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 2011 Provisional 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.

004. Sports and National Team Act

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

Pro

 * 1)  Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 21:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Martha Van Ghent 07:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  I largely agree with Jon but am willing to vote pro. After all we need to start somewhere.  07:14, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we choose BOWLING  Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  09:33, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Youri...
 * 2)   12:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  The protection policies for minors are very valuable. -- 14:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)   17:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   10:45, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  I don't support state-appointed national sport teams. Percival E. Galahad 10:40, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  sport clubs should be able to assure their own future. Harold Freeman 07:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Did you read the bill? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:50, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean c'mon did you even read the bill? Your reason for voting contra is very foolish, becuase it does exactly that. It sponsers sport and helps it grow in Lovia! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:52, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * what the liberals probably mean is that they want sports teams to survive wihout or help. 18:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure that's what Harold wanted to say. My objection is that I do not think the state should have a hand in national sports. We do not need to mingle in "which team should be our national team" and that kind of things. Percival E. Galahad 08:29, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  See liberals. Bucu 09:11, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

 * , sorry man, but i think all sports are equal, you can't just choose one to protect, no offence, i think we need more laws of this kind, so i don't vote contra Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  21:26, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) So don't vote pro, Boules is a significant game! It need to be embelished, As active chairmen of TL I protected all sports and reborned sport in Lovia! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:22, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposed recognition
I hereby propose the following:
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as cities, under the Lovian law:
 * Newhaven and Noble City
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as towns, under the Lovian law:
 * Kinley, Hurbanova, Portland, Sofasi and Train Village
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as hamlets, under the Lovian law:
 * Adoha, Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills and Novosevensk
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as neighborhoods, under the Lovian law:
 * Abby Springs, Artista, Bayfield, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Drake Town, Downtown NC, Downtown HU, Downtown KY, Downtown SO, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Malipa, Mandarin Village, Millstreet, Newhaven (neighborhood), New Town, Old Harbor, Old Port, Pines, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity

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

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

PRO

 * 1)  Martha Van Ghent 08:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  09:04, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)   12:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- 14:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Now let's get those other bills into congress and have some state elections! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:23, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)   06:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Percival E. Galahad 10:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Bucu 16:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  Harold Freeman 07:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have our majority. I consider this bill approved. Please keep voting though =)) Martha Van Ghent 09:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)   17:47, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Bucu 16:53, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION
✅ like Martha already pointed out. 08:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

006. State Elections
According to the latest reform:
 * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
 * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.

Because the majority of the Lovians prefers October as election month, and a minority wants September, we could do it like this:
 * 20th September - 3rd October: Candidacies
 * 4th October - 17th October: Elections
 * 18th October: Inauguration of the Governors and Deputy Governors

I'll ask Congress to vote on this proposal. But we also need to solve two more things before the candidacy period:
 * 1) we need to settle the number of residences each citizen has. We need to count them and make sure nobody has more than legally allowed.
 * 2) we need to register these residences in the "citizen book" so we know who can be a candidate in which state and who can vote in which state. This is very important.

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

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

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

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

PRO

 * 1)  Martha Van Ghent 14:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   17:13, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  -- 21:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC): Mr. Latin is actually right. I hereby give my full support to a version of this bill that features a later inauguration date to fit the legal requirements.
 * 4)   JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  21:12, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 22:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)   06:38, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Harold Freeman 07:44, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:59, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Percival E. Galahad 09:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have our majority here too. I propose we change the Inauguration date to fit the legal thingies, like the king said. I suppose that's fine with y'all? Please keep voting; Martha Van Ghent 09:50, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)   17:47, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION

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

✅ by a normal majority! 08:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

007. Amendment (Art.2): fixed (3) legal residences for all
Currently: This reflects a strange sort of hierarchy, and I don't like that. So this is what I propose: There would be no difference between the King, the PM, the MOTCs or the citizens.
 * inhabitants have 1 residence
 * citizens can have 2 residences
 * MOTCs can have 3
 * the King and the PM can have 4
 * inhabitants may have 1 residence in Lovia
 * citizens may have maximum 3 residences in Lovia

In law, this would result in this Article 2 of the Const.:
 * Art. 2
 * 2. Every Lovian citizen has the right:
 * 1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three.
 * 2. To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements.

Art. 2.3 and 2.4 are deleted then.

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

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

PRO

 * 1)  Martha Van Ghent 14:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Bucu 16:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)   17:13, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  -- 21:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC): A necessary yet simple improvement.
 * 5)  Good work again martha  JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  21:14, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Very Good! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 23:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)   06:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Harold Freeman 07:44, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Equality is a necessity in society. Percival E. Galahad 09:40, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  SjorskingmaWikistad 10:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)   17:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC) you rock martha!
 * 12)   10:46, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:00, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? (if i may ask) JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  18:02, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the original text. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

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

002. Act on the Fight Against Poverty

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

Voting
This bill needs a 50% majority to pass. Please vote. 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1)   08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   12:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC) The bill leaves a lot of space for interpretation, I think. How will these CSW work, be governed? What can they do, what can't they? Dubious, perhaps. Nevertheless, we need social security and this is a good first step. I have faith in the Sec of Welfare.  12:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just like the Beglian OCMW: a center that aids and supports the poor. As you can see the program focusses on a stronger integration and on breaking the 'circle of poverty'. 14:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  fits in the new walden manifesto.  17:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:23, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Harold Freeman 14:03, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:34, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   10:47, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  I really don't see how this could be bad, and potential good is obvious. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:05, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  -- 17:44, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Martha Van Ghent 07:48, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Percival E. Galahad 08:22, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION

 * 1)  Dimi's right. I like the idea but. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it assures you: they just get a minimum wage and some social assistance. What isn't said, isn't done. 14:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * True but then again people Like loopholes. See the discussion on State Council/Cabinet. I kinda like it so I might switch my vote. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:58, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

✅ Large majority, congratulations! 10:33, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

003. Ocean and Fishing Act

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

Voting
This bill needs a 50% majority to pass. Please vote. 08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1)   08:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ! Yea wildlife shall be protected! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:14, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  As long as it is about the environment I agree. Harold Freeman 14:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  For the "spellingerrorless' bill of course  JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  15:35, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   10:48, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1)  Sorry, there are some language errors and so in the bill. This should go back to first chamber to be completely fine;  17:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been there for like a month. If the only issue is spelling/grammar we can alter the bill without changing the content, right? 06:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it has to be done. I wasn't able to check this bill. 15:24, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * As typical for ones own mistakes I couldn't find them when reading the bill over for the so-maniest time. 06:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:24, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- 15:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not support fishing quota that come without more detailed legislation. I believe the legislature should be determining fishing quota regulations, rather than giving the Secretary free play.
 * Then, too, I find Mr McCandless' comment reasonable. This article could use re-editing. -- 15:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  This bill better go back to the First, after that chamber's been cleaned up. Martha Van Ghent 07:49, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Quota... Bucu 09:10, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  ""  14:13, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

i still favor a rewrite. If I find time soon, i'll give it a shot myself! 14:27, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I take Jefferson's stand here. Percival E. Galahad 08:23, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the bill won't make it. Perhaps consider moving it back to the 1st Chamber after that room's been cleaned out. 10:34, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Needed 50%+ majority. Some suggested to rewrite the bill, so perhaps that's a good idea for the 2011 Congress. 12:17, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

005. Offical Residences (2)
Okay this was already approved but should be changed Martha made a mistake and left out Newport so i added it. This just needs a quick vote, thanks, Marcus Villanova Walden 20:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed recognition
I hereby propose the following:
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as cities, under the Lovian law:
 * Newhaven and Noble City
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as towns, under the Lovian law:
 * Kinley, Hurbanova, Portland, Sofasi and Train Village
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as hamlets, under the Lovian law:
 * Adoha, Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills and Novosevensk
 * Congress recognizes all the following localities as neighborhoods, under the Lovian law:
 * Abby Springs, Artista, Bayfield, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Drake Town, Downtown NC, Downtown HU, Downtown KY, Downtown SO, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Malipa, Mandarin Village, Millstreet, Newhaven (neighborhood), Newport, New Town, Old Harbor, Old Port, Pines, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity

