Forum:Second Chamber

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

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

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

001. Government
I propose the following Government, Government Oos Wes Ilava II:
 * Prime Minister
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries
 * Charles Alexander Bennett
 * Ministry of Commerce
 * Dave Leskromento
 * Ministry of Culture
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Defense
 * Lukas Hoffmann
 * Ministry of Education and Research
 * William Krosby
 * Ministry of Energy and Resources
 * Charles Alexander Bennett
 * Ministry of Environment
 * Nicholas Sheraldin
 * Ministry of Family, Youth, and Elderly
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Finance
 * William Krosby
 * Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 * Justin Abrahams
 * Ministry of Health
 * Taiyō no Eisei
 * Ministry of Justice
 * Dave Leskromento
 * Ministry of Labour
 * Marcus Villanova
 * Ministry of Tourism and Sport
 * Nicholas Sheraldin
 * Ministry of Transportation
 * Jhon Lewis
 * Speaker of the Congress
 * Semyon Breyev

Pro

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

Contra

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

Abstain

 * 1 vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:54, February 7, 2013 (UTC) (RTP)
 * 5 votes. Horton is right. --Semyon 19:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 votes .Granero (talk) 01:06, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

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

Comments
Users like Granero and Daembrales have all shown interest in having a ministry position, so we should include them. HORTON11 : •  13:27, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * To a degree I do agree however I think that the lack of year round activity and lack of a well developed position known to the citizens of the wikia makes it hard for us to confidently include them. I think a good idea would be to have a reshuffle of the government in maybe 3, 4 or 6 months and review the positions that they have shown interest in and see if they: a) are active enough to assume positions and b) have shown attempts to develop that area of interest in lovia. Personally I think a review in three months would be good and would hardly be unfair. We address concerns and ensure that if they are properly addressed they get the positions they deserve. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 14:33, February 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * When starts it? Wabba The I (talk) 17:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Then again it might be better to include more users than having a select few with two or more (Oos being the exception). And going on the year round activity, Granero and Pikapi have been as active as Sunkist, yet they have none and he has two. I would like to see further inclusion now, and in a few monts when we do the review we can reshuffle the ministries of less active users. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 18:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * The few who have two are normally the ones who were unchallenged in the positions they chose or whose positions were only challenged by other people with multiple positions. It is impossible to include users in positions that they want when that position they want is occupied by a person with that position only. This is the problem you do not seem to see. On the matter of Sunkist, Sunkist has been a lot more active than Granero and Pikapi (who didn't even show interest in a position) recently (over the past three months) and you fail to also consider he was almost completely unchallenged for those positions. This is inclusion as far as we can get it with the people who want these positions. Too many people want the same positions, we can't please everyone so we've chosen the people we think are best. I'd hope you'd agree rather than bring up points that have been repeatedly addressed. I'm glad you're on board for the review though, I think that if we have tri-monthly reviews we can keep government active and reward users with commitment and interest, it's good to have you on board for that. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 19:20, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * We could just give Daembrales and Granero one of the relatively unchallenged positions. Though I would still like to review the Health position  (nah, his Bismarck ideas are a step in the right direction, so it's fine)  HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 19:30, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't want to give them a position they don't want and ask them to be responsible for it, that's unfair on both them and the people who take and interest too. Glad you've come around, the Bismarck model is a model for universal healthcare, he's on our side with this, truly. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:48, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Should a page Ilava II Government be created, and the ministers be listed there? 77topaz (talk) 03:41, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Eventually :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:10, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not yet? :P 77topaz (talk) 07:18, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Quarantine Zone- Are boob jobs and sex changes medical necessities? No, so we should not include those in any law. You are right in that I'd like to fund our healthcare through taxes, but we need limits. Cosmetic changes for vanity purposes should not be covered. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:05, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

SCJ
This is where the supreme court judges shall be elected.

Kevin Madison (Happy65)

 * 9 votes  Happy65   Talk CNP  LogoCNP.png 11:05, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 11:46, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes Wabba isn't going to win, and I'm voting for you over Ismagiloff --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:06, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Ygo August Donia (TMV)

 * 7 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:14, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Ismagiloff (Semyon)

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

Victor Veldhoven (GP)

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

Owen Stanton (Wabba The I)

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

Samantha Brown (TimeMaster)
'''AS IT IS NOW THE 1ST OF MARCH, THE SCJ VOTING IS CLOSED. THE NEW SUPREME JUDGES ARE KEVIN MADISON (20 VOTES), ARTHUR ISMAGILOFF (17 VOTES) AND SAMANTHA BROWN (17 VOTES)'''
 * 2 votes Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 11:46, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 03:25, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 11:19, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 votes. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:59, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

'''Ministry of Justice. '''

004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite
As a concerned Lovian, I propose to change our Marriage Act in subtle ways to make it more open-minded. Lovians - progressives and conservatives alike - are open-minded people, who care deeply about liberty, but also equality, justice, and harmonious living. I found that the Marriage Act was well-written, but did not account for a few things, and had a few very old-fashioned and liberty-restricting elements.

