CPL.nm will decide whether to use it or not by democratic vote under all its members. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

This can only work if other editors do not touch (read: change) the content of ones own userpage. Which has happened in the past, as we all know.. Aesopos 07:04, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite follow here? If you would change the content of this site from 'Yuri is a member of the CPL.nm' to 'Yuri is a member of the CCPL' that would not be on my own account, thus not allowing my party to hand my seat over to someone else. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I dislike your revision, Yuri. The key feature of the original was that an election would be held between the old person and the newcomer. If the old one is simply replaced, that's quite undemocratic. --Semyon 08:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that depends. If you were going to let everyone vote (including people who didn't vote the first election was held) you would have a very strange bias. My revision is supposed to be a compromise between party-based voting and personal participation in the elections. I'm open to suggestions, but I do prefer my current (of course not perfect) proposal. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:19, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Notification to Congress

I would like to restart the above discussion on a new election procedure with secret voting. Parallel to this I want to address some general issues concerning the organization of the Lovian state. For instance: Congress can issue laws which are incompatible with the Constitution, and (even worse) a judge would not be able to make a decision when faced with conflicting legislation. Therefore we should make a 'reform package' that solves all of this. More concrete measures will be proposed soon. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 15:03, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Lovia needs some reactivating and I believe that it's very important that a judge should be able to do that, but then we should have a complete separation of judge and congress. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:51, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Great initiative. Also a good thing that you mention the judges - I am planning on changing a few things when it comes to our Supreme Court Judges as in: what are the requirements and the maximum and minimum ammount of active Judges and their function(s). I will also appoint new Judges (indeed, more then one). Of course it'll have to wait until after the trial, which is taking way to long. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 16:07, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I like everything exepct that secret voting thing. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:00, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I like the secret votin thing, but it will be difficult to make a good system that works.HORTON11 21:33, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

From the signals I'm getting here it seems best to vote both proposals separately: a reform of the voting system and a better worked out legal system. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:05, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm for a new better legal system but a secret voting system can be tampered and changed. I can just make a new e-mail like Horton11Walden from aol.com and just vote for him.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 14:25, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

We could only count those votes that have been confirmed by the accounts. So first I vote per mail and then I say somewhere on the wiki 'I voted'. I know there are difficulties, but we should at least try to overcome them. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:02, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

The part on a stronger judicial branch of power is getting shape. I made some recommendations which I would like to work out in actual legislation. Please check the few points and formulate your opinion. (PS: the voting reform will best be separated to avoid too much controversy in one proposal). Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 10:51, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Three bills coming soon/now!

The first the sports addition Act 0.61

The national sports team of Lovia need to be approved by congress by normal majority. The national teams are as followed :

• Lovian National Soccer Team
• Lovian National Sevens Team

This was also posted a long time ago in my bills for congress subpage Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 01:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

I also wrote a water providing bill in a subpage called /Government Provides and going to write a judical re-write act. Thanks, Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 01:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, i think this is good. There are afterall Lovia's 2 most popular sports, so i say Pro for this. Just fix the wording and make it a more professional proposal.HORTON11

Supreme Court Act (my Try) 0.62

This would be an add on to the current admendment

Proposing to repeal section Seven, destroying the position of the department of Justice, and make it this:

• There are three judges in the supreme court all appointed by congress with a 50% majority.
  • Out of the three judges one is appointed, "Head Supreme Justice of Lovia" which heads every case unless he does not wish too and appoints one of the other two judges to head the case.
  • An appeal can be requested by a party after a ruling does not comply with the consitution or exculsivley by the defense does not like the ruling and has reasoning.
  • An appeal can be asked by going to the "Head" Judge.
    • If so the appeal is considered by the "Head" judge and the appeal is entirely orginized and judged by the "Head", after that ruling, it stands and is final.
• The judges are removed after congress removes them with a 50% majority. (Sidenote:meaning unlimited serving time)
• Judges cannot openly support a political party or be in congress..

Simple and to the point right? Just makes the system simpler and better for everyone. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 23:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

I would make make the judges serve terms of maybe 1 or two years. I feel that unlimited serving time is not too democratic. But the rest seems fine. HORTON11 23:29, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

True but if a nice fellow comes in here and as soon he's appointed he turns out to be a nazi we can easily through him out. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 23:56, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Set terms are more re-assuring, though. Anyways we'll have to see what others think. HORTON11 00:03, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

A good start. I'm a little uncertain on how one can 'appeal'? Could you please clarify that section. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 18:05, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Also, Marcus: "There are three judges in the supreme court all appointed by congress with a 60% majority": I'd make that a 50% majority. In these times of inactivity it is hard enough to reach fifty, let alone sixty percent of Congressmen! Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 18:08, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

@horton: I won't comprimise on term limits, sorry.

@Yuri: By asking the head judge, I added that in.

@Ygo:Changed to 50%

P.S. If you haven't read go to my side page /Government Provides about water legislation. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 22:41, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

@Aesopos, please don't revert other people's comments. If you spot an error you can tell the editor(s) involved by adding a comment. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 09:15, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at Who can appeal to find out the correct words to be used in an appeal. Also, 50% is not a majority, 51% is.

@YgoD, the reason of my inactivity is mainly caused by all these in my opinion senseless court cases that seem to "zich opstapelen" on this site. Where is the beautiful, lovely lovia gone? What is the purpose of all of this. It just is not fun anymore. Also the site is working extremely slow, looks as if we are in the middle ages here. Aesopos 12:02, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Aesopos. It is senseless and not at all "fun" and it is driving away people from the site. I did not choose for a trial to occur nor did I wish for myself to lose and face a sentence of up to six months in jail. Yet others did deem it neccesary and their stupidity (Galahad's and Jefferson's) is destroying Lovia as we know it. Also, Aesopos, you are not entitled to vote in the Second Chamber because you are no longer a MOTC since you didn't run in the elections. Sorry old chap, rules are rules and I can't allow you to vote if you are not in congress. Hope you understand, Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 12:14, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

In any case it also maybe the whole academics part. Plus we re-elected Percy and Alyssa who were inactive until elections, where is Latin when you need him? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 12:48, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Percy may be inactive, Marcus, but he did return to put me on trial and destroy me. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 14:12, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ha. , Moral of this action: Don't elect unactive people.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 17:07, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

If we can only work with the active users I'm afraid we will have to seriously slink the amount of MOTC. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:10, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

But I can see that the number of MOTC will be lowered by three or five. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:26, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Well, lowering the number of MOTCs won't necessarily decrease the number of inactive MOTCs. You should also introduce a higher barrier, like "The candidate must have made at least 200 edits in the last 3 months, of which at least 50 in the last month." --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 07:44, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

It's a start but will have to see what others think. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:13, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Create a Budget

When should really plan this out, although it might be hard it would be worth it and would could give factual base for pro-government and anti-spending fighters here in Lovia. Well determin how much is going into the government and coming out, what should be fix and what should be shut down. While this might be a labor taking task it will be worth it in the end, so I'd like to have the MOTC form some type of budget.

The Congress of Lovia and all of its federal holdings shall provide a budget for the Kingdom of Lovia by April 30th 2011. This budget shall describe money holdings and tax spending of the Government of Lovia. If no agreement is seen at 12:00 on the 30th of April, a government shutdown shall be issued and federal occupations will come to a hault. It is seen that all active MOTC's should help in the procces, as well with the Donia Government. No federal spending shall be left out of the budget for mis-caculation, if so shall be the entire budget be re-done.

Somthing I kinda just thought up of in a few moments, its basicly almost the same as the US budget- no budget no government. I'd really like some more help on this! - Scribner

Well i mean your no congressman so... Anyway we sorta run on a free budget, where if we pass a bill that gives each citizen 20$ we adapt to the needs and people living in Lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:43, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Thats not how a nation is ran, nor a any company. There is no such thing as a 'free budget', nothing is free, money has to come from some where. We should also have satistics to show whos in poverty and with out healthcare and other major topics. I'm no congressman but I can begin a idea, well thats how its done in America, a person can contact there local representative and try and get the idea in bill form and sent to Washington. I just diden't know who to contact in Lovia. Zackary Daniel Perry 02:29, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I know but lovia is really inactive right now so maybe this isn't the best time.What i ment is that your not a moderator or PM so we can just start making rules. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

066. Motion to restore the Prime Minister to his rightful duties

I would like to ask congress to allow Mr Y.A. Donia to be allowed back in Lovia, and to continue his duties as our Prime Minister. It would be best if he was legally allowed to return and rule, as I fear he may resort to physical action. I would like to hear comments and hold a vote to determine the outcome. HORTON11 21:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to throw Congress out then what do you need the PM for? You either support new elections or you don't. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:39, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

That would be a great idea, Mr. Horton. Action has to be taken. New elections? The PM has to call for those, but he will not and cannot do so from prison. First he has to restored in his function and his name has to be cleared. That includes, of course, the return of his citizen rights. Exiled Leader 07:57, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the exiled leader said 'fuck the rules'? So why not organizing elections without the PM calling for them? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:07, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

So, organize elections? I can tell you exactly what would happen: people become active, start campaigning (if they have time for it, which I doubt) and then after the elections, things die out again as quickly as last year... It is no solution, not a permanent one. Leadership is needed, and leadership is lacking. Exiled Leader 08:20, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm pointing out, save the exception that I don't believe in the leadership option either. Elect an emperor, establish collectives or declare yourself pope of walhalla - nothing will do. Crisis is inevitable since the wiki is nobody's priority. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:18, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Not at the moment, no. Besides, as we all get older, we just simply lack time for the site. And when people begin to scatter around other sites, new countries, new websites (who ALL fail), it is the beginning of the end. In fact, the end was perhaps the Villanova scandal, then McCrooke's downfall and block; the outrageously fierce election campaigns, of which I, too, am very much responsible. Then that shit with the Brigade, and then the trial... Too much, too soon, I guess... scares people away rather then attracts them to the site. And then there is school, work, friendships, relationships, family - all those things have more priority over some fictional nation on some silly website. Maybe the Donia I government destroyed the nation. The Donia Clan destroyed Lovia, turned it into some banana republic. Exiled Leader 09:38, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

It is not at all your mistake. Several people were unhappy with the 'all happy progressives' story my premiership embodied. A new equilibrium was found by allowing more conservative people in charge, but with a radicalization of the progressives in return. New situation brings new crisis and for a lot of people it was just one crisis too many. Ask yourself the question: is it really still worth the time? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:42, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth the time? I can be very short: at the moment, no. Exiled Leader 09:47, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

And maybe tomorrow it will be yes, but eventually it will become no forever. You want your freedom, just ask and I will give it. There is no reason to keep you locked up, just as there is no reason to free you. Might as well do it then. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:50, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

If you'd free me, would that include giving me back my citizen rights? If the answer is no, you might just aswell keep me blocked. Although of course, you undoing the block would be most welcome, old comrade. Exiled Leader 09:56, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Why should you care for citizen rights? If you reassume your PM position, who would protest? If you run in new elections, who will stop you? At the moment no-one cares. Consider yourself a free man, it is not like my actions as admin have any 'legal value' within the Lovian framework. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:59, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what Dimitri and Arthur think of this... Could it potentially draw their attention enough to see a quick return? Exiled Leader 10:04, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be it wont, but who am I to know? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 10:08, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Aesopos has also attempted to contact His Royal Majesty... If even the Magnificant Honorary Court Gardener \ Adviser cannot get a reply I fear the worst... Exiled Leader 10:16, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not under the impression that he is hard to reach, I had a phone call with him last weekend. ^^ Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 10:20, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I guess that conversation in no way involved Lovia, did it? Exiled Leader 10:22, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

It was about having drinks, amongst other most trivial topics. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 10:26, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on can't we just un-ban ygo? Simple as that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is what I did, no? My watch list says so. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:17, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Then we hold new elections everything becomes good!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:19, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, for a while. Forgive me my lack of enthusiasm but honestly, how many provisional Congresses have we had already? Lovia is no better than Belgium (finally 1 year without elected government). Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:23, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Question are the elections in england may 15th a vote of no confidence or just local elections. I understand but you never know it could save lovia Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:33, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Okay searched there local elections. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:38, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Europe is being flooded by power shifts, from center to right mostly. Luckily France and Germany (2 big players) will most likely form an exception, voting socialist and environmentalist parties in power. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:45, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I know my relatives were rejoiceing the election of the Bravian Christians or somthing. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:47, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism is on the rise especially in Eastern Europe. Hungary voted a new constitution which demands 'traditional family values' - bad news for gay couples, abortion and the like. Luckily the European Union already started an investigation whether this is compatible with European values. I hope EU liberals kick them Hungarian asses! Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:50, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I can see (I forget what it is) the European Alliance is it? Which is a European Parliament Party, which the British National Party is in, has taken it's control. In hungary they have a party called the Traditional Families Party so i guess they also took there toll on the people there. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:04, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

We should actually appoint a provisional congress with the most active people, and allow Ygo to reclaim his post as PM. HORTON11 15:37, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

This page is far too long and very slow, better archive it I guess Aesopos 15:58, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

new elections give us a new democratic approach. Time to dust off our old political parties or make new ones time reform the political parties and condense them. It gets me exicited just thinking about it. we should hold all new elections, if ygo wants to be PM he can be re-elected. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:19, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I won't be re-elecred. Never. Not only am I to controversial, I have also lost the faith of the Lovian people. If new elections are to be held, that'll be the end of me. Do I care? No, I can't really say I do. What has to happen will happen. The truth is, Marcus, I have never been a good statesman. Sure, I have been a fine debater. I have been friendly to some, and I have been downright evil to others, too. First and foremost, I have been divisive - instead of uniting people, I divided people. Instead of reaching agreement and compromise, solving dilemma's, I've caused dilemma's, caused problems rather then fixing them. You thought I was conservative? You don't even have a clue as to how conservative I actually am... In hindsight, we can conclude that I am not what Lovia needs, or needed, at any given time. And that Lovia would be better off without me. Exiled Leader 20:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

