Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The First Chamber forum is only opened to Members of the Congress. Here MOTC can propose law proposals and other federal issues. They can be discussed and adjusted, until there are replaced to the Second Chamber for vote.

Tobacco legislation
During the summer of 2008 we, the Congress, signed the Tobacco Regulations Act into law. We talked a lot about what should be in the law, and what not. We agreed to writing a moderate law, stating it would be possible to change the law and make it either harder or weaker. I'll outline how the current Tobacco Regulations Act works: This is more or less how the law is. I think we should consider extending it a little. What do you think? What areas should be included if we decide to strengthen this act? Speak out. 10:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * All uses of all forms of tobacco are forbidden:
 * In all government buiding
 * For all minors (-18y)
 * In the direct environment of children aged 12 or younger
 * In the direct environment of children aged 12 to 18, unless if they agree with the use of tobacco in their environment
 * Congress discourages all use of tobacco products
 * Companies and organizations have the right to prohibit tobacco use on their properties
 * Iam fine with the Discouraging but the age things i dont supoort them Pierlot McCrooke 10:56, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd think the existing law would just do fine. As it's about something abstract, maybe we could spend more time thinking how we should "govern this site". --Bucurestean 14:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Let smoking be a personal choice for people to make. Let everyone over the age of sixteen make the decision for his or herself. We cannot forbid people to drink alcohol, neither can the government deal this harshly with tobacco smoking. I am against this. Discuţie 14:26, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the law already exists. The questions was, should we extend it? And I don't agree with you on the unability to prohibit alcohol. 14:28, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * AEC) Look, when the age is 18, people will start smoking at the age of 16. However, when the allowed age would be 16, youngsters would already start smoking when they're 14. The same with alcohol. That's what I see in my environment. --Bucurestean 14:29, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Well, at what age may one drink alcohol in Lovia? If it is the age of 21, like in the US, then I would say tobacco smoking should also be upgraded to age 21+. Or downgrade the age altogether to 16. People dying young is cheap for the goverment. Dr. Magnus 14:30, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no legal drinking age in Lovia. By the way: the drinking age is not 21 in the US. It differs per state. 14:31, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm mistaken, there is such a US law indeed, since 1984. 14:32, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Being a smoker of cigars myself I must be against this law. Viva corona! I hate this health-guru type of law making. Let the people decide for themselves whether or not they choose to live their lives unhealthy. :D Dr. Magnus 14:34, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * How did Churchill live to be old? Whiskey and cigars, my friends, whiskey and cigars! :D Dr. Magnus 14:35, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * AEC) They certainly are allowed to do that, after the age of 18. --Bucurestean 14:36, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Pierius, that is my vision as well. There is only one complication: smoking (and drinking) affects the lives of other people. Passive smoking is monstruously bad for children, and alcohol abuse has led to murder, assault, rape etc. THAT is why we need these laws. 14:37, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you control that people dont smoke near children? Cameras in every house? McCrooke 14:39, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Guns don kill people. People kill people. Right, your majesty? And smoking and drinking is a choice you make for yourself. Every once in a while, I drink a beer, since I was still pretty young. But always "met mate". You just have to have some self control when it comes to these matters. In my opinion, the government should stay out of this one. Dr. Magnus 14:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people just don't drink "met mate". That's the problem. And if you raped a woman after having drunk so much you don't know where up and down are, we HAVE to be able to sue you. Even more, we have to be able to make people not do it any longer. And that's what this law is for. Of course, we can't control everybody. That's not our goal. But if a child's lungs are rotting away, he has to be able to get protection against this. 14:43, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * THen do people that dont drink met mate in a JUstitial inrichting (hat is that called in english?) McCrooke 14:46, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

When you are drunk, dear king, a rape is very hard since many men are no longer able to "get it up" when drunk... :) And to kill a man when drunk is also hard, since you will have a terrible aim. The biggest problem is drunk driving. That is why nobody under the age of 18 should drive, and nobody should consume alcoholic beverages while driving or before. That is a bigger concern. :D Dr. Magnus 14:49, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess you were kidding again. --Bucurestean 15:07, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Bucu. Why did I pardon these fellas? *sigh* 15:16, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's simple: you're just too nice, HRH ---> --Bucurestean 15:45, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha! 15:49, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that discouraging smoking can be made in the National Health Care regulations. Let's say, if it is proven someone gets ill because of smoking, he/she will have to pay all expenses privately. The Lovian National Health Care will not intervene in the costs occuring by ilness caused by smoking. Instead, the government could do something on the tax for horeca expenses, which would then compensate the expenses for a taxi drive home after a restaurant or pub visit. How about that? --Lars 16:01, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Mr.Washington, on this one. That is a clever idea indeed. I am also a supporter of more tobacco, alcohol and drugs regulations, but I fear a stand alone on this issue (?). 17:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I agree about that :) Mabe we can write something on alcohol (ab)use? 17:40, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds very well my Brother. When shall we engage in this? 19:32, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