Pro

 * 1)  Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   07:49, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)   08:10, September 11, 2010 (UTC) There was no need to copy the full monty though
 * 4)   JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  10:27, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:32, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)   10:49, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)   11:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Harold Freeman 13:55, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Though not really important, I guess it does clarify. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  -- 17:45, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  Martha Van Ghent 07:50, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  Percival E. Galahad 08:24, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1) Why needs Plains to be left out? I still don't get it. SjorskingmaWikistad 09:58, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but I do know that at least one of the neighborhoods could be left out. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like to compromise Sjors? Maybe we could take somthing out On Llamada IRC like making Plains a Hamlet? Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 13:37, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Abstain
✅ Yuri or Dimi please add this too the list! and the other law too! Marcus Villanova 19:50, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

014. Cleaning up the Federal Law
I would like to divide the Federal Law over several law books. More precise a Social Law Book, an Environmental Law Book, a Criminal Law Book and a Public Law Book. We really need to get some more structure in our law system. An idea of what bill will be located where can be found here. Note: there will be no changes to the content of any bill, this is just about some re-ordening. 09:36, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1)   09:36, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  I only read what the law books will be about but you wont change the content of anu bills so that doesn't matter right?  10:50, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Alyssa. Though I think the proposed law books of Yuri aren't fully covering all the law stuff we have or need, I think every proposal to make it better organised is good.
 * 4)   JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  12:02, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   12:53, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Yuri's subdivision looks fine, I must say. I however want to ask the writers of this bill (Yuri, that's you) to fix all references to the former article numbers in every article, as this bill passes. Now, pages about the police system refer to some Article 5 - it's important that these things are changed to "Criminal Law - Article whatever".
 * Sure, I'm already busy with the List of laws and will alter all links I can think of.  13:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thanks  13:15, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Really are we up to 14 proposals? Very good yuri!
 * 2)   11:39, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Harold Freeman 13:56, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Viva clearification! SjorskingmaWikistad 12:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Martha Van Ghent 07:50, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  -- 17:46, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

✅ I will soon officialize some other outcomes after I reorganized the Federal Law. Thank you all for the massive support. 09:52, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

010. Marriage Act

 * 1) Marriage is an understanding between two parties who voluntary agree to take up certain rights and duties.
 * 2) The spouses have the duty to live together in the marital residence.
 * 3) The spouses have to be loyal to each other and can not commit adultery.
 * 4) The spouses have to offer each other respect, affection and consolation.
 * 5) A marriage foresees a minimal autonomy of the spouses;
 * 6) Each spouse has the right to perform any job that does not conflict with the interests of the partner.
 * 7) Each spouse can open an account or rent a safe on a personal basis if the partner is notified of this.
 * 8) A marriage foresees a minimal bond between the spouses;
 * 9) Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with the vital.
 * 10) When one spouse makes a debt for the family or the raising of the children, his or her partner is liable for this too.
 * 11) Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met;
 * 12) Both parties are at least 18 years old or have permission of the parents and a legal advisor.
 * 13) Both parties agree on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient. (meaning not drunk, no coercion or mischief, etc.)
 * 14) None of the parties can be already part of a marriage which is still standing.
 * 15) The parties are not genetically related in one of the following degrees:
 * 16) First degree: between parents and children or between brothers and/or sisters.
 * 17) Second degree: aunts and uncles with nephews or nieces. (nephews and nieces is allowed)
 * 18) The solemnization of a marriage is done in public, before a Lovian governor in the attendance of two witnesses.
 * 19) The marriage must be announced to that governor at least five days and maximum two months on beforehand.
 * 20) At the public solemnization a marriage contract is signed in which both parties agree to its conditions.
 * 21) A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases;
 * 22) The marriage was not legally solemnized due to the lack of foreseen conditions as defined in article 1.2.1-4 and 1.3.
 * 23) One of the partners obtains a cancelation through a lawsuit based on the neglecting of his or her duties by the partner.
 * 24) In this case the neglecting partner can be sanctioned to pay financial life support to his or her partner.
 * 25) In this case the judge also needs to decide on an arrangement considering the raising of children if any.
 * 26) Both partners agree upon the termination and inform the governor of this.
 * 27) One of the spouses deceases or is considered missing for more than one year.

A normal majority (+50%) is needed. Please note that the approval of this proposal would accompany the creation of a Civil Law Book. 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1)   08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 15:14, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  for Gay marraige..in a sense! Marcus Villanova 22:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  -- 15:33, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   22:06, November 10, 2010 (UTC) ||| though Percy and MArtha do have a point - the bill is very good in itself!
 * 6)    08:29, November 11, 2010 (UTC) (Time to pass some bills!)
 * 7)  Guess so. Bucu 16:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)   10:43, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Christina Evans 20:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC) (still voting from conservative viewpoint: women should not be able to break a marriage)

Abstain


"The spouses have to be loyal to each other and can not commit adultery." and "The spouses have to offer each other respect, affection and consolation." ??? Isn't this too much moralizing and too little law? Martha Van Ghent 07:51, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nhmm. I'd say a marriage law may be moralizing - marriage is about trust, in a way, isn't it? I, on the other hand, believe there's one fault in it: what about couples who want an "open marriage"? Who "agree" on adultery or open extra-marital relations? Percival E. Galahad 08:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * (By the way: I am sorry for only coming with these comments now. I've been terribly busy, you see. Percival E. Galahad 08:26, November 9, 2010 (UTC))
 * you hit a weak spot in this law here, I Think, Percy! the bill is good though. And i'm sure there're not too many "free marriage" cases... 22:05, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

✅ 13:36, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

011. Legal Cohabiting Act

 * 1) When two or more people live together and share the burdens of this cohabiting they can obtain a legal cohabiting contract.
 * 2) A legal cohabiting contract regulates the personal and financial relationship between the cohabitants.
 * 3) The cohabitants are completely free with respect to each other and have no personal duties.
 * 4) The cohabitants own all the goods they possessed before the legal cohabitant contract solely.
 * 5) When a claim of ownership is disputed, proof of this ownership needs to be delivered.
 * 6) When a dispute can not be solved due to lack of proof, the ownership is equally distributed.
 * 7) A legal cohabiting contract can on top comprise any of the following provisions;
 * 8) To make any part of the personal capital and/or future incomes common property.
 * 9) To agree on an alternate financial regulation if the contract is terminated.
 * 10) To make certain legally binding acts impossible without consent of all partners.
 * 11) A legal cohabiting contract can be conducted by the agreement of all concerned parties, without a government official.
 * 12) The contract has legal power concerning all issues up to the moment it is terminated by any concerned party.
 * 13) A legal cohabiting contract can be ratified by the governor on demand of any concerned party.

A normal majority (+50%) is needed. Please note that the approval of this proposal would accompany the creation of a Civil Law Book. 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1)   08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Marcus Villanova 22:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  -- 15:33, October 20, 2010 (UTC) (Good legislation!)
 * 4)  Martha Van Ghent 07:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC) It's good.
 * 5)  Percival E. Galahad 08:28, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)   22:08, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)    08:30, November 11, 2010 (UTC) (Time to pass some bills!)
 * 8)   10:44, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC) (still voting from conservative viewpoint)
 * 2)  Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 15:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC) I see no need for this.
 * It provides a legal framework for couples that don't want to get married but do live together, raise children, etc. Wether such regulation is 'needed' is up to you. 06:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

✅ 13:36, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

012. Parenthood Act

 * 1) Biological parenthood of children inside marriage:
 * 2) The person who gave birth to a child is considered the mother; this is derived from the birth certificate.
 * 3) The male spouse of the mother, if any, is under normal conditions suspected to be the father of the child.
 * 4) This suspicion can be contested;
 * 5) By the mother within a year after the child's birth.
 * 6) By the man within a year after being notified of the fatherhood.
 * 7) By the child itself within four years after reaching the age of eighteen.
 * 8) This suspicion can be legally recognized by the suspected father;
 * 9) With consent of the mother or legal guardian if the child is younger than fifteen years old.
 * 10) With consent of the mother or legal guardian and the child if the child is between fifteen and eighteen.
 * 11) With consent of the child if the child is at least eighteen years old.
 * 12) Biological parenthood of children outside marriage:
 * 13) The person who gave birth to a child is considered the mother; this is derived from the birth certificate.
 * 14) The fatherhood of children outside of marriage can be recognized;
 * 15) With consent of the suspected father and the mother or legal guardian if the child is younger than fifteen years old.
 * 16) With consent of the suspected father, mother or legal guardian and the child if the child is between fifteen and eighteen.
 * 17) With consent of the suspected father and the child if the child is at least eighteen years old.
 * 18) By any interested party through a lawsuit.
 * 19) Legal parenthood through adoption:
 * 20) Adoption is a procedure in which an individual takes up parenthood of a child of which he or she is not a biological parent.
 * 21) Adoption gives the guardian the same rights and obligations towards the child as if the guardian was the biological parent.
 * 22) An adoption is only valid before the Lovian law if declared as such by court.
 * 23) An adoption can be performed by;
 * 24) Two people who are joined in marriage.
 * 25) Two people who have a legal cohabiting contract.
 * 26) An individual, whether married or not.
 * 27) To become a parent through adoption you must;
 * 28) Be socially and psychologically stabile, guaranteed through standardized tests.
 * 29) Be at least 20 years old and at least 10 years older than the child you want to adopt.
 * 30) Have permission of your partner when you are married or have a cohabiting contract.
 * 31) A child can only be adopted if it is younger than eighteen years old.
 * 32) If older than twelve, the consent of the child is needed.