So what happend to last nights, "CRUSH THE OPPOSITION!", as soon as Yuri came back you seem like you put your tail between your legs and began to bash on yourself, I was really wanting you to come to Lovia politics. Zackatron 20:13, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I am glad at least one person is happy with my return... But be honest here - do you really think I can magically fix everything by returning, getting active? Or would elections fix all problems and inactivity? Sure, hold elections when 60% of Lovia is gone and hasn't been active in months... sounds like a GREAT idea. Or even better: let's start five new wikis and scatter around the web! It's always the same old shit we're hearing. Why not do something real bold? Like: I step down as a PM, place Villanova in charge and fill the congress with all active citizens from the last week or two? How 'bout that. Make someone young and ambitious the supreme leader. I'd like to make Marcus the benevolent dictator of Lovia until the 2012 elections, with you, Horton, and Zackatron as his right-hand men. Then you can reform, write laws and articles and have as much FUN as you want. Because that's what Lovia is supposed to be about: FUN! Exiled Leader 20:28, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Right-hand man of a dictator, I'll pass. Also, if you want to appoint Villanova as some type of Vice-Prime Minister you should do it on your original account seeing as Yuri has un-banned you.Zackatron 20:44, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Unbanning me is one thing - that does not mean my name is already cleared neither does it mean my position is, without a doubt, restored. Also, while I said dictator I of course mean "benevolent leader" and not forever, just for, say, six months or so. Like they did in ancient Rome, in the time of the Republic. Basically Marcus (or whoever I'd pick to be my successor) would serve as the PM, but he would have to present more actual power then the PM currently has, to really GET THINGS DONE. If he does outrageuous things, the vice-president or right-hand-man will have some sort of veto right, and otherwise after six months, the newly elected congress can choose to undone those of his changes they dislike. I just believe that the new leader should be:

• Powerful

• Ambitious

• Young

• And IN CHARGE

That I think is important. We don't need some weakling, we need a leader who is not afraid to ACT and to WORK HARD. I want to reward those who have remained active in spite of unactivity, people such as Marcus, Yuri, you, Horton, OWTB and such. They are the ones that have proven themselves worthy of rule, and only them I see actually getting things done. The others simply bailed out when things got difficult. You guys did not. Now is your time to shine. That is my plan, people. No elections - just a new government, with the right people in charge. You I know I can trust on. The others? Not so much. Exiled Leader 20:56, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

calm down. Ya' acting crazy man we shoule reallly think somthing out here. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:59, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

No man, I'm serious and I am calm. I believe this to be the only solution: to simply do things entirely different now. It's what Lovia needs. We don't need elections, campaigns and that shit, followed, as always, by massive inactivity. What we need is to give active users the proper authority to work on improving the nation. If neccesary, that means some laws will be broken. Nothing big though; no civil war, no violence, none of that crazy shit. Just an old leader who steps down, to be replaced by a new leader - and no fucking elections. Democracy can wait. We tried, it failed. The next elections will be in 2012, or, at the very least, not more then six months after the day a new leader takes my place. Exiled Leader 21:05, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

So appoint a new PM, put yourself in congress and appoint a new list of 10 congressmen. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

That would be pretty much my plan, yes. And you would be that PM. Think you're up to the task, brother? Exiled Leader 21:11, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to support this. BTW what's in it for me? HORTON11 21:14, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you sound just like an actual politician; greedy and hungry for power, we need that attitude, son! So, what's in it for you? First of all, you will be made a MOTC. Second of all, you will be getting some high office, most likely, we'll discuss that later. Exiled Leader 21:20, April 27, 2011 (UTC):::Come on guy's, y'all are talking crazy! "Whats it in for me" " Are you ready, brother" I'm just scared that Exiled is NOT even Ygo, and we should wait till he can get on his old account and confirm that this is thim and appoint a new PM. Zackatron 21:17, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I actually do think exiled leader is Donia. Anyways, he is bringing change to Lovia, which can benefit us. HORTON11 21:19, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I would not be surprized at all to find out EXILED LEADER = our dearest PIERLOT Aesopos 06:09, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Intermediate summary

• Exiled Leader has been blocked by Dimitri as a sockpuppet of YgoD (supposedly confirmed)
• Dimi also put poor YgoD back in jail after I allowed the latter to get some fresh air :p
• Only possibility now is to continue working with the Congress currently in office

Seems like the country is going nowhere for the time being. If you guys need me, I'll be working here. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:18, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ Zackatron 06:27, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Elections seem out of the question now, anyone fancy a provisional Congress? Two ways to make one: active and formerly elected vs. all active members with citizen rights. Just a trial balloon... Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:33, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know who took over Ygo's position, do we have a chain of command? The first one would be just fine, active people should try and get things back rolling, and after we get some people back (hopefully) we can hold true elections. Zackatron 06:37, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Article 8.1.5 of the Constitution says: New federal elections have to 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 (31 days); or when the Prime Minister steps down.

Ygo was forced to step down since he lost his citizen rights in the (admitted controversial) trial. I'm going to count how many MOTC are still active now, but I got the feeling we will be obliged to hold new elections. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:45, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we are going to have to hold new elections, but whos going to vote? Zackatron 06:52, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

No-one, too few users. A pity but nonetheless the situation. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:54, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

So set up a temporally provisonal government, or set up a small elected 3 congress? Zackatron 06:58, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

No PM = no limit on MOTC other than defined by the Constitution, being 30 at most. Minimal amount of 'points' needed is 6. If everyone votes with his three votes (worth 6 points in total) on himself, every running citizen is elected (unless we have more than 30 candidates). Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:01, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I see, maybe we should just go with a active-user congress for the time being, untill we can get our population back up.Zackatron 07:04, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Pierlot/Ygo/Drabo/Exiled Leader gave me his blessing to be PM, but I don't think that helps me? So Am I PM? Anyway 3 is too little 9+King gives a diverse congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

So am I PM? Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:38, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I woulden't shoot that fast with handing down the PM, we should think this out. Zackatron 12:32, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sign in whoever this is and that made no sense. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:18, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

It's a commonly used saying where I live, means going to fast. I don't think your PM at the moment, nor do I think anyone else is. Zackatron 12:32, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I would say a provisional congress is the most practical solution, but it should be composed of the most active users. HORTON11 12:49, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

If we go with a provisional Congress there should be consensus on who becomes PM. Also, if not elected, we shouldn't give the 'PM' full power. We could have the Provisional Congress name a 'chancellor' or something. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:50, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Once we select the congress, the members should vote to decide who becomes PM. HORTON11 14:53, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I still feel a PM which is not entirely elected according to the rules should be under stricter control of the Congress, just as a provisional Congress should keep low profile - not being a true body of democratic representation. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 15:08, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the PM should be under more control, but the congess should have as much power as any other. HORTON11 15:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have a PM we lose Lovia, Donia was good but when he got banned it became even more unactive. Not to toot my own horn or others but the congress should be this:

• OWTB
• King
• Yuri
• Horton
• Me, Marcus
• Aeospos
• Zackatron (Ya think ya' up for it )

These are definets have been the most active

Others who are candidates are Archamades, Seymon, Percival, Martha and Bucu. So pick three from the non-bullets.

Possible PM's include

• Horton
• Yuri
• Marcus

So what are we gonna do now? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:55, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Also as an announcment i'm joning CPL.nm to Simplfy things . But I hope I get my membership card soon. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:03, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

No kidding?! Happy to have you on board, though there are lots of good reasons to join besides simplification. Also, I don't think I'd like to be PM. Maybe if that would turn out to be the best option but if otherwise... Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:10, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

No i've also moved back to socialism, Progressivism. CPL.nm is more constucted. Hello chairman Meow. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:12, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

My mom is right: I do have a bad influence on people. Question: would you like me to make a membership card right away? I could also make a 2011 design, but that will take a little longer. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:17, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

@Marcus- well this is shocking, I did not expect you to go Commie. Well at least you are still left wing HORTON11 16:23, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

The CPL.nm is more of radical socialism and less of communism, not the traditional kind anyway. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:25, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I know So should we adpot this provincial congress. I think so, then they would vote on a PM. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:28, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

@ Yuri- Maybe CPL might like to work with the SDP, if we have elections

@ Marcus- In regard to the porvisional government you proposed:

1. Archamades, Seymon, Percival, Martha and Bucu ar not too acive (Bucu is the most ouf of all here)

2. I would like to become PM, though you and Yuri are fine candidates as well

HORTON11 16:23, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

The ones not-bulleted were kinda/sorta actives more or less fillers, Said he didn't want the job so it would be a congressional vote between me and you Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:32, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

First time in congress, well by default. What might also be interesting is that its mostly going to be controlled by progressive/social democrats. Zackatron 00:52, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

True and there mostly active. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:42, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Could we start a page for the provisonal government, and whos in it? Zackatron 20:22, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

It would be Oos, Yuri, HRH, Marcus, Washington, Me (Abrahams) and you. And we should start the page, maybe you might like to do it.HORTON11 20:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

We should also allow the new fascist guy he could fun a BNP/National Front like congressman with wacky words in congress so that would make eight. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:21, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

He'll be good I think, since he's quite active. Also we need more conservatives. HORTON11 22:46, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Ture dat, I added him. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:53, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I refuse any positions offered to me; I cannot work on Lovia whatsoever. On a side-note, I recommend Marcus to PM, if not Yuri. As I've aforementioned, I do not trust Horton, and I do not think he deserves it. If there's anything I ask here, it's to put Marcus in power, and keep Horton out of it. ARMACHEDES 01:53, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Now this is just a plain personal attack. As these are just opinions, they should not be taken seriously by congress. HORTON11 03:46, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

A bit below the belt indeed, though I favor Marcus too. He is longer around and more consensus-like it seems to me. About a cooperation between the two main socialist parties: working together closely is always fine with me. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:09, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

If I am offered the job, i will accept it. In fact i'm honored. In any case we still need a few more congressmen or women to make ten and have a smaller active congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:05, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Part 2

So let's be honest it's seems like people are really unactive these days so it seems insane but a seven person congress? My City council of Yonkers only has six people, your city council probaly also has a very small ammount.

So I propose this legislation to be voted on in the second Chamber:

Do to the unactivness of the current elected 2011 Congress, a 2011 Provisional Congress shall take it's place. The congress shall also hold the same duties with a new Prime Minister to lead the congress.

The Following congressmen shall be :

• Dimitri Noble
• Yuri Medvedev
• Justin Abrahams
• Nathaniel Scribner
• Oos Wes Ilava
• I. G. La Blaca
• Lars Washington
• William Krosby
• and Prime Minister Marcus Villanova

So any notes? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:34, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add. Agreed upon from my part. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:40, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Two votes pro, to start Villanova I Government and an active congress. CPl.nm in favor hopefully the rest are! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:42, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

(Sidenote) If this is the plan, we need to condense the departments, not beacuse of the provisional congress but there also unactive and could be condensed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:45, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I am glad I can be a part of Congress on behalf of the UNS and thus get the opportunity to finally give the far-right a voice of their own. Thank you! The Master's Voice 15:33, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. What happens now? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:38, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Lovia has two chamber but one congressional body, The first chamber is for proposals and discussiona nd hwen it gets enough supportives response it moves to the second chamber for an offical vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:40, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

So they consist of the same members? I was thinking it was sort of like the UK system where the house of lords only talks about laws and stuff, while the house of commons also votes on them. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:45, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Nah we don't have enough members sadly! But this seemed also just a bit more simple. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:48, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

067. Revision to Hamlet Act

Currently, the Hamlet Act reads like this:

1. Hamlets are Lovian place comparables to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city.
2. Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor.
3. Places are hamlets if:
   1. The population is at least 100 and maximum 1000. If larger they are considered a town.
   2. The size
      • is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood,
      • is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots.
   3. The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low.

I believe that this should be changed to:

1. Hamlets are a type of Lovian place comparable to neighborhoods that are not treated as a part of any town or city.
2. Hamlets are fully managed by a Chairman.
3. Places are hamlets if:
   1. The population is at least 100 and at most 1000. If larger, they are considered a town.
   2. They are not affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
      1. If a hamlet becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its hamlet status and become a neighborhood.

Why? Because I believe hamlets should essentially be considered lone neighborhoods. I believe they should govern themselves, like almost all hamlets/villages in real life do. Besides, hamlets are almost always far flung from cities and so should maintain more autonomy than they do currently. Discuss. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:48, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Would this also require a revision to the Towns and Cities Act? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion? Pro for me. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:41, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

It's good, expect we don't have Mayors/Chairman's anymore. We did until September of last year, I think? Then we abolished the position becuse of the highered positioned governors wouldn't get to do there jobs and the mayors would act like dictators over there towns. Other wise Pro just edit that part out. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:07, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should add back mayors and chairmans, but they should be optional, so like if you want to be a mayor, you can be, but we will not force you. Same thing with chairmans. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:19, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Time Master, I agree. People should have the ability to become the mayor of a city and make it active again. The Master's Voice 13:24, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda hard beacuse we don't have state legislatures or city councils so mayors act like dictators which really doesn't help. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

We can make it official trough law later, I just think it's nice for the creative souls on here like you and Horton to be able to run a city or village and write\make stuff up\expand articles. Remembers, it's just a website, and it's supposed to be FUN. If any mayor acts like a dictator, the Congress can dismiss him (or her, for that matter). The Master's Voice 13:31, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

i'm trying to think how we can comprimise, how about only mayors of towns and cities. If we have mayors for the smallest areas it gets to complicated. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:36, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Pro Agreed, bro. The Master's Voice 13:39, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

So Time Master if you change that I say pro too, and we'll propose it to congress after the composition of the departments. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:42, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of the congress being able to dismiss a mayor or chairman. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

No i'm not arguing that, i like that. I just wanted to change the chairman thing, that only towns and cities can have mayors for cities or chairmans for towns. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we rename hamlets villages? In real life, hamlets almost always have less than 100 population. I'll draft another proposal below, and we can talk about it.