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

The original text can be found in the Federal Law.

Proposed version Marriage Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro

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

Contra

 * 1 vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (RTP)
 * 2 votes Wabba The I (talk) 17:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:41, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Abstention

 * (4 votes) HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:56, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 votes. Bart K (talk) 08:31, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
✅ With a 51% majority. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:47, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lovians! Punarbhava (talk) 09:50, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

007. Voting Rights
This since we're adding to the Constitution must have at least 75% 66% a tall, tall order. But I think we have enough general approval for this no? Within it we secure the right to vote for those 18 or Older, and with approval of governors (extending state's rights and devolution) to 16 in statewide elections. We also protect minorities in their right to vote and the right to exercise that right without interference.
 * 1) Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.
 * 2) The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote.
 * 3) Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
 * 4) A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.
 * 5) No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.
 * 6) Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
 * 7) The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
 * 8) The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order.
 * 9) Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
 * 10) Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
 * 11) The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Pro

 * 6 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:14, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes on the condition that it is in Article 2. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:46, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:05, March 16, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB): I'd prefer Article 5, but I'm not too bothered about it either.
 * 5 votes. Seems ok. :) --Semyon 18:08, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 18:22, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 18:55, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anything changed? Wabba The I (talk) 18:55, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes 77topaz (talk) 19:49, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes, and I really don't care what Article it's added to. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:57, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9 votes.  Happy65   Talk CNP  LogoCNP.png 19:32, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7 votes - hey hey hey! I think this is passed :D Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:40, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1 vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:05, March 16, 2013 (UTC) RTP: Women should be excluded from voting rights.
 * 5 votes. "The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order." And states should be able to set voting age at any rage, it be under 18 or over 18. -Sunkist- (talk) 21:25, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 8 votes My condition was not followed, so I will support the later proposed repeal. The proposal was never passed since I only voted Pro on my condition. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:13, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
(Correction: only 66% for an amendment, not 75%) --Semyon 18:08, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this go in section 5 though due to its realtion to election matters? The article doesn't matter much to me though Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:22, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

66% thanks semyon for the corrections, also glad to see the voice of far-right conservatism always in play :P (so far 32 votes in favor!) Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:16, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Your voting contra over personal reasons, sunkist. Dissapointing. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:32, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

What, I just said why I'm voting against it, I'm against the Supreme Court taking peoples voting rights away and the states inability to set the age limit where they want too. How can you just accuse me like this, what the hell? -Sunkist- (talk) 21:42, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know the supreme court ccan but remember, you'd have to file the case. But it before the court, get it agreed to, then afterwards if there is public dissaproval its accpeted. If there is then obviously Lovia, Democracy, and the Judiciary branch must be corrupt. I think that's aimed at very horrible ciminals or domestic terrorists (civil war) so that if they do go to jail, (in our case) prisoners having the right to vote, you don't. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:46, March 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Then sepecify it and also allow states to raise or lower the age limit as they please, don't make them have a cap limit. -Sunkist- (talk) 22:08, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * It would make little sense for people to be able to vote in the federal elections but not their state's elections. :P 77topaz (talk) 22:13, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * I thank topaz for that totally valid point. On the issue of the courts, you can chage it after this passes to a more progressive liking if you want, i'll support it. The general support is for the universal (almost) age of 18. So we kept that federally. But there is some who want 17 and 16, so im devolving that power to the states just for statewide elections. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:18, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Slight problem
For this law to go in effect, we would have to bring back the State Laws. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:47, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we change it to governor, then? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:53, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, such a thing should be in a law. So, it requires state law :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:01, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Oos - You've seen through my master plan of proposing a law which would eventually rile up state's rights advocates like you into starting a fight for devolution. LOL no but i'm 1000% behind state law, let's get on it!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:58, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Libertas becoming a full member of the IWO
Libertas will officialy become a member of the International Wikination Organisation. Wabba The I (talk) 18:08, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Pro

 * 4 votes - Wabba The I (talk) 18:10, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:11, March 21, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB - RTP)
 * 6 votes (first wikination) Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:48, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:24, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:12, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:13, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5 votes -Sunkist- (talk) 16:37, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5 votes --Semyon 20:28, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 4 votes 77topaz (talk) 02:50, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:18, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
✅ By a 51% majority at minimum (QZ did not specify # of votes). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:12, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel I can vote on this until I have a link to the wikination in question. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 20:47, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, you've never heard of Libertas? HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 20:48, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * (edc) Here you go. I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it already tbh. --Semyon 20:51, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * It would seem my vote was not needed anyways. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 06:27, April 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone! Wabba The I (talk) 11:13, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