A normal majority (+50%) is needed. Please note that the approval of this proposal would accompany the creation of a Civil Law Book. 08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1)   08:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  I still like it! Marcus Villanova 22:42, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Martha Van Ghent 07:55, November 9, 2010 (UTC) Here and there still some doubt, but generally it's very good. I couldn't have do a better job - that's for sure.
 * 4)  Percival E. Galahad 08:30, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   22:11, November 10, 2010 (UTC) what are you like, Yuri, a Law School graduate?! Very pro!
 * 6)    08:30, November 11, 2010 (UTC) (Time to pass some bills!)
 * 7)  -- 09:50, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)   10:45, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC) (still voting from conservative viewpoint: 3.4.2 and 3.4.3)

Abstain
Before voting, I would like the word 'suspition or suspect' to be changed. I do not feel very compfortable with the idea of being a suspect of fathership. I'm pretty sure there is another word for it. &#123;&#123;SUBST:User:Aesopos/HT}} 15:52, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)   JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  08:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the matter Jon, you don't like it?  09:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It says; the two people, it does no however say "a man and a woman", as it should. Dr. Magnus 09:12, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jon will mind. He's progressive. 09:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The gap of 15 years? Explain JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  09:43, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the part that says you need to be at least 15 years older than the child you seek to adopt? From psychological point of view it is not all that well to have a 20-year old raise a 12 year old. I admit the number is kinda 'came to me at the moment' but there better be some minimal gap. 09:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A 20 year old is 8 years older then a 12 year old so he could not adopt. Dr. Magnus 09:49, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to lower the gap for 5 years, I know their must be some sort of a gap, but not 15 years <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  09:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8 would be minimum, cause you can only adopt lower than 18 since 25. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of the 15 year gap. You adopt children, not siblings. Dr. Magnus 09:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like 8 already actually! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  09:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can most people agree on 8? We need to pick a number. Harold Freeman 09:58, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15 is way better. I would not like my parent to be the age of my brother :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We can integrate a number, and include an interval in which the case needs to be investigated <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The age gap of at least 15 years is very important. Also, a relationship with an adopted child should officialy be made illegal and incestuous (like the relationship with Woody Allen with his wife's adopted daughter). We should have a more clear law forbidding this and setting the age gap to 15 in all cases. Dr. Magnus 10:03, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't get children, and you want to adopt someone of the age 12-16, you have to fucking wait until 30, that's quite long <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * People who can't get children usually don't adopt kids that old; they want to have the experience of raising a kid to adulthood rather then taking in a kid who has already been raised by someone else and is nearly adult. There is also always the ability of taking in foster children; you take care of a (older) child but do not legally adopt it. Dr. Magnus 10:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'll abstain <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:18, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or vote contra, of course. Dr. Magnus 10:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I changed the minimal age and the minimal age gap to the discussed number(s). Please keep such remarks for the First Chamber in the future, it was open for comments for over two months. 14:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  For the time being, I abstain. Until marriages and cohabitation contracts are passed, this cannot be passed. You can't refer to something that doesn't exist yet in a bill. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 15:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, they make parentage or fatherhood of a kid sound like a crime, hadn't noticed that before, good you saw that! Dr. Magnus 16:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Aesop: in the Belgian law the phrase 'vermoeden van vaderschap' is used. I thought 'suspicion' means 'vermoeden' without any connotation, but correct me if I'm wrong. 16:48, October 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1)  See above. Bucu 09:08, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

✅ 13:37, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

030. Reform of the REAC: simplicity and efficiency
See Forum:First Chamber for info and debate. 10:30, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Content
This would be the new section 7 of article 6 of the FedLaw:
 * In case a primary school does not provide the kind of education described in this article, the Secretary of Education or the Royal Educational Aims Council can decide to shut down the school until the service provided does qualify. In the meanwhile the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education must provide education to the pupils of that school, by allowing them instant pro-tempore access to another school.
 * The Royal Educational Aims Council is a council under the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education, consisting of three educational specialists who decide on the secondary education curriculum, and who can close a school (of any level) if it does not qualify with the requirements.
 * The following three persons are members of the council: the Secretary of Culture, Heritage and Education, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of Welfare as the pupils' and students' welfare watchdog.
 * The Rector of Blackburn University is added to the council as its fourth member only when the council is looking into a matter directly concerned with the higher educational system.

Voting
50%+ needed. Will amend a portion of the FedLaw.

030. PRO

 * 1)    10:30, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:51, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  We're no longer a Libertarian party! But I still like the change. Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:29, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal is simplying, though :) 14:30, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * True=]!Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- 16:23, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   11:06, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Martha Van Ghent 07:53, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)   15:00, November 15, 2010 (UTC) (very WALDEN!)
 * 5)  Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 19:07, November 21, 2010 (UTC) Didn't see this; my bad. :O
 * 6)  Bucu 09:08, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Would like to vote, although it is already accepted Christina Evans 21:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

030. ABSTAIN
030. COMMENTS

I'll vote pro for this but it would be better if it had a little more power with more members of congress to vote on things. Like Government run school programms (Arts, Sports, Higher level learning, Smarts Compitions!). Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

✅ Martha Van Ghent 07:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

040. Majority in Congress
See Forum:First Chamber for info. Bucu 14:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Content
This would be a new article, Article 12, in the Constitution.


 * 1) Normal bills (i.e. no amendments) could be proposed in the First Chamber by anyone who has citizen rights.
 * 2) In the First Chamber the proposal is being discussed and the proposal could be adjusted.
 * 3) The proposal may be transfered to the Second Chamber on condition if the proposal meets one of the following requirements.
 * 4) The proposal has been in the First Chamber for a minimum of three days.
 * 5) There is no strict maximum.
 * 6) A fast procedure may take place if five or more citizens or Members of the Congress have declared in the First Chamber to back the proposal.
 * 7) In the Second Chamber, exclusively Members of the Congress will vote on the proposal.
 * 8) Every Member of the Congress is ought to vote on proposals.
 * 9) One has the possibility to vote PRO, CONTRA or ABSTENTION.
 * 10) A bill can be passed after a normal majority, i.e. a majority which is larger than 50% in the Second Chamber.
 * 11) In other words more than half of the Members of the Congress should vote PRO in order to accept a normal bill.

Voting
50%+ needed. Will add an article to the Constitution.

040. PRO

 * 1)  Bucu 14:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:24, November 30, 2010 (UTC) SAMÞYKKT!

040. CONTRA

 * 1)  This bill contradicts the current Constitution and could therefore not be adopted in the law. There are already provisions for this matter.  11:55, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:22, December 1, 2010 (UTC) see Dimi's reaction
 * 3)  Dimi's comment,  16:21, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)   17:08, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Never really saw it as a necessity. There might be something we could establish, but this ain't it. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 02:41, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Martha Van Ghent 07:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Harold Freeman 08:57, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

040. ABSTAIN

 * 1)  I would vote pro, cuse I think waiting 2 months for a bills to be revised and read is long enough and then when congressmen say "I didn't see it" the complain and moan. but it needs to be written better. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:31, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   10:46, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

040. COMMENTS
I moved it quite fast to the Second Chamber because I think it's an emergency. Besides I don't think that many would disagree. Bucu 14:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm.. did I miss something? Bucu 17:53, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * dimi said article 6. i spose he meant Constitution-wise. 18:10, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Anyway, Bucu, if you proposal a change, you should really amend the existing articles. A bill like this would create a sort of "double legislation" within one Constitution. Really bizarre :) 21:39, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed but i agree with that bills should pass faster. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:43, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's one way to do that: elect people who vote faster. For example: not elect people like Evans. 21:46, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah she had potenial. Too bad. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:46, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, she did indeed. 14:14, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * meh, in could of done with some congressional rules, on time of voting and such. A congressional rule book of sorts. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why?
I discover there's a lot of confusion about this bill. People vote contra with strange reasons, I've noticed. The only reason, though, to vote against this bill, is plain simple. We already have these provisions Bucu proposes. They're in the Constitution. If Bucu wanted to amend them, he should have altered the existing article, rather than proposing a new article to be added (which would have ended up in having two times the same article :s). So that's why  14:14, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Article 6 describes the Federal Law, right? And what if you don't want to change the content of the constitution (amendment), but to add an article? Or am I totally confused right now? Bucu 15:51, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit . That would be an amendment. An amendment is defined (in Lovia) as "each alternation of the Constitution." 15:55, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for explaining, never mind this proposal then ;) Bucu 16:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that does mean that every alternation of the Constitution, adding an article e.g., should have a 66,67% majority? Bucu 16:19, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes of course . What else did you think? 16:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