067. Revision 2

Hamlet and Village Act

1. All Lovian settlements that are NOT towns or cities are classified into three denominational groups: neighborhoods, hamlets, and villages.
2. A village is a minor settlement that is separate from a town or city.
3. A village must:
   1. Have a population of at least two hundred and no more than thousand inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town after a confirmation census.
   2. Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
      1. If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
4. A hamlet is a very minor settlement affiliated with a town or city.
5. A hamlet must:
   1. Have a population below two hundred. If larger, the hamlet loses affiliation with towns or cities and becomes a village.
   2. Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commericial lots.
      1. Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
6. If a hamlet or village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its hamlet or village status.
7. All Lovian neighborhoods and hamlets are governed by the government of the state in which they and the town or city to which they are attached are situated.
8. All Lovian villages are governed by the chairman of the village.
   1. Congress may dismiss a chairman at any time after a vote.
   2. Villages are not required to have a chairman. If there is no chairman, the state will perform any duties that would normally have been performed by a chairman.
9. All Lovian neighborhoods, villages, and hamlets are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor has the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule these decisions.

How is this? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

How will we get all the mayors and chairmen? Nathaniel Scribner 16:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

They are not required. I'll add that to limit confusion. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:56, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I like it. - Nathaniel Scribner 17:00, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

( Pro)

Ok, so Pro. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:12, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Nice bill writing skills! We'll vote on this after composition and the pages are condense themselves. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:46, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have some comments? Also, who has an opinion on merging this with the City and Town Act? The line that used to divide the two bills (affiliation) no longer exists with this proposal. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:08, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

This is good. So Pro by me. HORTON11 16:21, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I might have to abstain. I don't want villages or neighboorhoods to have mayors or chairmen. Only Towns and cities. Then I'll Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it is optional. And besides, neighborhoods have chairmen, so why not villages and hamlets? In addition, they will be able to be dismissed by congress. Final revision coming in a few minutes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Is it okay if I merge this with the Town and City Act, creating the Settlement Act, and leave the Town and City Act alone except for a couple minor clarification changes related to the revision of the Hamlet act? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:24, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Final Revision: Settlement Act

1. All Lovian settlements are classified into five denominational groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
2. A hamlet is a very minor settlement affiliated with a town or city.
   1. A hamlet must:
      1. Have a population below two hundred. If larger, the hamlet loses affiliation with towns or cities and becomes a village.
      2. Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commercial lots.
      3. Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
3. A village is an unattached minor settlement that is separate from a town or city.
   1. A village must:
      1. Have a population of at least two hundred and no more than one thousand inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town.
      2. Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
         1. If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
4. A town is an unattached settlement within a state.
   1. A town must:
      1. Have a population above one thousand. If below, the town becomes a village.
      2. Contain one to four neighborhoods of any type.
         1. Congress can turn a town consisting of four neighborhoods into a city, granting it a fifth neighborhood, by Congressional majority.
5. A city is an unattached major settlement within a state.
   1. A city must:
      1. Have a population of at least two thousand.
      2. Consist of a group of neighborhoods; at least five.
         1. It is legally required that at least four of the five neighborhoods is fully finished and that it is possible for its inhabitants to lead a safe and regular life.
6. A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city.
7. A hamlet or village may become part of a town or city, however, the hamlet or village it will lose its hamlet or village status and become a neighborhood.
8. Towns and cities may have a mayor to aid in governing them, however, this is optional.
   1. Congress may dismiss a mayor at any time after a vote.
9. All Lovian hamlets and neighborhoods are managed by the town or city of which they are affiliated with.
10. All Lovian hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor has the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule these decisions.

This will be going to second chamber tomorrow, unless it is contested. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:47, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I say just keep chairmen and mayors for towns and cities. The reason i'm stressing this is only one reasons.

1. Hamlets, Villages and neighboorhoods form to create Towns and cities in Lovia, having mayors for things whitin cities makes no sense.

I understand congress can dissmiss them but it really just makes to many jobs for us when there are so many mayoral and chairmenships. I say just have mayors for Towns and Cities. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I continue to stress that these positions are completely optional. Also, if you don't support chairmen in hamlets and villages, do you support them for neighborhoods? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:01, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I never did. Those things make up cities and towns why should they have even more mayors in even littler spaces, where's Walden to simplfy! Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:59, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I will remove chairmans. Then I'll put this into second chamber. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Motion to Conduct a Census

I think it is time for a census. It has been one and a half years since the last one. Let's schedule and plan here. I think it should occur in May 2011 (this month). What do the other MOTCs think? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:07, May 1, 2011 (UTC)|

Agreed. Nathaniel Scribner 01:10, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

wait until the new congress comes in and is passed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:17, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

This Congress? If so, would you please select your cabinet/department leaders. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:32, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Wait until the congress comes in and the PM, me is approved. THen I also have a plan in condense the departments to act more effeciently. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:38, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, and that is why this is still First Chamber. Post when you would like it to start. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, btw. Look at 067, the Hamlet Act revision. I think you guys skipped over it, as I proposed two bills. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:46, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your going to become PM. If you could, leave the Agriculture Department open for the guy who likes to eat, and grow corn <.<? Nathaniel Scribner 03:04, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your going to belive this but I was planing to give that to you. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:44, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Nathaniel Scribner 17:57, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I could only take three seconds of that annyoing girl screaming about fridays. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:00, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Fun fun fun, haha :D Nathaniel Scribner 18:02, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

not for the person listening to it Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:21, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ummm. . . yeah. Taking this to second chamber. It has been one and a half years. Let's conduct the census on Saturday. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:41, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

---

---

SECOND CHAMBER PROPOSALS

---

---

004. Sports and National Team Act

1. Lovian boules is recognized as the national sport of Lovia.
   1. Congress hereby commits itself to protect the sport and its culture as national heritage.
2. A national sports team is a team that performs a single sport at a high level and represents Lovia during international contests, championships and friendly games.
   1. Congress can grant a sports team this title and duty by a normal majority.
   2. The ownership of a national sports team remains with its original proprietor.
   3. Congress will provide in a part of the expenses of this team to guarantee regular practice and performance.
   4. Congress may revoke this grant by a normal majority when the team does not represent Lovia correctly, with dignity and without wrongful conduct.
   5. Congress bars players who abuse narcotics, or any other substance that illegally improves a player's game, or have abused narcotics in the past twelve months from participating in a national sports team.
      1. Drugs that are prescribed by a fully qualified doctor of medicine may be used.
         1. At all times, other doctors of medicine may question the prescription and file for re-examination. If two other fully qualified medical professionals find the prescription unnecessary or harmful and therefore illegal, the sportsperson may no longer use the prescribed drugs.
3. Non-governmental governing bodies in Lovian sports may bar players from playing:
   1. On reasonable suspicion of drug abuse;
   2. On ethical grounds, that is when a player acts not appropriately and without dignity, or when he or she has violated the law.
4. Minors, that is people who have not yet reached the age of eighteen, must be a member of a sports player's union to protect them from wrongful conduct.
5. Minors may not participate in outside physical training or games when the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius (50°F) or above 35 degrees Celsius (95°F), nor may they participate in inside physical training or games when the temperature in the specific room is below 15 degrees Celsius (59°F) or above 30 degrees Celsius (86°F).
6. Minors may not accept financial payment for sports achievements.

Voting

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

Pro

1. Pro Marcus Villanova WLP 21:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro I largely agree with Jon but am willing to vote pro. After all we need to start somewhere. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:14, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

   Shouldn't we choose BOWLING Jon THE DUDE Johnson 09:33, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

4. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Youri...
5. Pro Dimitri 12:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro The protection policies for minors are very valuable. --Arthur Jefferson 14:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:45, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
9. ...

Contra

1. Contra I don't support state-appointed national sport teams. Percival E. Galahad 10:40, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. Contra sport clubs should be able to assure their own future. Harold Freeman 07:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

   What? Did you read the bill? Marcus Villanova WLP 18:50, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

   I mean c'mon did you even read the bill? Your reason for voting contra is very foolish, becuase it does exactly that. It sponsers sport and helps it grow in Lovia! Marcus Villanova WLP 18:52, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

   what the liberals probably mean is that they want sports teams to survive wihout or help. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 18:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, I'm sure that's what Harold wanted to say. My objection is that I do not think the state should have a hand in national sports. We do not need to mingle in "which team should be our national team" and that kind of things. Percival E. Galahad 08:29, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

3. Contra See liberals. Bucu 09:11, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
4. ...

Abstain

1. Abstention, sorry man, but i think all sports are equal, you can't just choose one to protect, no offence, i think we need more laws of this kind, so i don't vote contra Jon THE DUDE Johnson 21:26, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
   1. So don't vote pro, Boules is a significant game! It need to be embelished, As active chairmen of TL I protected all sports and reborned sport in Lovia! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:22, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Is this approved yet? It has eight vote Pro and three against. If people don't vote there vote doesn't count. It has at least 50% so? Marcus Villanova Walden 17:53, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Minimum time in 2nd Chamber passed; more than 50% of the valid votes were pro. Dimitri 10:32, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

005. Recognition of the existing localities

A while ago, the PM made a poll about which new places we should keep. Most of the voters thought Portland and Novosevensk were okay; many didn't find Plains worth keeping. We must bear in mind that we cannot keep building. We are a small archipelago that is not densely populated. So.

Proposed recognition

I hereby propose the following:

Congress recognizes all the following localities as cities, under the Lovian law:

Newhaven and Noble City

Congress recognizes all the following localities as towns, under the Lovian law:

Kinley, Hurbanova, Portland, Sofasi and Train Village

Congress recognizes all the following localities as hamlets, under the Lovian law:

Adoha, Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills and Novosevensk

Congress recognizes all the following localities as neighborhoods, under the Lovian law:

Abby Springs, Artista, Bayfield, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Drake Town, Downtown NC, Downtown HU, Downtown KY, Downtown SO, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Malipa, Mandarin Village, Millstreet, Newhaven (neighborhood), New Town, Old Harbor, Old Port, Pines, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity

As a result hereof, these localities will enjoy the rights described in the Federal Law and Constitution. All other "localities", which are not recognized by Congress, will have no such rights, and will be subject to removal.

Voting

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

This bill will not be in the Federal Law; it's just to make sure that Congress has full power over its towns and so. Martha Van Ghent 14:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

1. Pro Martha Van Ghent 08:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Jon THE DUDE Johnson 09:04, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro Dimitri 12:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 14:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Now let's get those other bills into congress and have some state elections! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:23, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Percival E. Galahad 10:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro Bucu 16:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro Harold Freeman 07:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

    We have our majority. I consider this bill approved. Please keep voting though =)) Martha Van Ghent 09:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

11. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:47, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
12. Pro Bucu 16:53, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
13. ...

ABSTENTION

This proposal is accepted! like Martha already pointed out. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

006. State Elections

According to the latest reform:

• 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.
• 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.

Because the majority of the Lovians prefers October as election month, and a minority wants September, we could do it like this:

• 20th September - 3rd October: Candidacies
• 4th October - 17th October: Elections
• 18th October: Inauguration of the Governors and Deputy Governors

I'll ask Congress to vote on this proposal. But we also need to solve two more things before the candidacy period:

1. we need to settle the number of residences each citizen has. We need to count them and make sure nobody has more than legally allowed.
2. we need to register these residences in the "citizen book" so we know who can be a candidate in which state and who can vote in which state. This is very important.

Martha Van Ghent 08:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Citizen residences count

If we want this huge work to get done, we better start now. I'll list up all citizens and their residences. When I find citizens with more residences than allowed, I'll send a message to him.

I will propose a bill to Congress to change the legal number of residence. I hope to do this before the counting really starts and all that. Please react fast. Martha Van Ghent 12:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

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

We're voting to hold the State Elections at the dates mentioned above. A normal majority.

PRO

1. Pro Martha Van Ghent 14:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Dimitri 17:13, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 21:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC): Mr. Latin is actually right. I hereby give my full support to a version of this bill that features a later inauguration date to fit the legal requirements.
4. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 21:12, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Marcus Villanova WLP 22:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:38, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Harold Freeman 07:44, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:59, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro Percival E. Galahad 09:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

   We have our majority here too. I propose we change the Inauguration date to fit the legal thingies, like the king said. I suppose that's fine with y'all? Please keep voting; Martha Van Ghent 09:50, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

10. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:47, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
11. ...

ABSTENTION

1. Abstention I'm pro, but I feel the necessity to mierenneuk : This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor. --Bucu 17:37, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! by a normal majority! Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

007. Amendment (Art.2): fixed (3) legal residences for all

Currently:

• inhabitants have 1 residence
• citizens can have 2 residences
• MOTCs can have 3
• the King and the PM can have 4

This reflects a strange sort of hierarchy, and I don't like that. So this is what I propose:

• inhabitants may have 1 residence in Lovia
• citizens may have maximum 3 residences in Lovia

There would be no difference between the King, the PM, the MOTCs or the citizens.

In law, this would result in this Article 2 of the Const.:

Art. 2

2. Every Lovian citizen has the right:

1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three.

2. To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements.

Art. 2.3 and 2.4 are deleted then.

Martha Van Ghent 12:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

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

This bill needs a two thirds majority to pass. It is a Constitutional amendment. Martha Van Ghent 14:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

1. Pro Martha Van Ghent 14:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Bucu 16:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro Dimitri 17:13, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 21:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC): A necessary yet simple improvement.
5. Pro Good work again martha JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 21:14, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Very Good! Marcus Villanova WLP 23:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Harold Freeman 07:44, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro Equality is a necessity in society. Percival E. Galahad 09:40, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro SjorskingmaWikistad 10:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
11. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC) you rock martha!
12. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:46, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
13. ...

CONTRA

1. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:00, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

   Why? (if i may ask) JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 18:02, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

   There's nothing wrong with the original text. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 07:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION

1. ...