009. Repeal of Twelfth Amendment
I request that the Twelfth Amendment be repealed, and be replaced with the text below. Wikipedia defines a constitution as 'a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.' While parts of the Amendment fit this definition, such as minimum age requirements, or anti-discrimination clauses, because they are 'fundamental principles' which Lovia is governed by, others don't. For example, it's not within the remit of a constitution to decide that electioneering as acceptable 30.1 meters away from a ballot station, but not 29.9 meters away. I think this was why there was so much uncertainty about which article to put the law into - it's because actually it shouldn't be in any of them.

An extra part of Article 2 of the constitution (in bold):


 * 1) Every human being and citizen has the right:
 * 2) Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion.
 * 3) Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language, sex, property, birth or other statuses.
 * 4) Of privacy.
 * 5) To have personal or common property.
 * 6) To be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly.
 * 7) To have a residence.
 * 8) To work and to receive education.
 * 9) To relax and recreate.
 * 10) To live in peace with his or her fellow-men.
 * 11) To live in welfare.
 * 12) To become a Lovian citizen.
 * 13) Every Lovian citizen has the right:
 * 14) To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three.
 * 15) Every Lovian citizen above the minimum age requirement has the right:
 * 16) To vote in federal and state elections.
 * 17) The minimum age requirement is set at:
 * 18) Eighteen years, for the federal elections.
 * 19) Either sixteen, seventeen or eighteen years, for the state elections, at the discretion of the government of the respective state.
 * 20) No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.

An new federal law, to be entitled the Elections Regulation Act:


 * 1) Any citizen wishing to exercise their constitutional right to vote must file registration for voting with the State Government.
 * 2) Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
 * 3) Proven violation of Article 2.3.1.2. of the Constitution is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
 * 4) The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
 * 5) The voting rights of citizens can be removed by way of a Supreme Court order if they are deemed unfit to exercise those rights.
 * 6) Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
 * 7) Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
 * 8) The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Pro

 * 5 votes. --Semyon 17:03, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes -- Repeal is not necessary, however, since I voted pro on a condition, and my condition was not followed, and thus the necessary support was not reached. This should be treated as the revised Twelfth Amendment, the original of which never passed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:15, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * The same argument did occur to me, but I wondered if it was somewhat specious. :P --Semyon 20:42, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6 votes (good compromise) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:08, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you think so. :) --Semyon 21:11, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes. The other clauses should be added to the Federal Law separately. 77topaz (talk) 02:37, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes - Sounds good on paper. So I'm incline to believe it will work well in act. Flag of the Hurian Federation.png Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:53, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:51, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 12:40, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 13:45, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7 votes again well for such a reform - Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:38, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Contra

 * 5 votes, I still believe that states should be able to place age limits on their elections at any age they want, or keep it at 18. ---Sunkist- (talk) 08:36, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

010. One millionth State Reform
Okay, I think it's good enough. We need a special majority: State Law and State Council. As there does not seem to be enough support for State Courts, I propose to keep it in the freezer and maybe vote seperately on that later on.

Pro

 * 14 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:19, April 6, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB - RTP)
 * 6 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:30, April 6, 2013 (UTC) (about damn time)
 * (5 votes :P) --Semyon 13:27, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 votes. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:17, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 18:37, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5 votes. Why not? -Sunkist- (talk) 08:34, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7 votes Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 11:20, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 8 votes - Elections for the state council are too complex. I think it's too much. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8 votes. Same as Time here. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:01, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Couldn't this be a 12th state reform :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:55, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the twelfth amendment if accepted, but not the twelfth state reform :P I think it's the fourth :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:57, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * True my mistake :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:06, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the third real state reform if we don't count the one when Dimitri wanted to stress Lovia as a federal state :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:09, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * How many votes pro semyon! XD lol Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:32, April 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand 3.4.2 good but what is it now? Oceana has what age and Kings has what age and ... ? Wabba The I (talk) 18:37, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? About, voting age? It varies about state elections is all not that major. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:32, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * @Wabba: the voting age will be set in the State Law. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 03:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Let me stress the direct need of State Laws, or the law above this one will be illegal (no state laws, no setting of voting age per state). So I urge all the people blocking this to bring forth better ideas or change their vote to. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:20, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * And anyway, actually, apart from states with more than three candidates running, nothing changes. There is nothing that's more complex... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:32, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is prohibited to set a state voting age. State Laws might be illegal, but this is just a decree. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:25, April 20, 2013 (UTC)