13:38, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Content
to Article 5 of the CONST. we add:
 * 1.7. Creating and managing state agencies and corporations which have the sole function and duty to perform the tasks the state government is entitled to perform, including but not exclusively maintaining roads and waterways and protecting cultural and natural heritage.
 * 1.7.1. Such agencies and corporations are not entitled to engage in other economic activities.
 * 1.7.2. The number of such agencies and corporations within one state may not exceed five, allowing states to run a cultural heritage agency, a natural protection agency, a public works corporation, an urban planning agency, and other possible such agencies or corporations.

Voting
2/3rds+ needed. Will add an article to the Constitution.

041. PRO

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:59, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   08:51, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Very Good! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 13:23, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Walden! Martha Van Ghent 07:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  As an extra bonus, it'll keep Pierlot quiet. :P Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Percival E. Galahad 15:10, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  -- 08:34, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  this bill of mine is passing! Happy Holidays to all!  15:21, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) . Merry Christmas to all. Aesopos 16:23, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)   07:34, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  Harold Freeman 08:58, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

041. ABSTAIN

 * 1)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:22, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   10:47, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you abstain? Percival E. Galahad 10:48, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) SjorskingmaWikistad 13:39, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

041. COMMENTS
We need two thirds of the votes! please keep voting MOTCs! 15:43, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah C'mon Guys...Get out the vote! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:47, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll contact the slow pokes  15:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Freeman and Evans are terribly unactive and aren't gonna get re-elected. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:25, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * We just need a couple more votes  16:28, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

✅ By a 78.57% majority. 12:18, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't rond it af? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:33, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

0.44: Initiation of a Federal Planning Bureau

 * 1) The Federal Planning Bureau is an official authoritative section situated on the federal level of Lovian government.
 * 2) Its structure is as following:
 * 3) The bureau works as a council;
 * 4) The bureau consists of three members, namely:
 * 5) the Prime Minister;
 * 6) the Secretary of Industry, Agriculture and Trade; and
 * 7) the Chairperson of the Federal Planning Bureau, who is chosen every six months by Congress and must be a Member of the Congress. [After Federal and Mid Term elections]
 * 8) Its powers are limited to:
 * 9) The proposal of economical and financial laws;
 * 10) Proposals which have been accepted by a special majority can go to the Second Chamber directly, without interference of the Federal Planning Bureau;
 * 11) The provision of advice on proposed bills concerning economical and financial matters;
 * 12) Advise can be obtained when:
 * 13) One of the members finds it necessary;
 * 14) Congress asks for it.
 * 15) The suspension of proposals on economical and financial level in order to re-calculate the consequences for Lovia and its inhabitants.
 * 16) The maximum suspension period is two weeks' time;
 * 17) The suspension can be obtained when one member of the Bureau demands it.

<font color=Navy>JON  THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  20:34, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind I did away with the abbreviations and stuff :) Martha Van Ghent 16:11, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Voting
50+% required. Martha Van Ghent 16:11, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:46, December 29, 2010 (UTC) if it turns out not to be working, we could still abolish it
 * 2)  This instrument can help us in the creation of a tax system.  17:49, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  If it goes wrong we abolish it, but it looks good so far! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:23, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree with ouWTB Harold Freeman 08:59, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Percival E. Galahad 15:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:51, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  Giving it one chance.  10:22, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)  -- 15:45, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  We should give this a chance Aesopos 16:19, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10)  Give it a go Christina Evans 21:04, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1) Sorry Jon, I seriously contemplated voting Pro, but I cannot. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:30, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, you have to vote on what you think is the best for our country <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:32, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  I'm sorry jon. It doesn't add much except complexity.  13:39, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm in doubt too. We already have economic/financial specialists in the Congress. He/she/they can propose bills to fix our tax/economy system. What they can't do yet, is hold up "bad bills". But no bad bills have passed yet, so I don't see the problem. Simplify! Martha Van Ghent 07:32, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

ABSTAIN

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC) dwangloeas höbbe 'ch 'd besloet genómmen óm t'ebstèène (translation: I decided freely that I'll abstain :P)

I'm in doubt. Please convince me Jon. 19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's simple actually: We add a council that is independent, it has nothing to prove against the people, it must not follow an ideology, it can give us a good opinion on how our economy should work <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a chance, because I have confidence in your vision on government. You better make it work then, Sjonnie  10:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

✅

045a. Recognition of Mäöres
We need to stay formal on this one. If we want things like a "congressial journal", we should also keep track of our recognisitiones.-= --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Voting
I guess we need 50% or so :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1) -- O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Although I find this plain silly. Should we not vote about recognizing the US and France? ;)  19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec. I'll fix it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Only if we reconize San Marino later. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:20, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Martha Van Ghent 21:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  yeah sure.  12:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)   Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  but maybe we need to vote on a general policy rather than once for every country? Like a law stating that the foreign relations office can recognize any nation that is recognized by a majority of U.N. members. When in doubt or controversial, Congress could still vote.  12:26, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Last night, I was thinking about this. What about launching a FedLaw bill in which we enshrine the nations we recognize? We could use an economizing principle, such as: "The Kingdom of Lovia recognizes the sovereign status of all states recognized by all the members of the United Nations Organization, unless specified otherwise in this act." Then, we could add the "wiki nations" in a second section, and in a third, we could specify other nations we wish to recognize (I am thinking of the Republic of China, Taiwan). It's an economizing principle. And pretty simple to work with. We don't need discussions of whether we recognize this tiny island or not: we recognize all those recognized by the UN, unless a majority of Congress agrees not to do so in this or that case. 14:25, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see I was thinking of something comparable, though I would put the limit lower than 'recognized by all UN members'. 15:06, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Martha Van Ghent 07:26, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Percival E. Galahad 13:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- 18:23, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Hopefully expanding with other countries Aesopos 16:23, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Christina Evans 21:24, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

✅ Congressional Journal. 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

048. Congressional Journal
I propose to keep a record of all Congressional activities. It's kind of laborious to look up when Congress passed or rejected which bill. What I propose is to make a simple page, which says:
 * [date] - [name bill/proposal/amendment], as proposed by [name MOTC] on [date proposal]
 * Votes cast: pro ([number]), contra ([number]), abstain ([number]) - [percentage pro]

So:
 * 31/01/2011 - FedLaw: Amazing Act, as proposed by Andy McCandless on 01/01/2011
 * Votes cast: pro (10), contra (2), abstain (0) - approved by 83.33%

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


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

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

PRO

 * 1)   12:13, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   12:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Like humans it's all trial and error! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 00:41, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)   Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:59, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)   12:27, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  13:28, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  Martha Van Ghent 07:25, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)  Percival E. Galahad 13:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  -- 18:23, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10)  Harold Freeman 12:12, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  Christina Evans 21:23, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

ABSTAIN

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:34, January 4, 2011 (UTC) My feelings tell me this ain't going to work.

✅ Congressional Journal. 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

049. Firearms Act
Normal majority needed

Federal Law
Firearms Act
 * 1) Ownership and use of firearms by any person within the Kingdom of Lovia is prohibited;
 * 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.

In short
This is a very long bill, but not a complex one. The reason for it being long is its waterproofness. The bill intends to establish a clear policy on firearms and private militias; possible loopholes would be of great potential danger. This bill makes it clear:
 * no firearms may be owned or used in Lovia;
 * except by the police
 * and by hunters, who must obtain a license and who must follow the various regulations.
 * no militias may operate in Lovia;
 * no foreign armies may operate in Lovia.