This proposal is accepted! Any MOTC can approve a bill so let's be happy I hope Yuri will add this to FedLaw! Marcus Villanova 20:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

002. Act on the Fight Against Poverty

1. To fight poverty among the inhabitants of Lovia the Board on the Fight Against Poverty (BFAP) is erected under the Act on the Fight Against Poverty, supported by Congress and the Department of Welfare.
   1. The composition of the board is as follows: the Secretary of Welfare, three Lovian citizens appointed by the Secretary of Welfare, and the Prime Minister.
   2. The board will perform the following tasks:
      1. The evaluation and financial support of (voluntary) organizations that aid the poor in Lovia;
      2. The creation and management of facilities to give shelter and food to the homeless in Lovia;
      3. The creation and management of a Center for Societal Welfare (CSW) in Lovia.
         1. The CSW may grant payments to the poor in exchange for supervision.
         2. The CSW may appoint social residences with low rent to people in need.
   3. The board will work together closely with other initiatives that fight poverty, both private and public.
2. The Department of Culture, Heritage and Education will foresee a Learning Point.
   1. The Learning Point offers cheap basic education according to the low doorstep principle.
   2. The Learning Point will focus on guiding Lovians who have not received proper and full education.
   3. The Learning Point may be an instrument for the CWS to aid its people.

Voting

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

This bill needs a 50% majority to pass. Please vote. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Dimitri 12:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC) The bill leaves a lot of space for interpretation, I think. How will these CSW work, be governed? What can they do, what can't they? Dubious, perhaps. Nevertheless, we need social security and this is a good first step. I have faith in the Sec of Welfare. Dimitri 12:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

   It is just like the Beglian OCMW: a center that aids and supports the poor. As you can see the program focusses on a stronger integration and on breaking the 'circle of poverty'. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

3. Pro fits in the new walden manifesto. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:23, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Harold Freeman 14:03, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Marcus Villanova Walden 20:34, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:47, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro I really don't see how this could be bad, and potential good is obvious. Edward Hannis 00:05, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 17:44, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:48, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
11. Pro Percival E. Galahad 08:22, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
12. ...

CONTRA

1. ...

ABSTENTION

1. Abstention Dimi's right. I like the idea but. Marcus Villanova WLP 14:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

   If it assures you: they just get a minimum wage and some social assistance. What isn't said, isn't done. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

   True but then again people Like loopholes. See the discussion on State Council/Cabinet. I kinda like it so I might switch my vote. Marcus Villanova WLP 14:58, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

2. ...

This proposal is accepted! Large majority, congratulations! Dimitri 10:33, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

003. Ocean and Fishing Act

1. Parts of the Lovian ocean are protected under the statute of natural reserve
   1. An ocean can only be declared a natural reserve by the National Park Service
      1. When it is endangered or likely to become endangered within years
      2. When it is of unique importance to the existence of the wildlife
   2. All fishing and fun diving is prohibited in these reserves
   3. The National Park Service is responsible for these reserves
2. Fishing quota are introduced by the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade
   1. Fishing quota can be imposed by the department
      1. To protect certain species from extinction
      2. To maintain the populations high enough
   2. No fishing is allowed if the species is endangered or likely to become so within years
   3. Limited fishing is allowed if the population is likely to slink under the average
   4. No prohibition can be imposed if none of the above mentioned conditions are met

Voting

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

This bill needs a 50% majority to pass. Please vote. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro! Yea wildlife shall be protected! Marcus Villanova WLP 14:14, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro As long as it is about the environment I agree. Harold Freeman 14:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro For the "spellingerrorless' bill of course JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 15:35, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:48, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Edward Hannis 00:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

1. Contra Sorry, there are some language errors and so in the bill. This should go back to first chamber to be completely fine; Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

   It has been there for like a month. If the only issue is spelling/grammar we can alter the bill without changing the content, right? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, but it has to be done. I wasn't able to check this bill. Dimitri 15:24, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

   As typical for ones own mistakes I couldn't find them when reading the bill over for the so-maniest time. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

2. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:24, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
3. Contra --Arthur Jefferson 15:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

   I do not support fishing quota that come without more detailed legislation. I believe the legislature should be determining fishing quota regulations, rather than giving the Secretary free play.

   Then, too, I find Mr McCandless' comment reasonable. This article could use re-editing. --Arthur Jefferson 15:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

4. Contra This bill better go back to the First, after that chamber's been cleaned up. Martha Van Ghent 07:49, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
5. Contra Quota... Bucu 09:10, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
6. Contra " Back to First Chamber" Dimitri 14:13, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

i still favor a rewrite. If I find time soon, i'll give it a shot myself! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 14:27, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I take Jefferson's stand here. Percival E. Galahad 08:23, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the bill won't make it. Perhaps consider moving it back to the 1st Chamber after that room's been cleaned out. Dimitri 10:34, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Back to First Chamber Needed 50%+ majority. Some suggested to rewrite the bill, so perhaps that's a good idea for the 2011 Congress. Dimitri 12:17, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

005. Offical Residences (2)

Okay this was already approved but should be changed Martha made a mistake and left out Newport so i added it. This just needs a quick vote, thanks, Marcus Villanova Walden 20:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed recognition

I hereby propose the following:

Congress recognizes all the following localities as cities, under the Lovian law:

Newhaven and Noble City

Congress recognizes all the following localities as towns, under the Lovian law:

Kinley, Hurbanova, Portland, Sofasi and Train Village

Congress recognizes all the following localities as hamlets, under the Lovian law:

Adoha, Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills and Novosevensk

Congress recognizes all the following localities as neighborhoods, under the Lovian law:

Abby Springs, Artista, Bayfield, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Drake Town, Downtown NC, Downtown HU, Downtown KY, Downtown SO, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Malipa, Mandarin Village, Millstreet, Newhaven (neighborhood), Newport, New Town, Old Harbor, Old Port, Pines, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity

Pro

1. Pro Marcus Villanova Walden 20:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:49, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro Dimitri 08:10, September 11, 2010 (UTC) There was no need to copy the full monty though
4. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:27, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:32, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:49, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 11:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Harold Freeman 13:55, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro Though not really important, I guess it does clarify. Edward Hannis 00:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 17:45, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:50, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
12. Pro Percival E. Galahad 08:24, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
13. ...

Contra

1. Why needs Plains to be left out? I still don't get it. SjorskingmaWikistad 09:58, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

   Don't know, but I do know that at least one of the neighborhoods could be left out. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

   Would you like to compromise Sjors? Maybe we could take somthing out On Llamada IRC like making Plains a Hamlet? Marcus Villanova Walden 13:37, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

2. ...

Abstain

1. ...

This proposal is accepted! Yuri or Dimi please add this too the list! and the other law too! Marcus Villanova 19:50, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

014. Cleaning up the Federal Law

I would like to divide the Federal Law over several law books. More precise a Social Law Book, an Environmental Law Book, a Criminal Law Book and a Public Law Book. We really need to get some more structure in our law system. An idea of what bill will be located where can be found here. Note: there will be no changes to the content of any bill, this is just about some re-ordening. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:36, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:36, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro I only read what the law books will be about but you wont change the content of anu bills so that doesn't matter right? Alyssa C. Red 10:50, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Alyssa. Though I think the proposed law books of Yuri aren't fully covering all the law stuff we have or need, I think every proposal to make it better organised is good.
4. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:02, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Dimitri 12:53, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Yuri's subdivision looks fine, I must say. I however want to ask the writers of this bill (Yuri, that's you) to fix all references to the former article numbers in every article, as this bill passes. Now, pages about the police system refer to some Article 5 - it's important that these things are changed to "Criminal Law - Article whatever".

   Sure, I'm already busy with the List of laws and will alter all links I can think of. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

   That's great. Thanks Dimitri 13:15, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

6. Pro Marcus Villanova Walden 20:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Really are we up to 14 proposals? Very good yuri!
7. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 11:39, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Harold Freeman 13:56, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro Viva clearification! SjorskingmaWikistad 12:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:50, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
11. ...

Contra

1. ...
2. ...

Abstain

1. Abstention --Arthur Jefferson 17:46, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. ...

This proposal is accepted! I will soon officialize some other outcomes after I reorganized the Federal Law. Thank you all for the massive support. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:52, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

010. Marriage Act

1. Marriage is an understanding between two parties who voluntary agree to take up certain rights and duties.
   1. The spouses have the duty to live together in the marital residence.
   2. The spouses have to be loyal to each other and can not commit adultery.
   3. The spouses have to offer each other respect, affection and consolation.
   4. A marriage foresees a minimal autonomy of the spouses;
      1. Each spouse has the right to perform any job that does not conflict with the interests of the partner.
      2. Each spouse can open an account or rent a safe on a personal basis if the partner is notified of this.
   5. A marriage foresees a minimal bond between the spouses;
      1. Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with the vital.
      2. When one spouse makes a debt for the family or the raising of the children, his or her partner is liable for this too.
2. Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met;
   1. Both parties are at least 18 years old or have permission of the parents and a legal advisor.
   2. Both parties agree on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient. (meaning not drunk, no coercion or mischief, etc.)
   3. None of the parties can be already part of a marriage which is still standing.
   4. The parties are not genetically related in one of the following degrees:
      1. First degree: between parents and children or between brothers and/or sisters.
      2. Second degree: aunts and uncles with nephews or nieces. (nephews and nieces is allowed)
3. The solemnization of a marriage is done in public, before a Lovian governor in the attendance of two witnesses.
   1. The marriage must be announced to that governor at least five days and maximum two months on beforehand.
   2. At the public solemnization a marriage contract is signed in which both parties agree to its conditions.
4. A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases;
   1. The marriage was not legally solemnized due to the lack of foreseen conditions as defined in article 1.2.1-4 and 1.3.
   2. One of the partners obtains a cancelation through a lawsuit based on the neglecting of his or her duties by the partner.
      1. In this case the neglecting partner can be sanctioned to pay financial life support to his or her partner.
      2. In this case the judge also needs to decide on an arrangement considering the raising of children if any.
   3. Both partners agree upon the termination and inform the governor of this.
   4. One of the spouses deceases or is considered missing for more than one year.

A normal majority (+50%) is needed. Please note that the approval of this proposal would accompany the creation of a Civil Law Book. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Edward Hannis 15:14, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro for Gay marraige..in a sense! Marcus Villanova 22:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 15:33, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 22:06, November 10, 2010 (UTC) ||| though Percy and MArtha do have a point - the bill is very good in itself!
6. Pro Dimitri 08:29, November 11, 2010 (UTC) (Time to pass some bills!)
7. Pro Guess so. Bucu 16:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:43, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro Christina Evans 20:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
10. ...

Contra

1. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC) (still voting from conservative viewpoint: women should not be able to break a marriage)
2. ...

Abstain

1. ...
2. ...

"The spouses have to be loyal to each other and can not commit adultery." and "The spouses have to offer each other respect, affection and consolation." ??? Isn't this too much moralizing and too little law? Martha Van Ghent 07:51, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Nhmm. I'd say a marriage law may be moralizing - marriage is about trust, in a way, isn't it? I, on the other hand, believe there's one fault in it: what about couples who want an "open marriage"? Who "agree" on adultery or open extra-marital relations? Percival E. Galahad 08:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

(By the way: I am sorry for only coming with these comments now. I've been terribly busy, you see. Percival E. Galahad 08:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC))

you hit a weak spot in this law here, I Think, Percy! the bill is good though. And i'm sure there're not too many "free marriage" cases... Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 22:05, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:36, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

011. Legal Cohabiting Act

1. When two or more people live together and share the burdens of this cohabiting they can obtain a legal cohabiting contract.
   1. A legal cohabiting contract regulates the personal and financial relationship between the cohabitants.
   2. The cohabitants are completely free with respect to each other and have no personal duties.
   3. The cohabitants own all the goods they possessed before the legal cohabitant contract solely.
      1. When a claim of ownership is disputed, proof of this ownership needs to be delivered.
      2. When a dispute can not be solved due to lack of proof, the ownership is equally distributed.
   4. A legal cohabiting contract can on top comprise any of the following provisions;
      1. To make any part of the personal capital and/or future incomes common property.
      2. To agree on an alternate financial regulation if the contract is terminated.
      3. To make certain legally binding acts impossible without consent of all partners.
2. A legal cohabiting contract can be conducted by the agreement of all concerned parties, without a government official.
   1. The contract has legal power concerning all issues up to the moment it is terminated by any concerned party.
   2. A legal cohabiting contract can be ratified by the governor on demand of any concerned party.

A normal majority (+50%) is needed. Please note that the approval of this proposal would accompany the creation of a Civil Law Book. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Marcus Villanova 22:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 15:33, October 20, 2010 (UTC) (Good legislation!)
4. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC) It's good.
5. Pro Percival E. Galahad 08:28, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 22:08, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Dimitri 08:30, November 11, 2010 (UTC) (Time to pass some bills!)
8. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:44, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

1. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC) (still voting from conservative viewpoint)
2. Contra Edward Hannis 15:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC) I see no need for this.

   It provides a legal framework for couples that don't want to get married but do live together, raise children, etc. Wether such regulation is 'needed' is up to you. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:36, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

012. Parenthood Act

1. Biological parenthood of children inside marriage:
   1. The person who gave birth to a child is considered the mother; this is derived from the birth certificate.
   2. The male spouse of the mother, if any, is under normal conditions suspected to be the father of the child.
      1. This suspicion can be contested;
         1. By the mother within a year after the child's birth.
         2. By the man within a year after being notified of the fatherhood.
         3. By the child itself within four years after reaching the age of eighteen.
      2. This suspicion can be legally recognized by the suspected father;
         1. With consent of the mother or legal guardian if the child is younger than fifteen years old.
         2. With consent of the mother or legal guardian and the child if the child is between fifteen and eighteen.
         3. With consent of the child if the child is at least eighteen years old.
2. Biological parenthood of children outside marriage:
   1. The person who gave birth to a child is considered the mother; this is derived from the birth certificate.
   2. The fatherhood of children outside of marriage can be recognized;
      1. With consent of the suspected father and the mother or legal guardian if the child is younger than fifteen years old.
      2. With consent of the suspected father, mother or legal guardian and the child if the child is between fifteen and eighteen.
      3. With consent of the suspected father and the child if the child is at least eighteen years old.
      4. By any interested party through a lawsuit.
3. Legal parenthood through adoption:
   1. Adoption is a procedure in which an individual takes up parenthood of a child of which he or she is not a biological parent.
   2. Adoption gives the guardian the same rights and obligations towards the child as if the guardian was the biological parent.
   3. An adoption is only valid before the Lovian law if declared as such by court.
   4. An adoption can be performed by;
      1. Two people who are joined in marriage.
      2. Two people who have a legal cohabiting contract.
      3. An individual, whether married or not.
   5. To become a parent through adoption you must;
      1. Be socially and psychologically stabile, guaranteed through standardized tests.
      2. Be at least 20 years old and at least 10 years older than the child you want to adopt.
      3. Have permission of your partner when you are married or have a cohabiting contract.
   6. A child can only be adopted if it is younger than eighteen years old.
      1. If older than twelve, the consent of the child is needed.

