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.

042. Bringing back the local police.
I think we should bring back the local police. This would give people who don't want to do politics or do politics as well another opportunity to contribute to Lovia. Only states, cities and Train Village will have their own police service. What do you think.  Happy65   Talk CNP   16:34, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Not really necessary, as we are a small nation and the police aren't very active once their page has been written. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Police Reform that happened a while ago basically brought them back in the form of Local Bureaus. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 22:46, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Haappy you're new but in the past (2010) we had three levels, Federal, State and Local. We eliminated local (though i think we should bring it back as a puppet just because no nation has no local government) government because wereas state governors and federal congressmen were elected and have power written out local mayors (opposing parties and those on the same side) would act like dictators and stop real reform. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently the only city that has any local government is Hurbanova, but the government is unofficial, so it doesn't really count. On top of this, the "local government" is just a ceremonial mayor I.E. Oos Wes Llava, and he doesn't do much as mayor. I'm with Marcus though, because as he said, "What country doesn't have local government?" I think the local government should just be a mayor, police force, and firefighters though (a council would be a little excessive as we don't have enough members.) --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:49, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against them having any power though xD completely cerimonial because what happened is that edit wars happened and nothing could get done. I'm Pro state and federal powers Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:34, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I wasn't here when they were abolished, so now that I know that, it would make more sense for them to be simply ceremonial. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:47, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Marcus, we did have a local government, but no local police. I agree that we should bring them back as fake positions, though. Also, Newhaven has an unofficial government of Yuri Medvedev as mayor in addition to Hurb's government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:24, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

We had a local police for most places, Train Village Police, Noble City Police, but I have to agree we should have a local government that has hardly any power so bigger and local parties expand instead of having to close them all down.  Happy65   Talk CNP   07:42, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

043. Settlement Act Revision
Hi, now that we have a "realistic" population and census style, I think we should make some revisions to the Settlement Act:


 * Lovian settlements are classified into one of these five groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
 * Congress must recognize a settlements by a simple majority before the settlement can become an official hamlet, village, neighborhood, town, or city of Lovia.
 * A hamlet is a very small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A hamlet must:
 * Have a population of at least ten and at most five hundred.
 * If a hamlet's population drops below ten, it is no longer classified as a settlement.
 * If a hamlet's population rises above five hundred, it is classified as a village.
 * A hamlet may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A hamlet may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a hamlet borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A village is a small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A village must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred and at most five thousand.
 * If a village's population drops below five hundred, it is classified as a hamlet.
 * If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a town.
 * A village may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A village may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a village borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A town is a mid-sized settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A town must:
 * Have a population of at least five thousand and at most twenty thousand.
 * If a town's population drops below five thousand, it is classified as a village.
 * If a town's population rises above twenty thousand, it is classified as a city.
 * A town may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A town may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a town borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A city is a large settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A city must:
 * Have a population of at least twenty thousand.
 * If a town's population drops below twenty thousand, it is classified as a town.
 * A city may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A city may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a city borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city.
 * A neighborhood must be a distinct urban area of another, larger settlement.
 * In the case that a larger urban area grows and borders a smaller urban area, the smaller settlement may become one or multiple neighborhoods of the larger settlement if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * All settlements in Lovia are managed and built by the state that they are part of.
 * Per the Constitution, Congress may override a decision of the state government by a simple majority.

This would result in many of the current hamlets to become villages or even towns. However, the missing ranks of hamlets and villages would be replaced by those without a page, such as those at User:Kunarian/List of settlements in Sylvania. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:56, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Your Statement: Why is the village taking the big jump to a city instead of the small jump to a town?  Happy65   Talk CNP   07:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a city.
 * It was a copy error. I fixed it. In general pro. Question: what does "A hamlet may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority." mean? The way I read it, it sounds like hamlets can have neighborhoods if there is an urban area, but that would be impossible, as hamlets per definition are rural... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:17, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see that earlier. It might seem unrealistic, but in the case that a smaller urban area borders a hamlet that is more populous the area would become a neighborhood, just because it's only logical. Hamlets are also no longer defined as rural anymore, also (they're just supposed to be). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:02, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this very vague... What is this smaller urban area then? Are you saying that if a neighborhood of f.e. Hurb is next to a hamlet which has more inhabitants than that neighborhood, the neighborhood is moved to the hamlet? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:08, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by this, but: say two hamlets grow into each other. If they border, the less populous would become a neighborhood of the more populous. If Hurbanova grew to border a small hamlet, the hamlet would become a neighborhood of Hurbanova. But not until they border. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:10, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still find it vague, actually I'd say it's the other-way round, but as it says "may", I'm no longer going to complain :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:16, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I changed the shoulds to mays. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:06, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * i'm more pro than contra for this because with the Realistic Census reform this would be sorta the domino effect afterwards. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:13, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