Percival E. Galahad 13:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hunting clubs are allowed, if all people have a gun-license, right? And as for those licenses: how does one obtain such a license? Pierius Magnus 14:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all in the bill Magnus... 14:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

In favor of the bill

 * 1)  Percival E. Galahad 13:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   13:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC) (One of the best bills, in terms of writing, this Congress has ever seen. I am impressed.)
 * 3)  My sincere congratulations. -- 14:20, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Indeed, this is one of the best bills this Congress has ever seen. Keep going. Aesopos 14:25, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Martha Van Ghent 15:28, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:02, January 6, 2011 (UTC) (though I still have my doubts about the private militia thing, I do think that's of a later concern, gun use must be limited, that's a priority)
 * 7)  yeah!  21:59, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)   13:46, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  Harold Freeman 12:13, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10)  Christina Evans 20:59, January 24, 2011 (UTC) private gun ownership should not be allowed

Opposing the bill

 * I like most of it, but I still think that specifically trained guards should have the right to have guns. If hunters can earn the right, so should guards. If this is changed, then I'm in, though. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 22:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Abstaining from the vote

 * 1)  (See First Chamber) Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:36, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:22, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

✅ Congressional Journal. 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

041. Height Restriction Act
Federal Law: 50%+

Height Restriction Act --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:35, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

In favor of the bill

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:35, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Grand time this gets through.  Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 22:40, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Great! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:38, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Splendid! Aesopos 16:00, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Opposing the bill

 * 1)  What Medvedev pointed out is right. Here again we see that bills must be revised in the First Chamber. It's an MOTC's duty to do so, and it's the proposer's duty to make sure they do.  10:18, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:23, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Harold Freeman 12:14, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  It takes a little effort to make this better.  22:06, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Abstaining from the vote

 * 1)  for now. A conflict of power is possible: in accordance with #2 Congress could say I can build a tower of 200 feet but the Governor can refute that on grounds of #3. I like this power to go to either the State or Congress, if divided anyhow I only vote pro if Congress gets the final word.  13:18, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather okay that someone is checking congress... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:18, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I didn't explain myself clearly: when you follow the bill above literally both Congress and the Governor have the same amount of power, which will cause trouble when they disagree. I'm abstaining because the bill has a major inconsistency . 10:22, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Must agree. -- 18:22, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Guess he's right. Martha Van Ghent 21:30, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  For the same reason as above Christina Evans 21:00, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Congressional Journal. 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Amendment
I propose to rewrite section 7 (of Article 9, of course), resulting in:
 * 7. The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.
 * 7. 1. The term of the Supreme Court Judge does not necessarily coincide with the Congressional term, nor with the duration of a federal government. The Supreme Court Judge must maintain his or her duty until another is appointed and confirmed; only then is his or her service terminated.
 * 7. 2. If the Supreme Court Judge resigns from his or her duty, the Department of Justice is bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time. It is the Supreme Court Judge's duty to continue his service until another Judge is confirmed, and until all ongoing cases are terminated, or prepared to be passed on to his successor, without causing disturbances.
 * 7. 3. Congress has the unique power to discharge a Supreme Court Judge forthwith, by a special majority. The Department of Justice is then bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time.

Pro

 * 1)  -- 15:46, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   18:24, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:31, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Looks good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:35, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Mkay.  Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:06, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  Martha Van Ghent 07:42, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:24, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)   12:35, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  obviously Harold Freeman 12:11, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10)   22:07, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  Aesopos 16:38, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12)  looks good overall Christina Evans 20:55, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

✅ Congressional Journal. 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Who will be in it?
I have had a good long conversation with our good friend the King. The new congress will be inaugurated on the First of February. It will be called DONIA I after my personal last name (Ygo August Donia). Now who gets which department? Here's the list: Now the members of the 2011 government may vote on the composition of this government. What do you say, fellow MOTC's? Let's do this thing! Pierius Magnus 17:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Transportation: Hannis (CCPL)
 * Welfare: Ilava (CCPL)
 * Industry, Agriculture and Trade: Villanova (PCP)
 * Tourism and Leisure: Abrahams (Walden)
 * Department of Culture, Heritage and Education: Galahad (LAP)
 * Energy and Environment: Van Ghent (Walden)
 * Foreign Affairs: Medvedev (CPL.nm)
 * Justice: Donia (CCPL).
 * Finance: Johnson (CPL.nm)
 * Johnson kindly pointed out Red is not very active so I decided to change the composition just a little bit. The changes: I get Justice, Johnson get's Finance and Marcus get's only IAT. Pierius Magnus 07:39, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this has a majority? --Semyon 11:47, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It has indeed. I propose we wait for some late voters and finish the poll February 1st, early in the morning, so Donia can inaugurate the Congress and the government on that same day. 11:58, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1)  Pierius Magnus 17:51, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:01, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)   HORTON11  18:03, January 26, 2011 (UTC)- seems like a very fair and egalitarian composition of congress
 * 4)  Thanks! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 20:54, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Balance is okay. I have no trust in the combination of Justice & Welfare for CCPL, but I'll guess we'll have to wait and see first. @MOTCs: once we have a government, any normal majority can re-arrange it.  12:13, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC) Restored balance, I'm fine  <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  (@HRH: now what is that supposed to mean? )  14:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * HRH means that seven smart people can get one bad person out of the government at any given time. So, if one of the Secretaries indeed proves to be corrupt or otherwise unfit, a normal majority could vote him out. You wrote that amendment :D 15:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone were to propose to vote a secretary out, and the proposal failed, would the person who proposed it face consequences? HORTON11  17:19, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. MOTCs should be one hundred percent free to propose these kind of things. 17:50, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I remember, our very own 'motion of distrust'. How good of me to include such a procedure. 12:07, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)    Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:34, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Martha Van Ghent 11:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Thanks for this opportunity.  13:47, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  -- 12:06, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

✅ Congressional Journal. 09:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Labor Law Act