A normal majority (+50%) is needed. Please note that the approval of this proposal would accompany the creation of a Civil Law Book. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro I still like it! Marcus Villanova 22:42, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:55, November 9, 2010 (UTC) Here and there still some doubt, but generally it's very good. I couldn't have do a better job - that's for sure.
4. Pro Percival E. Galahad 08:30, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 22:11, November 10, 2010 (UTC) what are you like, Yuri, a Law School graduate?! Very pro!
6. Pro Dimitri 08:30, November 11, 2010 (UTC) (Time to pass some bills!)
7. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 09:50, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro Alyssa C. Red 10:45, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

1. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC) (still voting from conservative viewpoint: 3.4.2 and 3.4.3)
2. ...

Abstain

1. Abstention JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 08:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   What's the matter Jon, you don't like it? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   It says; the two people, it does no however say "a man and a woman", as it should. Dr. Magnus 09:12, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   I don't think Jon will mind. He's progressive. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   The gap of 15 years? Explain JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 09:43, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   You mean the part that says you need to be at least 15 years older than the child you seek to adopt? From psychological point of view it is not all that well to have a 20-year old raise a 12 year old. I admit the number is kinda 'came to me at the moment' but there better be some minimal gap. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   A 20 year old is 8 years older then a 12 year old so he could not adopt. Dr. Magnus 09:49, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   I would like to lower the gap for 5 years, I know their must be some sort of a gap, but not 15 years JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 09:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   8 would be minimum, cause you can only adopt lower than 18 since 25. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   I am in favour of the 15 year gap. You adopt children, not siblings. Dr. Magnus 09:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   I like 8 already actually! JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 09:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   Can most people agree on 8? We need to pick a number. Harold Freeman 09:58, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   15 is way better. I would not like my parent to be the age of my brother :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   We can integrate a number, and include an interval in which the case needs to be investigated JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   The age gap of at least 15 years is very important. Also, a relationship with an adopted child should officialy be made illegal and incestuous (like the relationship with Woody Allen with his wife's adopted daughter). We should have a more clear law forbidding this and setting the age gap to 15 in all cases. Dr. Magnus 10:03, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   If you can't get children, and you want to adopt someone of the age 12-16, you have to fucking wait until 30, that's quite long JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   People who can't get children usually don't adopt kids that old; they want to have the experience of raising a kid to adulthood rather then taking in a kid who has already been raised by someone else and is nearly adult. There is also always the ability of taking in foster children; you take care of a (older) child but do not legally adopt it. Dr. Magnus 10:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   So I'll abstain JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:18, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   Or vote contra, of course. Dr. Magnus 10:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

   Note: I changed the minimal age and the minimal age gap to the discussed number(s). Please keep such remarks for the First Chamber in the future, it was open for comments for over two months. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

2. Abstention For the time being, I abstain. Until marriages and cohabitation contracts are passed, this cannot be passed. You can't refer to something that doesn't exist yet in a bill. Edward Hannis 15:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Before voting, I would like the word 'suspition or suspect' to be changed. I do not feel very compfortable with the idea of being a suspect of fathership. I'm pretty sure there is another word for it. {{SUBST:User:Aesopos/HT}} 15:52, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, they make parentage or fatherhood of a kid sound like a crime, hadn't noticed that before, good you saw that! Dr. Magnus 16:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

@Aesop: in the Belgian law the phrase 'vermoeden van vaderschap' is used. I thought 'suspicion' means 'vermoeden' without any connotation, but correct me if I'm wrong. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:48, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

1. Abstention See above. Bucu 09:08, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:37, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

030. Reform of the REAC: simplicity and efficiency

See Forum:First Chamber for info and debate. Dimitri 10:30, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Content

This would be the new section 7 of article 6 of the FedLaw:

• In case a primary school does not provide the kind of education described in this article, the Secretary of Education or the Royal Educational Aims Council can decide to shut down the school until the service provided does qualify. In the meanwhile the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education must provide education to the pupils of that school, by allowing them instant pro-tempore access to another school.
  1. The Royal Educational Aims Council is a council under the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education, consisting of three educational specialists who decide on the secondary education curriculum, and who can close a school (of any level) if it does not qualify with the requirements.
     1. The following three persons are members of the council: the Secretary of Culture, Heritage and Education, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of Welfare as the pupils' and students' welfare watchdog.
     2. The Rector of Blackburn University is added to the council as its fourth member only when the council is looking into a matter directly concerned with the higher educational system.

Voting

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

50%+ needed. Will amend a portion of the FedLaw.

030. PRO

1. Pro Dimitri 10:30, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:51, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro We're no longer a Libertarian party! But I still like the change. Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:29, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

   This proposal is simplying, though :) Dimitri 14:30, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

   True=]!Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

4. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 16:23, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:06, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:53, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 15:00, November 15, 2010 (UTC) (very WALDEN!)
8. Pro Edward Hannis 19:07, November 21, 2010 (UTC) Didn't see this; my bad. :O
9. Pro Bucu 09:08, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro Would like to vote, although it is already accepted Christina Evans 21:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
11. ...

030. CONTRA

1. ...
2. ...

030. ABSTAIN

1. ...
2. ...

030. COMMENTS

I'll vote pro for this but it would be better if it had a little more power with more members of congress to vote on things. Like Government run school programms (Arts, Sports, Higher level learning, Smarts Compitions!). Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Martha Van Ghent 07:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

040. Majority in Congress

See Forum:First Chamber for info. Bucu 14:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Content

This would be a new article, Article 12, in the Constitution.

1. Normal bills (i.e. no amendments) could be proposed in the First Chamber by anyone who has citizen rights.
   1. In the First Chamber the proposal is being discussed and the proposal could be adjusted.
2. The proposal may be transfered to the Second Chamber on condition if the proposal meets one of the following requirements.
   1. The proposal has been in the First Chamber for a minimum of three days.
      1. There is no strict maximum.
   2. A fast procedure may take place if five or more citizens or Members of the Congress have declared in the First Chamber to back the proposal.
3. In the Second Chamber, exclusively Members of the Congress will vote on the proposal.
   1. Every Member of the Congress is ought to vote on proposals.
   2. One has the possibility to vote PRO, CONTRA or ABSTENTION.
   3. A bill can be passed after a normal majority, i.e. a majority which is larger than 50% in the Second Chamber.
      1. In other words more than half of the Members of the Congress should vote PRO in order to accept a normal bill.

Voting

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

50%+ needed. Will add an article to the Constitution.

040. PRO

1. Pro Bucu 14:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

   Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:24, November 30, 2010 (UTC) SAMÞYKKT!

040. CONTRA

1. Contra This bill contradicts the current Constitution and could therefore not be adopted in the law. There are already provisions for this matter. Dimitri 11:55, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:22, December 1, 2010 (UTC) see Dimi's reaction
3. Contra Dimi's comment, Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:21, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. Contra Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 17:08, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. Contra Never really saw it as a necessity. There might be something we could establish, but this ain't it. Edward Hannis 02:41, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
6. Contra Martha Van Ghent 07:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
7. Contra Harold Freeman 08:57, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

040. ABSTAIN

1. Abstention I would vote pro, cuse I think waiting 2 months for a bills to be revised and read is long enough and then when congressmen say "I didn't see it" the complain and moan. but it needs to be written better. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:31, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Abstention Alyssa C. Red 10:46, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

040. COMMENTS

I moved it quite fast to the Second Chamber because I think it's an emergency. Besides I don't think that many would disagree. Bucu 14:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hm.. did I miss something? Bucu 17:53, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

dimi said article 6. i spose he meant Constitution-wise. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 18:10, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Anyway, Bucu, if you proposal a change, you should really amend the existing articles. A bill like this would create a sort of "double legislation" within one Constitution. Really bizarre :) Dimitri 21:39, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed but i agree with that bills should pass faster. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:43, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

There's one way to do that: elect people who vote faster. For example: not elect people like Evans. Dimitri 21:46, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ah she had potenial. Too bad. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:46, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she did indeed. Dimitri 14:14, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

meh, in could of done with some congressional rules, on time of voting and such. A congressional rule book of sorts. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why?

I discover there's a lot of confusion about this bill. People vote contra with strange reasons, I've noticed. The only reason, though, to vote against this bill, is plain simple. We already have these provisions Bucu proposes. They're in the Constitution. If Bucu wanted to amend them, he should have altered the existing article, rather than proposing a new article to be added (which would have ended up in having two times the same article :s). So that's why Dimitri 14:14, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article 6 describes the Federal Law, right? And what if you don't want to change the content of the constitution (amendment), but to add an article? Or am I totally confused right now? Bucu 15:51, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

A bit . That would be an amendment. An amendment is defined (in Lovia) as "each alternation of the Constitution." Dimitri 15:55, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining, never mind this proposal then ;) Bucu 16:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

But that does mean that every alternation of the Constitution, adding an article e.g., should have a 66,67% majority? Bucu 16:19, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes of course . What else did you think? Dimitri 16:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is declined. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:38, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

041. State departments

Content

to Article 5 of the CONST. we add:

• 1.7. Creating and managing state agencies and corporations which have the sole function and duty to perform the tasks the state government is entitled to perform, including but not exclusively maintaining roads and waterways and protecting cultural and natural heritage.
• 1.7.1. Such agencies and corporations are not entitled to engage in other economic activities.
• 1.7.2. The number of such agencies and corporations within one state may not exceed five, allowing states to run a cultural heritage agency, a natural protection agency, a public works corporation, an urban planning agency, and other possible such agencies or corporations.

Voting

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

2/3rds+ needed. Will add an article to the Constitution.

041. PRO

1. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:59, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
2. Pro Dimitri 08:51, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro Very Good! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 13:23, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro Walden! Martha Van Ghent 07:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
5. Pro As an extra bonus, it'll keep Pierlot quiet. :P Edward Hannis 17:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
6. Pro Percival E. Galahad 15:10, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
7. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 08:34, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
8. Pro this bill of mine is passing! Happy Holidays to all! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 15:21, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
9. Pro. Merry Christmas to all. Aesopos 16:23, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
10. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:34, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
11. Pro Harold Freeman 08:58, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

041. ABSTAIN

1. Abstention JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:22, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. Abstention Alyssa C. Red 10:47, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

   Why would you abstain? Percival E. Galahad 10:48, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

3. Abstention SjorskingmaWikistad 13:39, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

041. COMMENTS

We need two thirds of the votes! please keep voting MOTCs! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 15:43, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah C'mon Guys...Get out the vote! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:47, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'll contact the slow pokes Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 15:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Freeman and Evans are terribly unactive and aren't gonna get re-elected. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:25, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

We just need a couple more votes Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 16:28, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! By a 78.57% majority. Dimitri 12:18, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't rond it af? :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:33, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

0.44: Initiation of a Federal Planning Bureau

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

1. The Federal Planning Bureau is an official authoritative section situated on the federal level of Lovian government.
2. Its structure is as following:
   1. The bureau works as a council;
   2. The bureau consists of three members, namely:
      1. the Prime Minister;
      2. the Secretary of Industry, Agriculture and Trade; and
      3. the Chairperson of the Federal Planning Bureau, who is chosen every six months by Congress and must be a Member of the Congress. [After Federal and Mid Term elections]
3. Its powers are limited to:
   1. The proposal of economical and financial laws;
      1. Proposals which have been accepted by a special majority can go to the Second Chamber directly, without interference of the Federal Planning Bureau;
   2. The provision of advice on proposed bills concerning economical and financial matters;
      1. Advise can be obtained when:
         1. One of the members finds it necessary;
         2. Congress asks for it.
   3. The suspension of proposals on economical and financial level in order to re-calculate the consequences for Lovia and its inhabitants.
      1. The maximum suspension period is two weeks' time;
      2. The suspension can be obtained when one member of the Bureau demands it.

JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 20:34, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind I did away with the abbreviations and stuff :) Martha Van Ghent 16:11, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

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

50+% required. Martha Van Ghent 16:11, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

1. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:46, December 29, 2010 (UTC) if it turns out not to be working, we could still abolish it
2. Pro This instrument can help us in the creation of a tax system. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 17:49, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
3. Pro If it goes wrong we abolish it, but it looks good so far! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:23, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro I agree with ouWTB Harold Freeman 08:59, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro Percival E. Galahad 15:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:51, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
7. Pro Giving it one chance. Dimitri 10:22, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
8. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 15:45, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
9. Pro We should give this a chance Aesopos 16:19, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
10. Pro Give it a go Christina Evans 21:04, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
11. ...

CONTRA

1. Contra Sorry Jon, I seriously contemplated voting Pro, but I cannot. Edward Hannis 17:30, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Never mind, you have to vote on what you think is the best for our country JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 17:32, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

2. Contra I'm sorry jon. It doesn't add much except complexity. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:39, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
3. Contra I'm in doubt too. We already have economic/financial specialists in the Congress. He/she/they can propose bills to fix our tax/economy system. What they can't do yet, is hold up "bad bills". But no bad bills have passed yet, so I don't see the problem. Simplify! Martha Van Ghent 07:32, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

ABSTAIN

1. Abstention --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC) dwangloeas höbbe 'ch 'd besloet genómmen óm t'ebstèène (translation: I decided freely that I'll abstain :P)

I'm in doubt. Please convince me Jon. Dimitri 19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well it's simple actually: We add a council that is independent, it has nothing to prove against the people, it must not follow an ideology, it can give us a good opinion on how our economy should work JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a chance, because I have confidence in your vision on government. You better make it work then, Sjonnie Dimitri 10:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted!