My general opinion: Laws on this actually don't work. People simply ignore them. I hardly know anyone who hasn't drunk anything before he was 16... The same applies for smoking: people don't care about the law, if they want to smoke, they'll simply just do it. This doesn't mean that I'm not in favour of creating such laws, but I don't think they'll have any effect.. --O u WTB 16:36, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's put it the other way: smoking harms the health of the smoker and also those who are around him/her.
 * Drinking (abusive) harms the health of the drinker and poses a risk to innocent people (DWD). On top of that, Of course, coping with alcoholism for those around (close family and friends) is not easy as we all are aware off.


 * Lawmaking and sensibilizing (we all know the shocking sensibilizing campaigns...) should lead to a positive result. --Lars 09:32, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your well-formed summary of this rather touchy issue! I agree with you, Mr. Washington! -- 18:29, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol Consumption Regulations Act
Proposed article to be added to the Federal Law, concerning alcohol consumption. A poll made clear a majority of the Lovians supported alcohol consumption legislation. -- 14:50, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Content (Bill)
Article 12 - Alcohol Consumption Regulations Act
 * 1) The term "alcoholic beverage" covers every drink that contains ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect. A high blood alcohol reduces attention and slows reaction speed. Alcoholic beverages can be addictive.
 * 2) Alcoholic beverages shall not be sold to persons who have not yet reached the age of 16 years.
 * 3) Both the buyer and the person selling the alcoholic beverage to a person who has not yet reached the age of 16 years are considered to be violating the Federal Law.
 * 4) Spirits (unsweetened, distilled, alcoholic beverages that have an alcohol content of at least 20% ABV) shall not be sold to persons who have not yet reached the age of 18 years.
 * 5) Both the buyer and the person selling the alcoholic beverage to a minor are considered to be violating the Federal Law.
 * 6) The use of alcoholic beverages is forbidden by the Alcohol Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress:
 * 7) In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet.
 * 8) In all educational institutions during class hours, unless the purpose of a particular course is to educate about alcoholic beverages.
 * 9) The use of alcoholic beverages in this case is restricted to the absolute minimum. Courses will be dismissed by the Royal Educational Aims Council when this law is violated.
 * 10) By any person whose professional occupation it is to transport other people. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed during the period starting two hours before the job officially commences, and until the moment the job officially ends.
 * 11) By any person whose professional occupation it is to safeguard other people's security. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed during the period starting two hours before the job officially commences, and until the moment the job officially ends.
 * 12) By any person during job hours.
 * 13) Every Lovian person, company, or organization who owns or manages a building, room, or public place has the right to prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages within that space, supported by Local Police authorities in case of disobedience.
 * 14) A high blood alcohol content is referred to as drunkenness.
 * 15) Each person operating a vehicle while under the influece of alcohol violates the Federal Law.
 * 16) When a driver's blood alcohol concentration is measured to be 0.05% or more at the moment of control and within half an hour of the moment when this person was halted by police authorities, this person is considered to have driven under the influence of alcohol, and has thus violated the Federal Law.
 * 17) A person transporting other people as a professional occupation may not have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.01% during job hours.
 * 18) Public drunkenness is prohibited by the Federal Law.
 * 19) Each person in a public space whose behavior is uncommon and who does not seem to be able to think clearly and act accordingly and whose blood alcoholic concentration is measured to be 0.08% or more, is considered to be under the influence of alcohol, and can be arrested by police authorities.

Talk
I'll repeat what I said earlier: "It's balanced, correct and moderate. Nice work. Oos Wes' remark on gradualization is reasonable indeed, and it's a good thing to incorporate this in the bill." If I were you, I wouldn't waste too much time in the 1st Chamber. 16:44, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merging plan
Ill would like this plan: Pierlot McCrooke 13:10, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * merging the town of Train Village with Noble City
 * This will also reduce the number of polices
 * Merging the towns of Sofasi and Kinley
 * This will also merge the states of Clymene and Seven
 * And also lesser courts and police departments
 * Merging the department of justice with the Department of Welfare
 * Merging the National Park service with the National Monument Srvice
 * Merging the departments of Industry, Agriculture and Trade, Finance. and Tourism and Leisure