 * 1) Every adult Lovian that foresees in his own income through labor as an employee can only do so by engaging in an employment contract.
 * 2) An employment contract is an agreement in which one party (the employee) commits him- or herself to work for another party (the employer) in exchange for a financial compensation.
 * 3) An employment contract is only valid when:
 * 4) Both parties are at least 16 and have permission from a parent or legal advisor when they are not yet 18.
 * 5) The function, working hours, working conditions, wage and duration of the contract are confirmed in a written agreement.
 * 6) Both parties agree on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient.
 * 7) It comprises the presence of a valid subject and a lawful cause.
 * 8) An employment contract is terminated:
 * 9) When the time of the duration of the employment contract as defined in the contract itself is expired.
 * 10) When both parties agree upon the termination of the employment contract under conditions specified and agreed upon by both parties.
 * 11) When at least one of the parties can not possibly fulfill his/her obligations due to conditions independent of that party his/her will.
 * 12) When one of the parties declares the employment contract terminated by issuing the dismissal.
 * 13) When the employer terminates the contract this way, the employee can demand a financial compensation of three month salaries.
 * 14) When the employee terminates the contract this way, the employer can demand the contract stands for up to one more week.
 * 15) When a judge declares the failure of at least one of the parties sufficient to terminate the employment contract as a whole.
 * 16) If declared terminated by a judge, the payment of a financial compensation for the duped party can be imposed on the party responsible for the failure.
 * 17) When a certain event enclosed in the employment contract as dissolving condition takes place.
 * 18) The following events can not be taken up as dissolving conditions: pregnancy, parenthood, marriage, reaching pension age and confiscation of the wage.
 * 19) When the employee dies or is missing for more than one week.
 * 20) After being employed under a labor contract for 40 years, an employee can retreat from the labor market, thus becoming pensioned.
 * 21) From the age of 55, all employees enter pension regardless of the years they have been under a labor contract.
 * 22) Pensioned people are legally entitled to a pension that is provided to them by the Social Security Fund.
 * 23) The hours an employee has to work are to be enclosed in an employment contract to make it valid.
 * 24) These hours are limited to eight hours a day and forty hours a week.
 * 25) All labor performed outside these limits are regarded as overtime.
 * 26) All labor performed from 8 p.m. to six a.m. is regarded as night labor.
 * 27) All labor performed on saturdays, sundays or recognized holidays is regarded as weekend labor.
 * 28) If an employee is put to work he has to work at least three successive hours.
 * 29) After six successive hours of work an employee has the right to have half an hour of rest.
 * 30) Each employee has the right to have eleven successive hours of rest a day.
 * 31) The conditions under which an employee performs his/her job have to be enclosed in an employment contract to make it valid.
 * 32) The conditions under which an employee performs his/her job may only pose the minimal acceptable threat to his/her safety, health or welfare.
 * 33) An employer is responsible for the consequences of his/her decisions on the employment conditions of his/her employees. End that he/she has to take the following measures:
 * 34) The prevention of risks and the evaluation of risks that couldn't be prevented within an acceptable margin.
 * 35) Giving priority to safety over profit when making decisions that affect the employment conditions.
 * 36) Informing the employee over possible risks in the light of his/her duty at his/her recruitment.
 * 37) An employee has to act in agreement with his/her training and given instructions to take care of his/her safety. End that he/she has to take the following measures:
 * 38) Make correct use of the provided machinery, tools and materials that may pose a threat to the employee's safety.
 * 39) Make correct use of the provided personal protective equipment.
 * 40) Make correct use of the provided safety mechanisms.
 * 41) The wage is defined by the employment contract but has to answer to the following provisions:
 * 42) The minimum wage is 14 dollars an hour, with a 30% digression for employees younger than 18.
 * 43) A compensating differential of 20% is to be given for labor at night, weekend labor, dangerous work or irregular hours.
 * 44) The wages as defined can be altered according to the inflation upon Congressional decision.
 * 45) The wages of all employees are protected by the following provisions:
 * 46) The employee can ordain his own wage without restrictions from the employer.
 * 47) All wages payed to Lovian residents are to be payed in US dollars unless he/she is employed in a foreign country, in which case he/she can demand payment in the coin of that country.
 * 48) Up to 1/5 of the wage can be payed in kind if this is desirable for the nature of the job and the employee was notified of this in advance.
 * 49) All wages are to be payed at least twice a month with no more than 16 days between each payment.
 * 50) Certain payments can legally be subtracted from the wage before payment.
 * 51) These subtractions should not comprise more than 1/5 of the total wage unless when the employee did deliberate damage or quits before the entire debt is redeemed.
 * 52) Payments that can legally be subtracted from the wage before payment are:
 * 53) Contributions for the Social Security Fund which are imposed by Congress through the taxation policy.
 * 54) Fines which are owed to the employer and are imposed by the agreed labor regulation of the employment contract.
 * 55) Damages which are owed to the employer and inflicted during the exercise of the job for that employer.
 * 56) Advance payments already made by the employer with agreement of the employee.
 * 57) An employee is default by disease if he/she unable to perform his/her job due to a physic disease or mental condition.
 * 58) An employee who is default by disease has right to full payment if he/she notifies his/her employer of the situation.
 * 59) The employer can demand proof of a medical opinion or ask for a second opinion of a competent examiner appointed by the employer.
 * 60) All wages payed to an employee default by disease for more than 30 successive days are payed for 60% by the Social Security Fund.
 * 61) If the default is caused by an occupational injury or disease, the employer has to pay the full wage for the entire duration of the default.
 * 62) All employers are obliged to take insurance against occupational injuries and diseases, either private or through the Social Security Fund.
 * 63) All employers are obliged to take as much measures against occupational injuries and diseases as reasonable.
 * 64) Extra regulation can be imposed through organized collective bargaining between unions and sectors.
 * 65) The extra regulation is only valid when all parties agreed on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient.
 * 66) The extra regulation may concern vacations, recruitment, working hours, wages and working conditions.
 * 67) The extra regulation may not violate the marginal boundaries and regulations of the labor law.

Pro

 * 1)   08:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, February 13, 2011 (UTC) A beautiful law!
 * 3)  for helping the common person! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:14, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 13:26, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)   HORTON11  23:32, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Social Security Act

 * 1) The Social Security System is a collection of mechanisms that serve to fight poverty and social injustice to the benefit of society as a whole.
 * 2) The Social Security System is made up of the following institutions:
 * 3) The Social Security Fund, which is responsible for all transfer payments that are made under the Social Security System.
 * 4) The Social Security Fund is funded by contributions that are withheld from the wages in accordance to Lovia's tax policy.
 * 5) If the Social Security Fund faces a shortage its budget will be straightened by a financial injection from the federal budget.
 * 6) The Department of Finance and the Department of Welfare operate the Social Security Fund jointly.
 * 7) The Department of Finance is responsible for the income side of the Social Security Fund.
 * 8) The Department of Welfare is responsible for the spending side of the Social Security Fund.
 * 9) Receiving payments from the Social Security Fund without being entitled to them is considered social fraud.
 * 10) When social fraud is determined, the Social Security Fund can withhold further payments.
 * 11) Payments received without being entitled to them can be retrieved by court order.
 * 12) Social fraud as deliberate deception can punished with a compensating fee by court order.
 * 13) The National Healthcare Service, which is responsible for providing free medically necessary assistance to everyone the Lovian state is responsible for.
 * 14) The National Healthcare Service operates under the Department of Welfare which is responsible for the working.
 * 15) The National Healthcare Service runs all government hospitals, recognizes medical personnel and refunds medicine.
 * 16) The National Healthcare Service may advise Congress over price regulation concerning the pharmaceutical sector.
 * 17) The Social Assistance Service, which is responsible for legally and morally assisting the beneficiaries of the Social Security Fund.
 * 18) The Social Assistance Service operates under the Department of Welfare which is responsible for the working.
 * 19) The Social Assistance Service is to appoint all medical and social personal that observe the beneficiaries.
 * 20) The Social Assistance Service can appoint social housing if it is provided through Congressional clause.
 * 21) The Agency for Labor Inspection, which is to ascertain the compliance of employers and employees to the determinations of the labor law.
 * 22) The Agency for Labor Inspection operates under the Department of Welfare which is responsible for the working.
 * 23) The Agency has the task to control wether employers and employees respect the social regulations imposed upon them.
 * 24) The Agency is obliged to take a case to court when it finds a violation; the agency can not declare a verdict on its own.
 * 25) The transfer payments the Social Security System is charged with are monthly payments related to sick leave, deficiencies, unemployment, pensions and special benefits.
 * 26) All wages payed to an employee default by disease for more than 30 successive days are payed for 60% by the Social Security Fund.
 * 27) When paying, the Social Security Fund can ask for a second opinion of a competent examiner appointed by the Social Assistance Service.
 * 28) When an employee receives the sick leave benefit for six consecutive months, he or she must switch to the deficiency benefit.
 * 29) All people who can not take part in activities on the labor market due to a physical or mental deficiency are entitled to a deficiency benefit of 1200$.
 * 30) The obstructing deficiency needs to be determined sufficient by a competent examiner appointed by the Social Assistance Service.
 * 31) People with a limited deficiency might be assigned to communal services if a competent examiner deems this to be desirable.
 * 32) All unemployed people that are capable of working are entitled to a minimum income of 1200$ provided by the Social Security Fund.
 * 33) A person receiving the unemployment benefit is obliged to undertake reasonable effort in trying to find a new job.
 * 34) A person receiving the unemployment benefit might be assigned to communal services by an appointed social worker.
 * 35) All pensioned people are legally entitled to a pension that is provided to them by the Social Security Fund.
 * 36) The legal minimum for a pension is 800$, regardless of how many years the receiver has been under an employment contract.
 * 37) A compensating differential of 10% is payed for every 10 years the receiver has been under an employment contract.
 * 38) The Social Assistance Service can foresee benefits for large families, single parents and people who lost their supporting partner.
 * 39) The amount of income and dependent people within the family is to be taken into consideration when determining the benefit.
 * 40) Such benefits are only to be granted to beneficiaries who's income is below the mandatory minimum income of 1200$.
 * 41) Any beneficiary can apply for such a benefit with a social worker appointed by the Social Assistance Service.