045a. Recognition of Mäöres

We need to stay formal on this one. If we want things like a "congressial journal", we should also keep track of our recognisitiones.-= --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

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

I guess we need 50% or so :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

PRO

1. Pro-- OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Although I find this plain silly. Should we not vote about recognizing the US and France? ;) Dimitri 19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

   Wait a sec. I'll fix it. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 19:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

3. Pro Only if we reconize San Marino later. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:20, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Martha Van Ghent 21:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro yeah sure. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 12:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro Edward Hannis 00:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
7. Pro but maybe we need to vote on a general policy rather than once for every country? Like a law stating that the foreign relations office can recognize any nation that is recognized by a majority of U.N. members. When in doubt or controversial, Congress could still vote. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:26, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

   Last night, I was thinking about this. What about launching a FedLaw bill in which we enshrine the nations we recognize? We could use an economizing principle, such as: "The Kingdom of Lovia recognizes the sovereign status of all states recognized by all the members of the United Nations Organization, unless specified otherwise in this act." Then, we could add the "wiki nations" in a second section, and in a third, we could specify other nations we wish to recognize (I am thinking of the Republic of China, Taiwan). It's an economizing principle. And pretty simple to work with. We don't need discussions of whether we recognize this tiny island or not: we recognize all those recognized by the UN, unless a majority of Congress agrees not to do so in this or that case. Dimitri 14:25, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

   As you can see I was thinking of something comparable, though I would put the limit lower than 'recognized by all UN members'. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 15:06, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

   Good idea. Martha Van Ghent 07:26, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

8. Pro Percival E. Galahad 13:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
9. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 18:23, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
10. Pro Hopefully expanding with other countries Aesopos 16:23, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
11. Pro Christina Evans 21:24, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Congressional Journal. Dimitri 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

048. Congressional Journal

I propose to keep a record of all Congressional activities. It's kind of laborious to look up when Congress passed or rejected which bill. What I propose is to make a simple page, which says:

[date] - [name bill/proposal/amendment], as proposed by [name MOTC] on [date proposal]

Votes cast: pro ([number]), contra ([number]), abstain ([number]) - [percentage pro]

So:

31/01/2011 - FedLaw: Amazing Act, as proposed by Andy McCandless on 01/01/2011

Votes cast: pro (10), contra (2), abstain (0) - approved by 83.33%

Amendment

I propose to add this line to Article 6 of the Constitution, as section 4:

4. For each motion that has been moved to the Second Chamber by Congress, and that is in due time either approved, rejected or proven unable to gain the required support, Congress must keep a record, starting February 1st of the year 2011, which will be known as the Congressional Journal.

I'll need a two thirds majority to pass this bill.

Voting

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

PRO

1. Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 12:13, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Dimitri 12:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
3. Pro Like humans it's all trial and error! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 00:41, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Edward Hannis 00:59, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:27, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 13:28, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
7. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:25, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
8. Pro Percival E. Galahad 13:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
9. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 18:23, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
10. Pro Harold Freeman 12:12, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
11. Pro Christina Evans 21:23, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

ABSTAIN

1. Abstention --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 15:34, January 4, 2011 (UTC) My feelings tell me this ain't going to work.

This proposal is accepted! Congressional Journal. Dimitri 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

049. Firearms Act

Normal majority needed

Federal Law

Firearms Act

1. Ownership and use of firearms by any person within the Kingdom of Lovia is prohibited;
   1. With the exception of Federal Police officers, and with any other exception enshrined in the national laws of the nation.
   2. With the exception of hunters, who must obtain a license in order to hunt living animals for food, recreation, or trade, using a firearm.
      1. Licenses can be obtained with the Secretary of Welfare, who has the authority over the Federal Police and who has knowledge of the practices and potential dangers of firearms to the people's welfare.
      2. Licenses can only be granted to hunters
         1. who have taken shooting lessons at a Federal Police bureau and who have passed the associated exam, in which perfect knowledge of the Firearms Act, unproblematic fine motor skill, the acquired shooting skills, and the hunter's uncompromised vision are required and shall be tested;
         2. who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted;
         3. who have their legal residence in Lovia;
         4. who have the intent to use it only for hunting, be it recreational or professional;
         5. who have not been convicted or arrested within the last two years before the license is to be granted;
         6. whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed.
      3. Licenses must be obtained for each firearm and may only be registered to one person.
      4. Licenses are immediately repealed, together with the firearms in the possession of the hunter, when he or she is arrested or convicted, or otherwise involved in a police or court case. It must be regranted without further ado if the arrest or involvement is proven to have been without proper cause.
      5. Licenses cannot be sold or given to somebody else. Licenses always adhere to the person who has passed the exam and who has met with the legal requirements.
      6. Hunters are legally bound to register with the Secretary of Welfare, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month.
   3. The Federal Police is authorized to confiscate all firearms without proper license found within the Kingdom of Lovia.
      1. If a firearm is known or suspected to be used by somebody else than its lawful owner and the person who has obtained the license, then the Federal Police is authorized to confiscate the firearm and all other firearms registered to or used by both persons, and start an investigation in the matter.
2. A private militia is any organization, either formally and nominally military or not, that is characterized by the presence of firearms, and that is not operated by the federal government of Lovia to ensure the nation's safety.
3. The organization of a private militia is prohibited within the Kingdom of Lovia.
   1. It is unlawful to establish or participate in such a militia, as well as to allow them to exist and exercise their activities on one's premises.
   2. It is unlawful for militias established outside of Lovia, or led by foreigners, to operate or organize activities in Lovia.
   3. Private security services are not allowed to let their officers bear firearms.
4. It is prohibited for officers of foreign police forces and armies to bring firearms into Lovia, or to otherwise obtain or use firearms. Exceptions may only be granted by Congress.

In short

This is a very long bill, but not a complex one. The reason for it being long is its waterproofness. The bill intends to establish a clear policy on firearms and private militias; possible loopholes would be of great potential danger. This bill makes it clear:

• no firearms may be owned or used in Lovia;
  • except by the police
  • and by hunters, who must obtain a license and who must follow the various regulations.
• no militias may operate in Lovia;
• no foreign armies may operate in Lovia.

Percival E. Galahad 13:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hunting clubs are allowed, if all people have a gun-license, right? And as for those licenses: how does one obtain such a license? Pierius Magnus 14:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

It's all in the bill Magnus... Dimitri 14:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

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

In favor of the bill

1. Pro Percival E. Galahad 13:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Dimitri 13:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC) (One of the best bills, in terms of writing, this Congress has ever seen. I am impressed.)
3. Pro My sincere congratulations. --Arthur Jefferson 14:20, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Indeed, this is one of the best bills this Congress has ever seen. Keep going. Aesopos 14:25, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:28, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 16:02, January 6, 2011 (UTC) (though I still have my doubts about the private militia thing, I do think that's of a later concern, gun use must be limited, that's a priority)
7. Pro yeah! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 21:59, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
8. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:46, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
9. Pro Harold Freeman 12:13, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
10. Pro Christina Evans 20:59, January 24, 2011 (UTC) private gun ownership should not be allowed

Opposing the bill

• Contra I like most of it, but I still think that specifically trained guards should have the right to have guns. If hunters can earn the right, so should guards. If this is changed, then I'm in, though. Edward Hannis 22:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Abstaining from the vote

1. Abstention (See First Chamber) Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:36, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
2. Abstention JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:22, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Congressional Journal. Dimitri 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

041. Height Restriction Act

Federal Law: 50%+

Height Restriction Act

1. In the Kingdom of Lovia, no structures surpassing the maximum height of 165 feet or 50.3 meters may be constructed, in order to preserve the cityscenes and landscapes, and in order to bar projects of megalomaniacal size.
2. Congress may grant exemptions to this law, by a normal majority.
3. Governors of the states are entitled to introduce height restrictions for the entire state or for the designated localities, such as historic neighborhoods, which may not surpass the federal 165 feet height restriction, and which must allow for the construction of regular two-storey residences.

--OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:35, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

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

In favor of the bill

1. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:35, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Grand time this gets through. Edward Hannis 22:40, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
3. Pro Great! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:38, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Splendid! Aesopos 16:00, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Opposing the bill

1. Contra What Medvedev pointed out is right. Here again we see that bills must be revised in the First Chamber. It's an MOTC's duty to do so, and it's the proposer's duty to make sure they do. Dimitri 10:18, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
2. Contra JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:23, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
3. Contra Harold Freeman 12:14, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
4. Contra It takes a little effort to make this better. Percival E. Galahad «LAP» 22:06, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Abstaining from the vote

1. Abstention for now. A conflict of power is possible: in accordance with #2 Congress could say I can build a tower of 200 feet but the Governor can refute that on grounds of #3. I like this power to go to either the State or Congress, if divided anyhow I only vote pro if Congress gets the final word. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:18, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

   I think it's rather okay that someone is checking congress... --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:18, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

   I think I didn't explain myself clearly: when you follow the bill above literally both Congress and the Governor have the same amount of power, which will cause trouble when they disagree. I'm abstaining because the bill has a major inconsistency. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 10:22, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

2. Abstention Must agree. --Arthur Jefferson 18:22, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
3. Abstention Guess he's right. Martha Van Ghent 21:30, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
4. Abstention For the same reason as above Christina Evans 21:00, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is declined. Congressional Journal. Dimitri 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

054. Appointment of the Supreme Court Judge

Amendment

I propose to rewrite section 7 (of Article 9, of course), resulting in:

7. The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.

7. 1. The term of the 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.

7. 2. If 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 Judge's duty to continue his 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.

7. 3. 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.

Vote

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

Pro

1. Pro --Arthur Jefferson 15:46, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Dimitri 18:24, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
3. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:31, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Looks good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:35, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro Mkay. Edward Hannis 23:06, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro Martha Van Ghent 07:42, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
7. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 10:24, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
8. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:35, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
9. Pro obviously Harold Freeman 12:11, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
10. Pro Percival E. Galahad «LAP» 22:07, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
11. Pro Aesopos 16:38, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
12. Pro looks good overall Christina Evans 20:55, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Congressional Journal. Dimitri 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Donia I

Who will be in it?

I have had a good long conversation with our good friend the King. The new congress will be inaugurated on the First of February. It will be called DONIA I after my personal last name (Ygo August Donia). Now who gets which department? Here's the list:

• Transportation: Hannis (CCPL)
• Welfare: Ilava (CCPL)
• Industry, Agriculture and Trade: Villanova (PCP)
• Tourism and Leisure: Abrahams (Walden)
• Department of Culture, Heritage and Education: Galahad (LAP)
• Energy and Environment: Van Ghent (Walden)
• Foreign Affairs: Medvedev (CPL.nm)
• Justice: Donia (CCPL).
• Finance: Johnson (CPL.nm)

Now the members of the 2011 government may vote on the composition of this government. What do you say, fellow MOTC's? Let's do this thing! Pierius Magnus 17:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Johnson kindly pointed out Red is not very active so I decided to change the composition just a little bit. The changes: I get Justice, Johnson get's Finance and Marcus get's only IAT. Pierius Magnus 07:39, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I believe this has a majority? --Semyon 11:47, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

It has indeed. I propose we wait for some late voters and finish the poll February 1st, early in the morning, so Donia can inaugurate the Congress and the government on that same day. Dimitri 11:58, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

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

Pro

1. Pro Pierius Magnus 17:51, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:01, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
3. Pro HORTON11 18:03, January 26, 2011 (UTC)- seems like a very fair and egalitarian composition of congress
4. Pro Thanks! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 20:54, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro Balance is okay. I have no trust in the combination of Justice & Welfare for CCPL, but I'll guess we'll have to wait and see first. @MOTCs: once we have a government, any normal majority can re-arrange it. Dimitri 12:13, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC) Restored balance, I'm fine JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
7. Pro (@HRH: now what is that supposed to mean? ) Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

   HRH means that seven smart people can get one bad person out of the government at any given time. So, if one of the Secretaries indeed proves to be corrupt or otherwise unfit, a normal majority could vote him out. You wrote that amendment :D Dimitri 15:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

   If someone were to propose to vote a secretary out, and the proposal failed, would the person who proposed it face consequences? HORTON11 17:19, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

   No, of course not. MOTCs should be one hundred percent free to propose these kind of things. Dimitri 17:50, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

   Now I remember, our very own 'motion of distrust'. How good of me to include such a procedure. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:07, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

8. Pro Edward Hannis 23:34, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
9. Pro Martha Van Ghent 11:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
10. Pro Thanks for this opportunity. Percival E. Galahad «LAP» 13:47, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstention --Arthur Jefferson 12:06, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! Congressional Journal. Dimitri 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Labor Law Act