Talk
I don't see the need to do that, Sir. 14:27, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * THis will make Lovian politics less complex. A small country like Lovia doesnt needs this current complex political situation Pierlot McCrooke 14:29, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't believe three states will make the problem better than when we have five states. Why not just simplify (I start to sound like a member of the Walden Party!) the state's government? 14:32, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * We will also abolish some courts and Polices and even some departmeents Pierlot McCrooke 14:33, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. 17:28, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Simplification is good, but this a bit too much. First off, Train Village and Noble City are too far apart. Second, if this will happen, then soon enough the entire system will become an unicameral and absolute form of monarchy, rather than the constitutional monarchy we have now. There is no real need for this. Once again, I agree with simplification, but this is useless simplification. Armachedes [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:00, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Department Enforcement Proposition
The system of government set up here in Lovia is a system that places a lot of emphasis on the Departments and their Secretaries. The issue is that the Constitution has little accenting on the jobs of the Departments, and to what extent their jobs must be done. It is obvious that good-running departments are needed to make this nation work to its fullest. It is my opinion that there must be an enforcement of the Departments of Lovia, and what they must do to reach their objectives.

The Department of Transportation is an important department to Lovia. A total of 23,375 citizens count on this department in order to go anywhere. Unfortunately, it is not a very functioning department. One could look at the article about it, and the objectives are not met. The Department has 3 objectives, none of which are met. Although rail transport is met, to expectations, many more people use cars or public transportation due to the fact that it is less expensive and quicker. Also, the 23,375 citizens of Lovia rely on only 1 Highway. Just one. If a Department like this can run is such a manner, then the high standards Lovia lives up to are not being met here. In order to assure that a Department does its job, something must be done.

There are my propositions:


 * 1) A form of Departmental evaluation be founded, and its organization be defined
 * 2) Named evaluation set standards for Departments to meet
 * 3) Named evaluation be given power to enforce that the Departments work to meet standards defined
 * 4) Named evaluation be given power to choose those who replace Secretaries, if Secretary is forced out of position
 * 5) The King and Prime Minister be automatically allowed into named evaluation, and all other members be chosen by them
 * 6) If King and Prime Minister disagree on the being of a new member of named evaluation, Congress is to vote

I am proposing this as a simple proposition, and I am simply doing my duty as a citizen to try to make Lovia a better place. Armachedes 00:22, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Abolishing the temporary forbidding of changes to the Constitution
I think we should abolish the temporary forbidding of changes to the Constitution. Why? Because of something that could wreck the elections:Two candidates that might have the most votes. And then it is impossible to chose a prime minister. I dont want that people have to delete their votes because of this. And i want top propose something about asecond round Pierlot McCrooke 16:02, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * --O u WTB 16:03, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

As I told you, we can't do that :). You voted not to alter the Constitution until AFTER the elections. 16:04, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. but this abolishes that. and as such it isnt a constitutional amendment Pierlot McCrooke 16:05, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, we of the Liberal Democrats (ehem), certainly do want to have a direct election of the Prime Minister, however we definitely don't support any unconstitutional changes ;). --Bucurestean 16:09, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Tsss :P --O u WTB 16:10, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

What if we decided to hold a new vote whether we want to alter the constitution BEFORE the elections? :P --O u WTB 16:08, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Pierlot actually temporary MOTC? 'Cause if not... --Bucurestean 16:10, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Guys, write as much Constitutional items as you wish: we'll vote them DEMOCRATICALLY. And that means: by means of a democratically ELECTED Congress. 16:10, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Plato etc that democracy is not the best way to do it. Why don't we - you're the king è :P - just decide that a small, preselected, group of people can decide everything, just like in Mäöres? :P --O u WTB 16:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Dimitr you are a bit 'doorgeslagen' Pierlot McCrooke 16:13, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. 16:16, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * aec) I would not have said that if I were you... :P --Bucurestean 16:16, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

I i were the king i would have allowed constitutionnal changes in a temporary congress Pierlot McCrooke 16:18, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * This way law is very useful hm? If you don't like something, just write a law against that law. Jeezes people, can't this wait until after elections? I mean, the person with most votes becomes PM, what is so undemocratic about that that we ourselves would vote such an unlawful proposal right away? It is a good idea but first things should come first. 16:22, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * What if TWO people have the most votes. That would become a problem Pierlot McCrooke 16:23, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * We want to fix the 2008 elections prime minister problem Pierlot McCrooke 16:26, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple: if at the very last minute of the elections, I see we have a status quo, I'll change my own vote, and voila. If you want to change this by law (which I would support), we'll do this in February :) 16:29, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * and that is something with isnt realistisc and is undemocratical. and we wont wait so i proposed the lift of the forbidding of constitutional changes Pierlot McCrooke 16:31, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Separating
Iam wanting something that admins need to be elcted as admin. I amnot very good in writing law texts Pierlot McCrooke 14:21, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pierlot, for once. We need the administration to be seperated from government. The following law is proposed by me.
 * I am sorry if i said that you are a sockpuppet. You are not Pierlot McCrooke 14:24, January 6, 2010 (UTC)