Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Paradoxically, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

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. --O u WTBsjrief-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? 13:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the idea, but I don't think this is a law adaption.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Naah, you proposed it, we support it, you better get writing then  13:52, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's quite the problem: what should I write? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:53, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * whatever you want to be regulated  13:58, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wach ef.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:00, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Tower block act

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

Something like this? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:03, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like the 'desbetreffende'. An addition for Lovia English maybe? 14:05, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * hmm yeah, but not really quite there  14:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahah, can't find a translation for it :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas to improve this? Otherwise I'll put this into vote. --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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? 07:23, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for me Martha Van Ghent 07:24, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need this. --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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. 19:09, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with it, so I don't know what to fix :) --O u WTBsjrief-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: JON  THE DUDE   JOHNSON  14:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Federal Planning Bureau is an official authoritative section situated on the federal level of Lovian government.
 * 2) Its powers are limited to:
 * 3) The proposal of economical and financial laws;
 * 4) The provision of advice on proposed bills conerning on economical and financial matters;
 * 5) The suspension of proposals on economical and financial level in order to re-calculate the consequences for Lovia and its inhabitants.
 * 6) The maximum suspension period is two weeks' time.
 * 7) 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]
 * Made some adjustments. It's pretty okay
 * One more question: what is it? An agency, a council...? 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"? 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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   <font color=Navy>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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>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? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:30, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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 :) 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 --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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. --O u WTBsjrief-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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:04, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, (to get back on the original subject) Mäöres is not really commonly recognized :P --O u WTBsjrief-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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 18:26, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * With the Kosovo recognition it was a simple vote. --O u WTBsjrief-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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. 07:23, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: France established diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1964. 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.. --O u WTBsjrief-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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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 [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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". --O u WTBsjrief-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" :) --O u WTBsjrief-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. 10:57, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a huge reform necessary and I think this is a very good beginning :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:57, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Idem! Good work. 11:02, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very fine. Walden supports! 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. 13:33, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very much pro! Though this is more like "regulate, simplify".  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  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. --O u WTBsjrief-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? 13:43, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh.. :P I still don't see the need for this.. --O u WTBsjrief-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"? 13:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's about that I'd call it useless bureaucracy :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It stuns me you don't care about informing the people. 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * btw, even your homeland has it. 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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. 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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; 14:02, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay :P --O u WTBsjrief-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. 16:53, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall I put this to vote? --O u WTBsjrief-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. 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 --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are? I'm on Coca Cola, coffee and Dr. Pepper ^^. And water.  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 --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:37, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

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

Voting
Please vote!! 12:12, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Federal Law
Firearms Act
 * 1) Ownership and use of firearms by any person within the Kingdom of Lovia is prohibited;
 * 2) With the exception of Federal Police officers, and with any other exception enshrined in the national laws of the nation.
 * 3) With the exception of hunters, who must obtain a license in order to hunt living animals for food, recreation, or trade, using a firearm.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) Licenses can only be granted to hunters
 * 6) 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;
 * 7) who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted;
 * 8) who have their legal residence in Lovia;
 * 9) who have the intent to use it only for hunting, be it recreational or professional;
 * 10) who have not been convicted or arrested within the last two years before the license is to be granted;
 * 11) whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed.
 * 12) Licenses must be obtained for each firearm and may only be registered to one person.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) The Federal Police is authorized to confiscate all firearms without proper license found within the Kingdom of Lovia.
 * 17) 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.
 * 18) 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.
 * 19) The organization of a private militia is prohibited within the Kingdom of Lovia.
 * 20) 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.
 * 21) It is unlawful for militias established outside of Lovia, or led by foreigners, to operate or organize activities in Lovia.
 * 22) Private security services are not allowed to let their officers bear firearms.
 * 23) 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 :) 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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. 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. 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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. 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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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). 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. 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  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." --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the period could be lowered to one year. I agree. 19:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think six months is way better, but I can live with one year too :) --O u WTBsjrief-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)
 * 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) --O u WTBsjrief-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. 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 --O u WTBsjrief-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... 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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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. 09:32, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little strange to let the state decide the demographics.. --O u WTBsjrief-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? :) 09:39, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I understoor, but I don't know.. :P --O u WTBsjrief-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. 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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  10:03, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the census ain't politics è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:07, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * In a fictional nation like ours, everything is :) 10:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dacht jij :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:12, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yap  10:17, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

051. Public Transport Bill
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)
 * 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.
 * I could agree on buses, but we already have a national train operator. 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. 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? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, buses are fine. --O u WTBsjrief-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
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
 * 4) This highway will have 3 exits: 1. Overbanken. 2. Regional roads to the north east. 3. Hurbanova-East.
 * 5) 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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 --`O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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 --O u WTBsjrief-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. 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. -- 12:35, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, Jefferson. It became about time our judiciary gained more independence. 14:01, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems only fair. I support the bill. 14:07, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Idem. Cristian Latin 14:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pro. --O u WTBsjrief-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 :) 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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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. --O u WTBsjrief-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  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 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)
 * 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)