1. Every adult Lovian that foresees in his own income through labor as an employee can only do so by engaging in an employment contract.
   1. An employment contract is an agreement in which one party (the employee) commits him- or herself to work for another party (the employer) in exchange for a financial compensation.
   2. An employment contract is only valid when:
      1. Both parties are at least 16 and have permission from a parent or legal advisor when they are not yet 18.
      2. The function, working hours, working conditions, wage and duration of the contract are confirmed in a written agreement.
      3. Both parties agree on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient.
      4. It comprises the presence of a valid subject and a lawful cause.
   3. An employment contract is terminated:
      1. When the time of the duration of the employment contract as defined in the contract itself is expired.
      2. When both parties agree upon the termination of the employment contract under conditions specified and agreed upon by both parties.
      3. When at least one of the parties can not possibly fulfill his/her obligations due to conditions independent of that party his/her will.
      4. When one of the parties declares the employment contract terminated by issuing the dismissal.
         1. When the employer terminates the contract this way, the employee can demand a financial compensation of three month salaries.
         2. When the employee terminates the contract this way, the employer can demand the contract stands for up to one more week.
      5. When a judge declares the failure of at least one of the parties sufficient to terminate the employment contract as a whole.
         1. If declared terminated by a judge, the payment of a financial compensation for the duped party can be imposed on the party responsible for the failure.
      6. When a certain event enclosed in the employment contract as dissolving condition takes place.
         1. The following events can not be taken up as dissolving conditions: pregnancy, parenthood, marriage, reaching pension age and confiscation of the wage.
      7. When the employee dies or is missing for more than one week.
2. After being employed under a labor contract for 40 years, an employee can retreat from the labor market, thus becoming pensioned.
   1. From the age of 55, all employees enter pension regardless of the years they have been under a labor contract.
   2. Pensioned people are legally entitled to a pension that is provided to them by the Social Security Fund.
3. The hours an employee has to work are to be enclosed in an employment contract to make it valid.
   1. These hours are limited to eight hours a day and forty hours a week.
      1. All labor performed outside these limits are regarded as overtime.
      2. All labor performed from 8 p.m. to six a.m. is regarded as night labor.
      3. All labor performed on saturdays, sundays or recognized holidays is regarded as weekend labor.
   2. If an employee is put to work he has to work at least three successive hours.
   3. After six successive hours of work an employee has the right to have half an hour of rest.
   4. Each employee has the right to have eleven successive hours of rest a day.
4. The conditions under which an employee performs his/her job have to be enclosed in an employment contract to make it valid.
5. The conditions under which an employee performs his/her job may only pose the minimal acceptable threat to his/her safety, health or welfare.
6. An employer is responsible for the consequences of his/her decisions on the employment conditions of his/her employees. End that he/she has to take the following measures:
   1. The prevention of risks and the evaluation of risks that couldn't be prevented within an acceptable margin.
   2. Giving priority to safety over profit when making decisions that affect the employment conditions.
   3. Informing the employee over possible risks in the light of his/her duty at his/her recruitment.
7. An employee has to act in agreement with his/her training and given instructions to take care of his/her safety. End that he/she has to take the following measures:
   1. Make correct use of the provided machinery, tools and materials that may pose a threat to the employee's safety.
   2. Make correct use of the provided personal protective equipment.
   3. Make correct use of the provided safety mechanisms.
8. The wage is defined by the employment contract but has to answer to the following provisions:
   1. The minimum wage is 14 dollars an hour, with a 30% digression for employees younger than 18.
   2. A compensating differential of 20% is to be given for labor at night, weekend labor, dangerous work or irregular hours.
   3. The wages as defined can be altered according to the inflation upon Congressional decision.
   4. The wages of all employees are protected by the following provisions:
      1. The employee can ordain his own wage without restrictions from the employer.
      2. All wages payed to Lovian residents are to be payed in US dollars unless he/she is employed in a foreign country, in which case he/she can demand payment in the coin of that country.
      3. Up to 1/5 of the wage can be payed in kind if this is desirable for the nature of the job and the employee was notified of this in advance.
      4. All wages are to be payed at least twice a month with no more than 16 days between each payment.
   5. Certain payments can legally be subtracted from the wage before payment.
   6. These subtractions should not comprise more than 1/5 of the total wage unless when the employee did deliberate damage or quits before the entire debt is redeemed.
   7. Payments that can legally be subtracted from the wage before payment are:
      1. Contributions for the Social Security Fund which are imposed by Congress through the taxation policy.
      2. Fines which are owed to the employer and are imposed by the agreed labor regulation of the employment contract.
      3. Damages which are owed to the employer and inflicted during the exercise of the job for that employer.
      4. Advance payments already made by the employer with agreement of the employee.
9. An employee is default by disease if he/she unable to perform his/her job due to a physic disease or mental condition.
   1. An employee who is default by disease has right to full payment if he/she notifies his/her employer of the situation.
      1. The employer can demand proof of a medical opinion or ask for a second opinion of a competent examiner appointed by the employer.
      2. All wages payed to an employee default by disease for more than 30 successive days are payed for 60% by the Social Security Fund.
   2. If the default is caused by an occupational injury or disease, the employer has to pay the full wage for the entire duration of the default.
      1. All employers are obliged to take insurance against occupational injuries and diseases, either private or through the Social Security Fund.
      2. All employers are obliged to take as much measures against occupational injuries and diseases as reasonable.
10. Extra regulation can be imposed through organized collective bargaining between unions and sectors.
    1. The extra regulation is only valid when all parties agreed on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient.
    2. The extra regulation may concern vacations, recruitment, working hours, wages and working conditions.
    3. The extra regulation may not violate the marginal boundaries and regulations of the labor law.

Vote

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

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:57, February 13, 2011 (UTC) A beautiful law!
3. Pro for helping the common person! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:14, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 13:26, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro HORTON11 23:32, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
6. ...

Contra

1. ...
2. ...

Abstain

1. ...
2. ...

Social Security Act

1. The Social Security System is a collection of mechanisms that serve to fight poverty and social injustice to the benefit of society as a whole.
2. The Social Security System is made up of the following institutions:
   1. The Social Security Fund, which is responsible for all transfer payments that are made under the Social Security System.
      1. The Social Security Fund is funded by contributions that are withheld from the wages in accordance to Lovia's tax policy.
         1. If the Social Security Fund faces a shortage its budget will be straightened by a financial injection from the federal budget.
      2. The Department of Finance and the Department of Welfare operate the Social Security Fund jointly.
         1. The Department of Finance is responsible for the income side of the Social Security Fund.
         2. The Department of Welfare is responsible for the spending side of the Social Security Fund.
      3. Receiving payments from the Social Security Fund without being entitled to them is considered social fraud.
         1. When social fraud is determined, the Social Security Fund can withhold further payments.
         2. Payments received without being entitled to them can be retrieved by court order.
         3. Social fraud as deliberate deception can punished with a compensating fee by court order.
   2. The National Healthcare Service, which is responsible for providing free medically necessary assistance to everyone the Lovian state is responsible for.
      1. The National Healthcare Service operates under the Department of Welfare which is responsible for the working.
      2. The National Healthcare Service runs all government hospitals, recognizes medical personnel and refunds medicine.
      3. The National Healthcare Service may advise Congress over price regulation concerning the pharmaceutical sector.
   3. The Social Assistance Service, which is responsible for legally and morally assisting the beneficiaries of the Social Security Fund.
      1. The Social Assistance Service operates under the Department of Welfare which is responsible for the working.
      2. The Social Assistance Service is to appoint all medical and social personal that observe the beneficiaries.
      3. The Social Assistance Service can appoint social housing if it is provided through Congressional clause.
   4. The Agency for Labor Inspection, which is to ascertain the compliance of employers and employees to the determinations of the labor law.
      1. The Agency for Labor Inspection operates under the Department of Welfare which is responsible for the working.
      2. The Agency has the task to control wether employers and employees respect the social regulations imposed upon them.
      3. The Agency is obliged to take a case to court when it finds a violation; the agency can not declare a verdict on its own.
3. The transfer payments the Social Security System is charged with are monthly payments related to sick leave, deficiencies, unemployment, pensions and special benefits.
   1. All wages payed to an employee default by disease for more than 30 successive days are payed for 60% by the Social Security Fund.
      1. When paying, the Social Security Fund can ask for a second opinion of a competent examiner appointed by the Social Assistance Service.
      2. When an employee receives the sick leave benefit for six consecutive months, he or she must switch to the deficiency benefit.
   2. All people who can not take part in activities on the labor market due to a physical or mental deficiency are entitled to a deficiency benefit of 1200$.
      1. The obstructing deficiency needs to be determined sufficient by a competent examiner appointed by the Social Assistance Service.
      2. People with a limited deficiency might be assigned to communal services if a competent examiner deems this to be desirable.
   3. All unemployed people that are capable of working are entitled to a minimum income of 1200$ provided by the Social Security Fund.
      1. A person receiving the unemployment benefit is obliged to undertake reasonable effort in trying to find a new job.
      2. A person receiving the unemployment benefit might be assigned to communal services by an appointed social worker.
   4. All pensioned people are legally entitled to a pension that is provided to them by the Social Security Fund.
      1. The legal minimum for a pension is 800$, regardless of how many years the receiver has been under an employment contract.
      2. A compensating differential of 10% is payed for every 10 years the receiver has been under an employment contract.
   5. The Social Assistance Service can foresee benefits for large families, single parents and people who lost their supporting partner.
      1. The amount of income and dependent people within the family is to be taken into consideration when determining the benefit.
      2. Such benefits are only to be granted to beneficiaries who's income is below the mandatory minimum income of 1200$.
      3. Any beneficiary can apply for such a benefit with a social worker appointed by the Social Assistance Service.

Vote

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

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC) though see my remark below, this law could have been a bit clearer!
3. Pro Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 13:28, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro HORTON11 23:34, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro JON THE DUDE JOHNSON 12:54, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

1. ...
2. ...

Abstain

1. Abstention --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:01, February 13, 2011 (UTC) The law is okay, but it doesn't specify whether the $800 and $1200 are monthly, per year, per day etc.

   In fact the law says (...) transfer payments the Social Security System is charged with are monthly payments. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:17, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

   An income is not the same as a transfer payment. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

   The term 'transfer payment' is commonly used in western Europe to refer to all money transfered from the social security to a beneficiary. 'Uitkeringen' and the like all included. It is an 'income' but not a 'wage'. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:24, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

   I still don't agree with you, but I don't want to block this law for something that stupid :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

2. ...

Financial Outline Act

1. A tax in the kingdom of Lovia is any financial charge or other levy upon a legal entity made by the state to either raise money for funding public policy or changing the undesired outcome of market activity.
   1. Taxation is to be fair, meaning that all taxes need a justifiable cause and are to be levied in accordance with the payer's ability to pay.
      1. For the Payroll Tax, Personal Income Tax and Property Tax the fairness is guaranteed by a system of progressive taxation that works as follows:
         1. All payers are to be sorted into ten categories with each category corresponding to one percentile of the tax payer population. Each percentile is then levied with a tax percentage of 10%, with an increase of 5% for each next percentile.
         2. Formulary expression: "TAX PAID = AMOUNT TO BE CHARGED x (10 + P)%" with "P = (PERCENTILE NUMBER - 1) x 5"
   2. Taxation is to be efficient, meaning that taxes should be levied without unreasonable economic or administrative cost.
   3. Not paying a tax, through avoidance or other failure, is punishable by a fee or confiscation of property through court order.
2. Lovia knows three types of taxation:
   1. Excise taxes are taxes that serve to compensate for negative externalities by dropping the amount of taxed goods that is supplied and/or demanded.
      1. Excise taxes are to be levied according to the benefits principle, meaning that their incidence falls most on the parties responsible for the taxed externality.
      2. Negative externalities associated with common resources, goods that are rival but not exclusive, are to be fixed through regulation instead of taxation.
   2. Import taxes are taxes levied on goods that are consumed domestically but are produced abroad.
      1. Import taxes may only be levied in the following cases:
         1. When a sector as a whole is ailing due to competition with a world price lower than the domestic price.
         2. In a sector that is considered strategic due to its relevance to the Lovian economic sovereignty.
            1. The following sectors are considered strategic: production of energy, financial products.
         3. When an imported product is considered harmful or unethical because of its production method.
            1. The following products are considered harmful or unethical: products produced by child labor, genetically modified food products.
      2. No import taxes may be levied goods produced in the Least Developed Countries as defined by the United Nations, unless they are considered unethical or harmful by Article 2.2.1.3.1 of this bill.
   3. Systemic taxes are taxes levied to redistribute wealth or skim tax revenue from the welfare created for public policy.
      1. The Payroll Tax (PRT) is levied on the wage payed to an employee and subtracted from the wage by the employer before the wage is payed.
         1. The tax revenue of the PRT is primarily to be used for the funding of the Social Security Fund.
         2. No PRT is levied on a person who's income is equal to or lower than the mandatory minimum income of 1200$.
      2. The Personal Income Tax (PIT) is levied on a person's total income.
         1. The PIT is levied on a yearly basis by sending each citizen a tax letter which he/she has to respond to by making the correct payment within six weeks after receiving the letter.
         2. No PIT is levied on a person who's income is equal to or lower than the mandatory minimum income of 1200$.
      3. The Property Tax (PPT) is levied on the wealth a person's property and resting capital generate.
         1. The PPT is levied on a yearly basis by sending each citizen a tax letter which he/she has to respond to by making the correct payment within six weeks after receiving the letter.
         2. No PPT is not levied on a person who's wealth enclosed in property and resting capital are below the average wealth of all Lovian citizens.
      4. The Value-added Tax (VAT) is a tax levied on all goods and services that are sold with profit.
         1. The amount of taxation is calculated as 20% of the added value through sale and payed by the one who sold the good or service.
         2. The VAT is dropped to 10% when it concerns a recognized ecological or fair-trade product.
3. The amount of created welfare skimmed for public policy through taxes should stay between 35 and 45% of Lovia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
   1. When the federal budget is facing a deficit, the state must borrow money on the financial market.
      1. The government should see to it that the yearly deficit is no larger than 3% of the budget to assure financial stability.
      2. Congress may approve to exceed the 3% limit in times of crisis, by which the a new limit becomes automatically fixed at 6%.
   2. When the federal budget has a surplus, it should be used to pay off the country's debt.
      1. Spending the surplus on new policy can only be done if the new policy is taken up in the budget, lowering the surplus.
      2. Congress may approve to spend up to 50% of the surplus on new policies that aim to stimulate or stabilize the economy.
   3. The following guidelines for public expenditure are to be respected by the government:
      1. At least 40% of the federal budget should be used for social security and national healthcare.
      2. At least 15% of the federal budget should be used for the funding of education and research.
      3. At least 6% of the federal budget should be used for public transport and infrastructure.
      4. At least 6% of the federal budget should be used for public safety.

Vote

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

Pro

1. Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:24, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
3. ...

Contra

1. Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:07, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Several reasons: 1. again it doesn't specify whether the $1200 is monthly or per year. 2. The VAT is dropped to 10% when it concerns a recognized ecological or fair-trade product. 3. Part 3.3 (way too bureaucratic). 4. All payers are to be sorted into ten categories with each category corresponding to one percentile of the tax payer population. Each percentile is then levied with a tax percentage of 10%, with an increase of 5% for each next percentile. (too progressive).

   (1) Monthly payments: see previous bill, (3) bureaucracy: it is about taxation, what did you expect? Even the most efficient tax systems require bureaucracy, (4) I know it is progressive. I've written it. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:20, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

   3. Indeed, a little bit bureaucracy is okay, but this is not necessary in my eyes. 4. :P --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 09:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

2. ...