Pro

 * 1)   08:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC) though see my remark below, this law could have been a bit clearer!
 * 3)  Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 13:28, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)   HORTON11  23:34, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)   <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:54, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:01, February 13, 2011 (UTC) The law is okay, but it doesn't specify whether the $800 and $1200 are monthly, per year, per day etc.
 * In fact the law says (...) transfer payments the Social Security System is charged with are monthly payments. 09:17, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * An income is not the same as a transfer payment. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * The term 'transfer payment' is commonly used in western Europe to refer to all money transfered from the social security to a beneficiary. 'Uitkeringen' and the like all included. It is an 'income' but not a 'wage'. 09:24, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with you, but I don't want to block this law for something that stupid :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Financial Outline Act

 * 1) A tax in the kingdom of Lovia is any financial charge or other levy upon a legal entity made by the state to either raise money for funding public policy or changing the undesired outcome of market activity.
 * 2) Taxation is to be fair, meaning that all taxes need a justifiable cause and are to be levied in accordance with the payer's ability to pay.
 * 3) For the Payroll Tax, Personal Income Tax and Property Tax the fairness is guaranteed by a system of progressive taxation that works as follows:
 * 4) All payers are to be sorted into ten categories with each category corresponding to one percentile of the tax payer population. Each percentile is then levied with a tax percentage of 10%, with an increase of 5% for each next percentile.
 * 5) Formulary expression: " TAX PAID = AMOUNT TO BE CHARGED x (10 + P)%" with "P = ( PERCENTILE NUMBER - 1) x 5"
 * 6) Taxation is to be efficient, meaning that taxes should be levied without unreasonable economic or administrative cost.
 * 7) Not paying a tax, through avoidance or other failure, is punishable by a fee or confiscation of property through court order.
 * 8) Lovia knows three types of taxation:
 * 9) Excise taxes are taxes that serve to compensate for negative externalities by dropping the amount of taxed goods that is supplied and/or demanded.
 * 10) Excise taxes are to be levied according to the benefits principle, meaning that their incidence falls most on the parties responsible for the taxed externality.
 * 11) Negative externalities associated with common resources, goods that are rival but not exclusive, are to be fixed through regulation instead of taxation.
 * 12) Import taxes are taxes levied on goods that are consumed domestically but are produced abroad.
 * 13) Import taxes may only be levied in the following cases:
 * 14) When a sector as a whole is ailing due to competition with a world price lower than the domestic price.
 * 15) In a sector that is considered strategic due to its relevance to the Lovian economic sovereignty.
 * 16) The following sectors are considered strategic: production of energy, financial products.
 * 17) When an imported product is considered harmful or unethical because of its production method.
 * 18) The following products are considered harmful or unethical: products produced by child labor, genetically modified food products.
 * 19) No import taxes may be levied goods produced in the Least Developed Countries as defined by the United Nations, unless they are considered unethical or harmful by Article 2.2.1.3.1 of this bill.
 * 20) Systemic taxes are taxes levied to redistribute wealth or skim tax revenue from the welfare created for public policy.
 * 21) The Payroll Tax (PRT) is levied on the wage payed to an employee and subtracted from the wage by the employer before the wage is payed.
 * 22) The tax revenue of the PRT is primarily to be used for the funding of the Social Security Fund.
 * 23) No PRT is levied on a person who's income is equal to or lower than the mandatory minimum income of 1200$.
 * 24) The Personal Income Tax (PIT) is levied on a person's total income.
 * 25) The PIT is levied on a yearly basis by sending each citizen a tax letter which he/she has to respond to by making the correct payment within six weeks after receiving the letter.
 * 26) No PIT is levied on a person who's income is equal to or lower than the mandatory minimum income of 1200$.
 * 27) The Property Tax (PPT) is levied on the wealth a person's property and resting capital generate.
 * 28) The PPT is levied on a yearly basis by sending each citizen a tax letter which he/she has to respond to by making the correct payment within six weeks after receiving the letter.
 * 29) No PPT is not levied on a person who's wealth enclosed in property and resting capital are below the average wealth of all Lovian citizens.
 * 30) The Value-added Tax (VAT) is a tax levied on all goods and services that are sold with profit.
 * 31) The amount of taxation is calculated as 20% of the added value through sale and payed by the one who sold the good or service.
 * 32) The VAT is dropped to 10% when it concerns a recognized ecological or fair-trade product.
 * 33) The amount of created welfare skimmed for public policy through taxes should stay between 35 and 45% of Lovia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
 * 34) When the federal budget is facing a deficit, the state must borrow money on the financial market.
 * 35) The government should see to it that the yearly deficit is no larger than 3% of the budget to assure financial stability.
 * 36) Congress may approve to exceed the 3% limit in times of crisis, by which the a new limit becomes automatically fixed at 6%.
 * 37) When the federal budget has a surplus, it should be used to pay off the country's debt.
 * 38) Spending the surplus on new policy can only be done if the new policy is taken up in the budget, lowering the surplus.
 * 39) Congress may approve to spend up to 50% of the surplus on new policies that aim to stimulate or stabilize the economy.
 * 40) The following guidelines for public expenditure are to be respected by the government:
 * 41) At least 40% of the federal budget should be used for social security and national healthcare.
 * 42) At least 15% of the federal budget should be used for the funding of education and research.
 * 43) At least 6% of the federal budget should be used for public transport and infrastructure.
 * 44) At least 6% of the federal budget should be used for public safety.

Pro

 * 1)   08:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:24, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:07, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Several reasons: 1. again it doesn't specify whether the $1200 is monthly or per year. 2. The VAT is dropped to 10% when it concerns a recognized ecological or fair-trade product. 3. Part 3.3 (way too bureaucratic). 4. All payers are to be sorted into ten categories with each category corresponding to one percentile of the tax payer population. Each percentile is then levied with a tax percentage of 10%, with an increase of 5% for each next percentile. (too progressive).
 * (1) Monthly payments: see previous bill, (3) bureaucracy: it is about taxation, what did you expect? Even the most efficient tax systems require bureaucracy, (4) I know it is progressive. I've written it.  09:20, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. Indeed, a little bit bureaucracy is okay, but this is not necessary in my eyes. 4. :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:21, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I corrected a few small spelling mistakes (payed to paid, in stead to instead). Also, if I remember my statistics, one tenth of a set of data is a decile, not a percentile.

I apologise for commenting in the Second Chamber. Other than that, it seems a fine bill! --Semyon 17:00, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Height Restriction Act
I find it rather sad this law was so suddenly abandoned. So here goes (with small amendments): --Semyon 17:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Federal Law: 50%+

Height Restriction Act
 * 1) In the Kingdom of Lovia, no structures surpassing the maximum height of 165 feet or 50.3 meters may be constructed, in order to preserve the city scenes and landscapes, and in order to bar projects of megalomaniacal size.
 * 2) Governors of the states are entitled to restrict the height of buildings further, for the entire state or for designated localities, such as historic neighborhoods. They must however allow for the construction of regular two-storey residences.
 * 3) Congress may grant exemptions to this law, by a normal majority, or overrule the decision of the Governor.

PRO.

 * Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC) (Why isn't seymon in congress?)
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:57, February 18, 2011 (UTC) (he wasn't a candidate)
 * I'm not fully into this, but at least the conflict of power between Congress and the States seems to be solved. 16:58, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Appointing a new Supreme Court Judge
As your Secretary of Justice, it is up to me to put forth a candidate as our new Supreme Court Judge. In my personal opinion he or she is to be a neutral person, someone from outside of Congress who is currently not involved in politics. I therefore decided to appoint Lars Washington (Aesopos) to this esteemed position. Washington will replace Mr. Jefferson. I am sure he will do well. The congress first has to vote on this matter, of course, before the appointment will be final - so go ahead, congressmen, and vote! Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 15:57, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

PRO.

 * 1)  HORTON11  16:30, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 16:34, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:27, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 11:53, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

CONTRA.

 * I'd like to wait swapping until a reform is issued. (If it matters: appeal is not legally possible for now) 07:01, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Too inactive I though would personally quit congress just to be appointed for the position. I don't want to beg but I would love this position. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:54, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Marcus, you are of more use to us as a MOTC then you are as a Supreme Court Judge. Unlike Mr. Washington you have less expierence in the field and you are not what I would call impartial, to say the least. You can accomplish more as a member of congress and a secretary in the Donia I Government. I'd like you to remain were you are. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 10:13, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Impartiality is the stupidest policy ever devised, I prefer a technical and responsible judge over the dullest shade of grey. Juts my opinion though. 07:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Yuri: Please see Forum:The Pub, it is not illegal at all! Your own party member Censuree already wished to appoint a second SC Judge . A new Judge is needed and fast. There are some serious issues, with AJ being involved himself too. And besides, what's wrong with having more Judges? It is stupid to have one judge, giving him the ability to do whatever he wants (yes.) and waiting for a revision of the judicial policy is the lamest excuse ever. @Marcus: you can be judge too. There is no limit set by Constitution. But why do you vote Contra then, if you can propose yourself to become a Judge too? We need more Judges, and I would rather like to have 3 than 2 or even 1. Cristian Latin 19:00, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Never said appointing new judges was illegal, I said 'appeal is not legally possible'. I vote contra because the system is wrong, not the judge. Reform the system! This takes time and a lot of careful thinking. 07:18, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the system and the Judge were wrong and you know it. A six month block and taking away the citizen rights of the defendent? Come on man! It was outrageous, out of line and out of proportion. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 09:13, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the sentence is too heavy (@press: please notice!!) and I proposed you negotiated a deal with Jefferson. A thorough reform is needed, with multiple judges but without 'action out of anger'. I vote against, as is my right. 15:58, March 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * 07:19, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

2011 Provisional Congress
Due to the unactivness of the current elected 2011 Congress, a 2011 Provisional Congress shall take it's place. The congress shall also hold the same duties with a new Prime Minister to lead the congress. All current proposals not accepted shall be re-proposed in the First Chamber.