044. Illegalization of drugs

 * 1) This act makes provision for the regulation of all substances described as 'controlled substances' by Section 1308 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was created by the US Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
 * 2) Responsible prescription of of all listed substances by a medical practitioner licensed to do so by the Blackburn University School of Medicine is legalized.
 * 3) Possession of listed substances by unlicensed individuals is a criminal offence and may result in prosecution and punishment in accordance with Article 9.7.13.2. of the Constitution, after the Supreme Court Judges have taken advice from two medical practitioners licensed as described in Section 1.1. of this Act.
 * 4) If it can reasonably be established in court that the individual was in possession of listed substances with intent to distribute, the Judges shall take this into account when sentencing.
 * 5) Import, export, distribution, possession, and production of all listed substances shall be exclusive to agencies of the Federal Government or organizations licensed by the Government.
 * 6) In the latter case, Government officials shall supervise at all times import, export, distribution, possession and production by the organization. Failure by the organization to make every accomodation for said government officials shall result in a fine and withdrawal of its license.
 * 7) Any import, export, distribution, possession and production of all listed substances, under conditions other than those described by this Act, is a criminal offence.
 * 8) Any action taken that results in contralegislation under this Act by any party, where a party is defined as the whole or part of an organization, the whole or part of the Government, or a private individual, whether or not the action is undertaken by the contralegislative party, is illegal.
 * 9) Any action taken which is described as illegal under the terms of this Act may result in prosecution and punishment in accordance with Article 9.7.13.2. of the Constitution, after the Supreme Court Judges have taken advice from two medical practitioners licensed as described in Section 1.1. of this Act.
 * 10) Congress, after taking advice from the Blackburn University School of Medicine, retains the right to exempt any listed substance from some or all of the restrictions described in this Act, or to apply the same restrictions, at its discretion, to a non-listed substance.

I apologize for the reference to a US law, but I'm not going to list every possible illegal drug. --Semyon 16:39, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

is this the final version? I find, saying "We based our law off other laws predescribed in other laws not listed here" would get a contra vote from me no matter what situation. List them out. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:02, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you list them out, if you've got so much spare time on your hands. :P --Semyon 19:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

. You know why. ;) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:15, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't have a clue: the same reason as Marcus, or because you're pro legalization? --Semyon 19:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * To continue GAPP's purposeless, and also because I believe that many of these substances don't have a negative effect on society (and all the rest will just be made illegally). I also don't support referencing of US laws. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:17, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Marcus: simply state that there is an official separate Lovian list, create an article about it with the same contents as the US law, except maybe cannabis and we're done. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:29, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

No xD it's just that he wants to illegalize drugs but doesn't give a list. I just wanna know which ones ^_^ Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. That's the problem. I guess it's in the "US Controlled Substances Act of 1970" somewhere. . . —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:49, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Marcus: If we said in this law that there is a "Lovian list of illegal drugs" and create an article with that name. In this article, we state that the list is identical to the US list, but we add a separate paragraph indicating that all the drugs like marijuana are excluded from the Lovian list. I'd say: problem fixed. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:10, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. I want it in writing, in the law. Not on a page later to be changed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:34, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Have mercy on the person who has to write the list. I may have mentioned that I study chemistry. Well, there are literally (and I'm using the dictionary definition of 'literally') thousands of chemicals that you can put into your body that will damage you in horrific ways, and possibly give you a high at the same time. What is your problem with referencing the US list? It makes everything so much easier. --Semyon 15:50, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think that... 1)The drugs should be listed as illegal or controlled e.g. Illegal (some slang here): Cannabis, Heroine, Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Bath Salts, and Ecstacy. Controlled: Alcohol, Tobacco, Nicotine. 2)Cannabis should be illegal 3)Tobacco, nicotine, and alcohol should be listed in the controlled drugs (If possible, make nicotine and tobacco illegal) 4)We should add over-dosage laws to prevent over-dosing --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:33, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

User:Ooswesthoesbes/For those unwilling to coorporate --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:19, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see why we need the government to outlaw drugs. Smart people will not do them, and since healthcare is out of pocket here, dumb people will have to pay for their rehabilitation. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:28, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's rather egoïstic. People can get addicted for a variety of reasons, not all because of their stupidness. You are saying: pay for the consequences or die... As a government, it is our task to protect society - that's the entire society. We should prevent the free distribution of harddrugs (they can be used to overdose people = making murder easier), think about traffic accidents and violence if harddrugs are freely accessible etc... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:38, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is. But people use them anything. All that will happen is the trade will go underground. Outlawing doesn't help, see Prohibition in the US. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:51, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with arguments 'ad prohibition.' Alcohol is now, and was in the 1920s, well-integrated into society, so it's not surprising that a ban simply drove the trade underground. With drugs such as cannibis and heroin, that's not the case, because they don't play a major role in society. By banning them, government still has the power to stop them becoming as integrated as alcohol and nicotine, and in my opinion, should, regardless of the fact that cannabis isn't as harmful or addictive as either. You could still play the libertarian 'what right does the government have to interfere with my life' card, but I'm not a libertarian and I think the government has a duty to protect its citizens, even if it involves taking some freedoms away. Who wants the freedom to damage their bodies with strange chemicals anyway? --Semyon 15:50, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * What right does the government have to interfere with my life? Sorry, couldn't resist. In my opinion, banning cannabis but not alcohol and tobacco is hypocrisy. If the government has a duty to protect its citizens, why should it only "protect" them against some substances and not others? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:54, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my argument is that a governmental ban would be successful in protecting citizens in the case of cannabis, but a ban on alcohol and tobacco would not protect citizens but actually worsen the situation. --Semyon 18:18, November 20, 2012 (UTC)