Abstain

1. ...
2. ...

Comments

I corrected a few small spelling mistakes (payed to paid, in stead to instead). Also, if I remember my statistics, one tenth of a set of data is a decile, not a percentile.

I apologise for commenting in the Second Chamber. Other than that, it seems a fine bill! --Semyon 17:00, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Height Restriction Act

I find it rather sad this law was so suddenly abandoned. So here goes (with small amendments): --Semyon 17:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Federal Law: 50%+

Height Restriction Act

1. In the Kingdom of Lovia, no structures surpassing the maximum height of 165 feet or 50.3 meters may be constructed, in order to preserve the city scenes and landscapes, and in order to bar projects of megalomaniacal size.
2. Governors of the states are entitled to restrict the height of buildings further, for the entire state or for designated localities, such as historic neighborhoods. They must however allow for the construction of regular two-storey residences.
3. Congress may grant exemptions to this law, by a normal majority, or overrule the decision of the Governor.

Voting

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

PRO.

• Pro Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC) (Why isn't seymon in congress?)
• Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:57, February 18, 2011 (UTC) (he wasn't a candidate)
• Pro I'm not fully into this, but at least the conflict of power between Congress and the States seems to be solved. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:58, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
• ...

CONTRA.

• ...
• ...

ABSTAIN.

• ...
• ...

Appointing a new Supreme Court Judge

As your Secretary of Justice, it is up to me to put forth a candidate as our new Supreme Court Judge. In my personal opinion he or she is to be a neutral person, someone from outside of Congress who is currently not involved in politics. I therefore decided to appoint Lars Washington (Aesopos) to this esteemed position. Washington will replace Mr. Jefferson. I am sure he will do well. The congress first has to vote on this matter, of course, before the appointment will be final - so go ahead, congressmen, and vote! Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 15:57, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

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

PRO.

1. Pro HORTON11 16:30, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 16:34, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
3. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 18:27, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 11:53, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
5. ...

CONTRA.

• Contra I'd like to wait swapping until a reform is issued. (If it matters: appeal is not legally possible for now) Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:01, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
• Contra Too inactive I though would personally quit congress just to be appointed for the position. I don't want to beg but I would love this position. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:54, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Marcus, you are of more use to us as a MOTC then you are as a Supreme Court Judge. Unlike Mr. Washington you have less expierence in the field and you are not what I would call impartial, to say the least. You can accomplish more as a member of congress and a secretary in the Donia I Government. I'd like you to remain were you are. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 10:13, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Impartiality is the stupidest policy ever devised, I prefer a technical and responsible judge over the dullest shade of grey. Juts my opinion though. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

@Yuri: Please see Forum:The Pub, it is not illegal at all! Your own party member Censuree already wished to appoint a second SC Judge [3]. A new Judge is needed and fast. There are some serious issues, with AJ being involved himself too. And besides, what's wrong with having more Judges? It is stupid to have one judge, giving him the ability to do whatever he wants (yes.) and waiting for a revision of the judicial policy is the lamest excuse ever. @Marcus: you can be judge too. There is no limit set by Constitution. But why do you vote Contra then, if you can propose yourself to become a Judge too? We need more Judges, and I would rather like to have 3 than 2 or even 1. Cristian Latin 19:00, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Never said appointing new judges was illegal, I said 'appeal is not legally possible'. I vote contra because the system is wrong, not the judge. Reform the system! This takes time and a lot of careful thinking. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:18, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Both the system and the Judge were wrong and you know it. A six month block and taking away the citizen rights of the defendent? Come on man! It was outrageous, out of line and out of proportion. Ygo "the Brigade" Donia (Lovian PM) 09:13, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

I agree the sentence is too heavy (@press: please notice!!) and I proposed you negotiated a deal with Jefferson. A thorough reform is needed, with multiple judges but without 'action out of anger'. I vote against, as is my right.Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 15:58, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

• Contra Dimitri 07:19, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

ABSTAIN.

• ...
• ...

2011 Provisional Congress

Due to the unactivness of the current elected 2011 Congress, a 2011 Provisional Congress shall take it's place. The congress shall also hold the same duties with a new Prime Minister to lead the congress. All current proposals not accepted shall be re-proposed in the First Chamber.

The Following congresspeople shall be :

• Dimitri Noble
• Yuri Medvedev
• Justin Abrahams
• Nathaniel Scribner
• Oos Wes Ilava
• I. G. La Blaca
• Lars Washington
• William Krosby
• Marcus Villanova

Voting

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

Pro

• Pro Yes! C'mon vote on this! Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:46, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Sure, why not. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:09, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Let's go for it. Aesopos 16:14, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro As a temporary measure. However we do need elections in the near future. HORTON11 18:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Agreed with Horton. --Nathaniel Scribner 00:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• ...

Contra

• ...
• ...
• ...

Abstain

• ...
• ...
• ...

This proposal is accepted! with a 55% majority. Don't forget to approve or disapprove the PM. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:23, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! Now let's get even more votes! Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:19, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Selecting a Prime Minister

This vote is to confirm Prime Minister for the 2011 Provisional Congress. The currently nominated PM is Marcus Villanova. Is this acceptable?

Voting

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

Pro

• Pro Yes. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:13, April 30, 2011 (UTC) (William Krosby)
• Pro Well duh. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:03, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Good luck! --Nathaniel Scribner 00:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Go, go, ... go?! Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro haha Aesopos 08:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro HORTON11 13:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• ...

Contra

• Contra We don't want no red commie PM. The Master's Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• ...
• ...

Abstain

• ...
• ...
• ...

This proposal is accepted! Villanova, you should set up your government now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:44, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

069. Condensement Bill

Marcus Villanova wishes for this bill to be passed before he sets up his government. Let's have a quick vote on the matter. This bill will condense several departments and agencies into one department, decreasing the amount of slots needed to be filled by Lovians. Is this acceptable?

Voting

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

Pro

• Pro Just vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:10, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro: This is pretty much the only option as this point. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro HORTON11 13:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro though you should include a link in this proposals description to where the exact proposal can be found. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:14, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • True but i'd rather we work on combining the pages together when this is passed Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:18, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Sad that your getting rid of the Department of Agriculture.Nathaniel Scribner 16:28, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• ...

Contra

• Contra We can't miss Agriculture... Don't you commies like them good 'ol Kolkhoz? The Master's Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• ...
• ...

Abstain

• ...
• ...
• ...

This proposal is accepted! Let's begin the other bills now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:33, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Composition of Villanova I Government

• Culture, Education and Heritage - Justin Abrahams

• Energy and Environment - Lars Washington

• Foreign Affairs - Yuri Medvedev

• Economy and Tansportation - Nathaniel Scribner

• Finance and Welfare - William Krosby

Is this acceptable?

Villanova, Abrahams, Washington, Medvedev, Scribner, and Krosby must all approve this government for it to pass.

Voting

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

Pro

• Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:25, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:33, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro HORTON11 01:52, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Nathaniel Scribner 05:08, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro I keep my post Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:54, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro that's a tuff one, you gave me there. Aesopos 15:21, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

• Contra It is unacceptable that only the leftists get a position in the government. The UNS and CCPL have been surpassed for no good reason at all. How's that for that "diversity" you guys so cherish? The Master's Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• ...
• ...

Abstain

• ...
• ...

This proposal is accepted! by a 2/3 majority. Change the articles about the government positions. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:53, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

No, this is not acceptable. The only people that may vote are those who are appointed in the government? Normally this is called dictatorship... --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 16:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

But your in congress, and we only chose the active users, we did it before! Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:32, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ouwtb, what I meant was that anyone can vote, but for it to pass, you need the people that are in the government to pro it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:21, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I remember that with the former government it was insisted that all parties were represented in the government... --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure a government of only progressives would have passed too, since they had a majority. The progressive Congress demanded a non-exclusively conservative government. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:30, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

067. Settlement Act

This act would completely replace the Town and City Act as well as the Hamlet Act.

1. All Lovian settlements are classified into five denominational groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
2. A hamlet is a very minor settlement affiliated with a town or city.
   1. A hamlet must:
      1. Have a population below five hundred. If larger, the hamlet loses affiliation with towns or cities and becomes a village.
      2. Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commercial lots.
      3. Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
3. A village is an unattached minor settlement that is separate from a town or city.
   1. A village must:
      1. Have a population of at least five hundred and no more than fifteen hundred inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town.
      2. Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
         1. If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
4. A town is an unattached settlement within a state.
   1. A town must:
      1. Have a population above fifteen hundred. If below, the town becomes a village.
      2. Contain one to four neighborhoods of any type.
         1. Congress can turn a town consisting of four neighborhoods into a city, granting it a fifth neighborhood, by Congressional majority.
5. A city is an unattached major settlement within a state.
   1. A city must:
      1. Have a population of at least four thousand.
      2. Consist of a group of neighborhoods; at least five.
         1. It is legally required that at least four of the five neighborhoods are fully finished and that it is possible for its inhabitants to lead a safe and regular life.
6. A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city.
7. A hamlet or village may become part of a town or city, however, the hamlet or village it will lose its hamlet or village status and become a neighborhood.
8. All Lovian hamlets and neighborhoods are managed by the state of the town or city of which they are affiliated with.
9. All Lovian villages, towns, and cities are managed by the state of which they are part of.
10. All Lovian hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor has the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule these decisions.

Voting

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

Pro

• Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:58, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:30, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro The Master's Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro HORTON11 21:57, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Nathaniel Scribner 00:39, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro Aesopos 07:31, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• ...

Contra

• Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 10:09, May 4, 2011 (UTC) still, the only difference I see right now is that a new type of settlement, called village, is introduced. Has anybody already been thinking about the fact that this has to be implemented? This isn't just an Ocean and Fishing Act, this change requires a relatively large number of pages to be checked and adjusted, both in infoboxes and texts, which will at least be a few hours work. And even then there will still be unchecked pages. Also, the difference hamlet - town - city was introduced in order to prevent people from creating settlements with 5.000 neighborhoods. There's no need for introducing a village type (which is indicated by the number of inhabitants, which quite tends to go up and down in Lovia...)

Hamlets are extremely small in real life. I proposed this for autonomy for the larger hamlets and the adding of a realistic village settlement. I don't have a problem with changing pages, also. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Good luck then, damn I miss those simplify waldeners.. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 11:42, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Damn, villages are very common in most countries and hamlets do not have such high populations. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, indeed, but does village per se need to have a legal context? I'd only say that I find this change bureaucratic, unneccessary and overcomplicating things. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 12:33, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I already got rid of mayors for you. If I remove villages, there would be no point in this bill. I think villages should exist because hamlets are rare in most countries and places of over five hundred at most are NOT hamlets. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:18, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I vote contra: there's no point in this bill. And I don't want to be irritating (which I quite am right now :P), but hamlets are rare in most countries and places of over five hundred at most are NOT hamlets? Ever been to the Netherlands, Belgium, France or Germany? :) --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 14:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia says something about being a "small settlement". Here in the US, 500 people constitutes a village. Besides, isn't Lovia not related to those countries? If you want, I'll obliterate the idea of hamlets and replace them with villages completely. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:06, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

No, look, we're indeed related to countries like the US, but also to Benelux countries (see our history), the idea is that a hamlet is dependent, while a town (and village) is not. So, a hamlet could be considered a neighborhood of a town, but it is not placed adjacent to other neighborhoods of that town and does not count as one. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 17:28, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

So then why do hamlets have such high upper population limits? They don't need to be dependent on towns, and I think it would be better that they weren't and were autonomous, just like towns and cities are. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:15, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you understand. Population limits were, previous to this act, not decisive in whether it's a hamlet or town. I personally believe that's a good thing. Politics and demographics should be devided. --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

• ...
• ...

Abstain

• ...
• ...

This proposal is accepted! with a 78% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:44, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Awesome, we have a majority. This will stay open for about 24 hours, maybe a bit more or less, in case someone else wants to vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:42, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make an exception for Ferguson Beach Village? It is associated with Adoha, but it is much older, and not a true neighborhood. HORTON11 00:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

So, would that make it a hamlet? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:54, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, its a little more than 500 people. Could we not just make it a village affiliated to Adoha. HORTON11 00:59, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I recommend you make it a neighborhood. There are several places with the word "village" in them which are actually just city subdivisions. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:14, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Former Voting

Pro

• Pro—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:30, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro, unless someone can bring up a contradiction with existing legislation? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:56, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Pro I like the idea of mayors in towns and Cities. But we should probaly fix the Hamlet population thing. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:33, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

• Contra --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC) There's one major problem: a.t.m. all hamlets have more than 200 inhabitants... Also, I don't see this as an improvement. What has actually been made better? In my opinion I only see that useful passages have been taken out. I'd also propose to leave out the mayor section. Mayors and chairmen have prooved to be useless in the past. All executive and legislative power is either at congress or at the governor.

  Good idea, although not so sure on the mayors. I think cities should require 4k people, which I believe newhaven and noble city meet. I'll change this and clear the votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

• Contra Owtb made an excellent point. Also, it would be better to rewrite the original legislation piece if you want to change this. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Motion to Conduct a Census

The census will occur on Saturday, 7 May 2011. It will be in accordance with the new Settlement Act. I request that if you are available that day that you help take the census. I will be using the citizen page and using the residences specified to check. (William Krosby)

Voting

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

Pro

1. Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
2. Pro Nathaniel Scribner 02:06, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
3. Pro HORTON11 02:36, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
4. Pro Finally this project is getting somewhere. Good work guys! Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:12, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
5. Pro --OuWTB^sjrief-mich 08:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
6. Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
7. Pro Keep up the good work, people! The Master's Voice 15:02, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
8. ...

Contra

• ...
• ...

Abstain

• ...
• ...

This proposal is accepted! Already a 2/3 majority, and I don't think anyone is going to vote contra. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:55, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Add your citizens to the citizen page if you haven't already. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Would there also be a population count (of al built-up areas)? HORTON11 02:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a problem since I don't want to count people two or three different times. So add your citizen to the citizen page if you haven't. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

What about residents? HORTON11 13:23, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

They would probably count as citizens unless Lovia isn't their main residence. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)