The Following congresspeople shall be :
 * Dimitri Noble
 * Yuri Medvedev
 * Justin Abrahams
 * Nathaniel Scribner
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * I. G. La Blaca
 * Lars Washington
 * William Krosby
 * Marcus Villanova

Pro

 * Yes! C'mon vote on this! Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:46, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:09, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's go for it. Aesopos 16:14, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a temporary measure. However we do need elections in the near future. HORTON11  18:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Horton. --Nathaniel Scribner 00:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ with a 55% majority. Don't forget to approve or disapprove the PM. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:23, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! Now let's get even more votes! Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:19, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Selecting a Prime Minister
This vote is to confirm Prime Minister for the 2011 Provisional Congress. The currently nominated PM is Marcus Villanova. Is this acceptable?

Pro

 * Yes. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:13, April 30, 2011 (UTC) (William Krosby)
 * Well duh. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:03, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck! --Nathaniel Scribner 00:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Go, go, ... go?!  08:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * haha Aesopos 08:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * HORTON11 13:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * We don't want no red commie PM. The Master&#39;s Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ Villanova, you should set up your government now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:44, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

069. Condensement Bill
Marcus Villanova wishes for this bill to be passed before he sets up his government. Let's have a quick vote on the matter. This bill will condense several departments and agencies into one department, decreasing the amount of slots needed to be filled by Lovians. Is this acceptable?

Pro

 * Just vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:10, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the only option as this point. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:49, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * HORTON11 13:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * though you should include a link in this proposals description to where the exact proposal can be found.  14:14, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * True but i'd rather we work on combining the pages together when this is passed Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:18, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad that your getting rid of the Department of Agriculture.Nathaniel Scribner 16:28, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * We can't miss Agriculture... Don't you commies like them good 'ol Kolkhoz? The Master&#39;s Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ Let's begin the other bills now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:33, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Composition of Villanova I Government

 * Culture, Education and Heritage - Justin Abrahams


 * Energy and Environment - Lars Washington


 * Foreign Affairs - Yuri Medvedev


 * Economy and Tansportation - Nathaniel Scribner


 * Finance and Welfare - William Krosby

Is this acceptable?

Villanova, Abrahams, Washington, Medvedev, Scribner, and Krosby must all approve this government for it to pass.

Pro

 * —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:25, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:33, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * HORTON11 01:52, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel Scribner 05:08, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep my post  05:54, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * that's a tuff one, you gave me there. Aesopos 15:21, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * It is unacceptable that only the leftists get a position in the government. The UNS and CCPL have been surpassed for no good reason at all. How's that for that "diversity" you guys so cherish? The Master&#39;s Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ by a 2/3 majority. Change the articles about the government positions. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:53, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
No, this is not acceptable. The only people that may vote are those who are appointed in the government? Normally this is called dictatorship... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

But your in congress, and we only chose the active users, we did it before! Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:32, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ouwtb, what I meant was that anyone can vote, but for it to pass, you need the people that are in the government to pro it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:21, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember that with the former government it was insisted that all parties were represented in the government... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a government of only progressives would have passed too, since they had a majority. The progressive Congress demanded a non-exclusively conservative government. 08:30, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

067. Settlement Act
This act would completely replace the Town and City Act as well as the Hamlet Act.


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

Pro

 * —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:58, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:30, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Master&#39;s Voice 21:37, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * HORTON11 21:57, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel Scribner 00:39, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 05:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Aesopos 07:31, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:09, May 4, 2011 (UTC) still, the only difference I see right now is that a new type of settlement, called village, is introduced. Has anybody already been thinking about the fact that this has to be implemented? This isn't just an Ocean and Fishing Act, this change requires a relatively large number of pages to be checked and adjusted, both in infoboxes and texts, which will at least be a few hours work. And even then there will still be unchecked pages. Also, the difference hamlet - town - city was introduced in order to prevent people from creating settlements with 5.000 neighborhoods. There's no need for introducing a village type (which is indicated by the number of inhabitants, which quite tends to go up and down in Lovia...)
 * Hamlets are extremely small in real life. I proposed this for autonomy for the larger hamlets and the adding of a realistic village settlement. I don't have a problem with changing pages, also. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck then, damn I miss those simplify waldeners.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:42, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, villages are very common in most countries and hamlets do not have such high populations. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, indeed, but does village per se need to have a legal context? I'd only say that I find this change bureaucratic, unneccessary and overcomplicating things. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:33, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already got rid of mayors for you. If I remove villages, there would be no point in this bill. I think villages should exist because hamlets are rare in most countries and places of over five hundred at most are NOT hamlets. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:18, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I vote contra: there's no point in this bill. And I don't want to be irritating (which I quite am right now :P), but hamlets are rare in most countries and places of over five hundred at most are NOT hamlets? Ever been to the Netherlands, Belgium, France or Germany? :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says something about being a "small settlement". Here in the US, 500 people constitutes a village. Besides, isn't Lovia not related to those countries? If you want, I'll obliterate the idea of hamlets and replace them with villages completely. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:06, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, look, we're indeed related to countries like the US, but also to Benelux countries (see our history), the idea is that a hamlet is dependent, while a town (and village) is not. So, a hamlet could be considered a neighborhood of a town, but it is not placed adjacent to other neighborhoods of that town and does not count as one. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:28, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

So then why do hamlets have such high upper population limits? They don't need to be dependent on towns, and I think it would be better that they weren't and were autonomous, just like towns and cities are. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:15, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think you understand. Population limits were, previous to this act, not decisive in whether it's a hamlet or town. I personally believe that's a good thing. Politics and demographics should be devided. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)



Abstain


✅ with a 78% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:44, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Awesome, we have a majority. This will stay open for about 24 hours, maybe a bit more or less, in case someone else wants to vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:42, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make an exception for Ferguson Beach Village? It is associated with Adoha, but it is much older, and not a true neighborhood. HORTON11 00:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

So, would that make it a hamlet? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:54, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, its a little more than 500 people. Could we not just make it a village affiliated to Adoha. HORTON11 00:59, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I recommend you make it a neighborhood. There are several places with the word "village" in them which are actually just city subdivisions. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:14, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Pro

 * —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:30, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * , unless someone can bring up a contradiction with existing legislation? 07:56, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of mayors in towns and Cities. But we should probaly fix the Hamlet population thing. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:33, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Contra

 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC) There's one major problem: a.t.m. all hamlets have more than 200 inhabitants... Also, I don't see this as an improvement. What has actually been made better? In my opinion I only see that useful passages have been taken out. I'd also propose to leave out the mayor section. Mayors and chairmen have prooved to be useless in the past. All executive and legislative power is either at congress or at the governor.
 * Good idea, although not so sure on the mayors. I think cities should require 4k people, which I believe newhaven and noble city meet. I'll change this and clear the votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Owtb made an excellent point. Also, it would be better to rewrite the original legislation piece if you want to change this. 08:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Motion to Conduct a Census
The census will occur on Saturday, 7 May 2011. It will be in accordance with the new Settlement Act. I request that if you are available that day that you help take the census. I will be using the citizen page and using the residences specified to check. (William Krosby)

Pro

 * 1)  —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Nathaniel Scribner 02:06, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)   HORTON11  02:36, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Finally this project is getting somewhere. Good work guys!  06:12, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ Already a 2/3 majority, and I don't think anyone is going to vote contra. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:55, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Add your citizens to the citizen page if you haven't already. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Would there also be a population count (of al built-up areas)? HORTON11 02:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a problem since I don't want to count people two or three different times. So add your citizen to the citizen page if you haven't. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

What about residents? HORTON11 13:23, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

They would probably count as citizens unless Lovia isn't their main residence. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Lovian Dollar
Official vote for the creation of a Lovian dollar. It will be valued at 90 US cents,and subdivided into dimes and cents. HORTON11 21:36, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Pro

 * 1) HORTON11 22:00, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:53, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:23, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:36, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:32, May 6, 2011 (UTC) I like the entire idea, I only find that the designs are not really a unit. Especially the five dollar, which has a way more archaic look than the others with those lines.
 * The designs are not yet official. They are just proposals HORTON11  14:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to decide on that later, nothing'll block my support :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:36, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check the Lovian Dollar page, you will see my latest proposals which are more consistent in style. HORTON11  18:17, May 6, 2011 (UTC)