Forum:Second Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The Second Chamber is one of the two chambers of the Lovian Congress, the federal legislative branch. Unlike in other nations, the lower chamber serves as a room for debating and compromising, and the higher chamber is where Members of the Congress vote bills that have passed through the First Chamber.

All inhabitants are allowed entry to the Congress, though only Members of the Congress have the right to actively participate and vote.

First version (not for vote)
The following changes are to be applied to the corresponding articles:

''8.3.3. Every citizen has three votes: a major vote, a minor vote and one favor vote. These are worth one, two and three points respectively. Voting for less then three candidates is allowed but it is not possible to cast multiple votes for one candidate.''

''8.3.4. The candidates with the most points, and at least six, will become Members of the Congress. But there is a limit of Members of the Congress. This number is decided by the previous Prime Minister, and should always be between 5 and 30. When several candidates have the same amount of points, priority is given to votes of the higher rank.''

''8.3.5. The candidate with the most points will become Prime Minister. When several candidates have the same amount of points, priority is given to votes of the higher rank.''

More information can be found here or you can address me directly on my talk page. Also note that if this proposal gets accepted before May 17 it is to be applied in the mid-term elections. 14:05, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actual version (this is the one we're voting about)
8.1.3. Federal (non-mid-term) elections procedure:
 * 1) During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
 * 2) During a period of twenty-five to thirty-one days, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
 * 3) The period during which citizens may vote is decided by the Prime Minister in office.
 * 4) Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
 * 5) Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or some of them.
 * 6) Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
 * 7) All candidates who received votes worth at least six points, will become Members of the Congress, unless the number of elected candidates is larger than the membership limit, decided by the Prime Minister in office at the moment of the elections. The membership limit must always be between five and thirty and is decided one month prior to Inauguration Day. In this case, the candidates with the highest number of points are elected to Congress. In the case of an ex aequo, priority is given to the candidate with the most Major Votes.
 * 8) The candidate who received votes worth the most points, will become Member of the Congress and Prime Minister. In the case of an ex aequo, priority is given to the candidate with the most Major Votes.

8.1.4. Mid-term elections may be organized if proposed in Congress and approved by a Congressial majority.
 * 1) The procedure is equal to that of the normal federal elections; with only these differences:
 * 2) The candidacy period as well as the voting period are chosen by the Congress.
 * 3) The membership limit for candidates to join the existing Congress is between no less than five and no more than ten.
 * 4) Members of the Congress remain in Congress and do not have to participate in the Mid-term elections. All elected candidates join Congress.

Voting
A special majority required. 15:32, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1)   14:07, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   15:32, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)   09:41, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  what is a special majority? Harold Freeman 15:15, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a majority of more than 75% of Congress is required to amend the Constitution. -- 06:11, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- 06:11, May 10, 2010 (UTC) (Though I am a bit skeptical about this new thing, I found some good features in it too. Let's hope it does what good voting systems should do: give the people a way to elect their favorites in a proper fashion.)
 * 2)  Think this might change in a good direction  17:59, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Boosting the country ! --Lars Washington 15:10, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  I've created this proposal, so it's a logical vote, I guess :p Jon Johnson 09:08, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Martha Van Ghent 13:15, June 26, 2010 (UTC) (Walden supports this bill)
 * 6)  I;ve changed my mind! Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Percival E. Galahad 18:52, June 27, 2010 (UTC) - Our chairman supports the bill, and so does Mr Washington.
 * 8)  SjorskingmaWikistad 10:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC) They use this in Australia, and it works fine there. SjorskingmaWikistad 10:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:43, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Bucurestean 20:51, May 11, 2010 (UTC) (However I see many improvements, I think that there must be a better alternative than the proposed "point system")
 * As there is...? 05:55, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION

 * 1)  It seems a bit to complitcated but it is good... and a little bad i'll be absent for now but i might change. Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 23:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

✅ with an overwhelming majority - which was needed. @Dimitri: I'll incorporate it in the Constitution soon, so you don't have to bother. 06:46, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

New composition of government
This will be the first time Congress has to vote on the compositional changes in government. Here's the final proposal we will be voting for: 12:19, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Culture, Heritage and Education : Oos Wes Ilava (no changes)
 * Industry, Agriculture and Trade : Jon Johnson
 * Energy and Environment : Andy McCandless (no changes)
 * Tourism and Leisure : Marcus Villanova
 * Transportation : Christina Kay Evans
 * Foreign Affairs : Alexandru Latin
 * Finance : Percival E. Galahad
 * Welfare : Martha Van Ghent
 * Justice : Alyssa C. Red (no changes)

Voting
A normal majority (+50%) is required. 12:19, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1)   12:19, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)    12:22, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Christina Evans 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:16, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Jon Johnson 18:22, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 21:37, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)   07:40, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Martha Van Ghent 11:09, June 10, 2010 (UTC) (thanks for giving me this opportunity!)
 * 9)  -- 17:23, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  Percival E. Galahad 18:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)   12:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  SjorskingmaWikistad 10:50, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION


✅ Feel free to keep voting. 05:39, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Census Law
So would anyone like to make this better? If so edit it then edit it in the first chamber, otherwise i'll start voting it in a day or two. Marcus Villanova 22:01, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) A census shall take place twice every year, once in July and one in December
 * 2) A person should be counted as many times as he or she has houses
 * 3) A person shall be counted by the Determination of population as already used in censuses before.
 * 4) The Prime Minister shall appoint a person to count all the persons in Lovia
 * 5) To make things clear the Prime Minister shall give the census taker an offical list of all Towns, Neighborhoods, and Hamlets.
 * 6) After all of this takes place the offical numbers will be put out.
 * I think we could make the process, and the way it's written in the law, more efficient. Think of things like this: "After all of this takes place the offical numbers will be put out." We could rephrase that, right? Martha Van Ghent 11:10, June 10, 2010 (UTC)\
 * True like I said please edit it in the first chamber then. Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:38, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try soon! Nice work already Marcus!  06:33, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also to anyone else who wants to make a change to the bill DO IT NOW!!! Please this must be done quickly! Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:15, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Voting
Since no one has re-wrote the law lets put it to a vote. Marcus Villanova 19:24, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really support this proposal but I would like to give the re-writers a little more time. This period is after all filled to the brim with pages of lesson material for most of us. 07:13, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. But i'm a quick person quickly quickly quickly! The re-writes have 5 Days left! Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 23:16, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1)  Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 19:24, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Censuses are useful and they don't hurt anybody. I don't see why a census-law needs to be complicated? Just work out a rule (like 1 user in population = X citizens in the count) and count.  07:11, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * The census law needs no complication, it just needs perfection. I'm not voting an bill with clear flaws into law. 07:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another question: is a law needed? Why not just vote for a procedure? 07:43, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * because we always do that? 12:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Our law system is poorly organized; we only have laws divided over a few levels. No commissions for investigation, deliberation or the enactment of procedures. That isn't really needed since I too would like to keep things simple, but then we need to loosen it up a bit. I don't like rigid formulas if the system doesn't provide enough possibilities. 08:12, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  -- 08:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No principal opposition to this bill, but there are numerous spelling errors and grammatical faults. This should have been worked out in the First Chamber. -- 08:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION
Okay it seems like everyone is going to be a prick on this one be all "High Class" about writing. So please Shut Up and re-write then to your liking or please shut up and stop voting! Marcus Villanova 20:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Needs some rewording. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:11, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then Re-word it to make it seem better... it seems everyone likes it but make it fancier. Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't, cause my English is not good enough. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:32, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, OWTB, (The only person that cares) can't do it! lol.Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:34, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, Marcus, I'm willing to help you out a bit. But currently, I'm a bit overloaded with nonsensical forms of amusement and re-braining (read: reading). 09:41, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Must agree with Ooswesthoesbest. Martha Van Ghent 13:14, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Percival E. Galahad 18:55, June 27, 2010 (UTC) - OWTB is right indeed.
 * 3) Since wars were started because people misunderstood each other, I -speaking for the whole NLS- refrain from voting for this poorly written bill. SjorskingmaWikistad 10:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Okay so i messed up on this one i'll be making a new one with help from seymon=]! Marcus Villanova 13:17, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Green Energy Act
Lovians need a guarantee that the energy they buy is green. that is why I as Energy Secretary am proposing this bill to be added to the FedLaw. (Andy)

Bill
Green Energy Act
 * 1) The terms "sustainable energy" and "green energy" cover the provision of energy from sources that are not expected to be depleted in a time frame relevant to our Earth's inhabitants and that do not produce radioactive waste.
 * 2) Within the Kingdom of Lovia, all energy produced, imported and/or exported must be fully sustainable by 2012.
 * 3) The Lovian government reserves the right to sanction corporations that distribute unsustainable energy.

PRO

 * 1)  Martha Van Ghent 13:12, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'll change my mind for the better Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Percival E. Galahad 18:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC) - As a modern liberal, I think we must support the protection of our environment to guarantee our rights and freedoms in the future.
 * 4)  Christina Evans 03:57, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   07:08, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)    07:13, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)   12:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  -- 08:04, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Jon Johnson 08:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  even commies like green energy SjorskingmaWikistad 10:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The good ones that is ;-) 11:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:17, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  If were gonna be green make it a better bill! Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 19:38, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like? Fully sustainable by 2011? 07:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you some time later. Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Please vote carefully people. At the moment green energy supplies are at a low price because there always is a back-up. This law litterally outlaws this back-up and makes it only possible to reach this goals using - in my opinion - wrong media like put options (this is actually how the 9/11-attacks were financed). Therefore I believe that we should still allow "non-sustainable" energy, but should give it an extra high price. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Na, the Lovian energy market is closed off. There are only two producers/suppliers - which is already more than sufficient - who produce 100% sustainable energy and have low prices. No foreign company ever believes there is money to be made here... 07:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * How can that sustainable energy be at such a low price if a may ask you? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * You may, and I shall even formulate a reply. Because the producers are not big international corporations that have many competition. You see, low competition means that the producers have more power over the price. Usually the companies keep it high for their own benefit. We on the other hand have honest company leaders that ask a fair price.  15:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this ain't protected by this bill. Actually it makes sense to make the price as high as possible, 'cause if everyone has green energy (even if they don't wish to!) this means every cent you increase of the price is a huge amount of money you get back. There is not a single company, not even "honest ones" (do they exist?), that won't take this benefit. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:57, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your both correct tha's why i voted contra then Pro! Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

✅ by a majority of the Congress. 06:47, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol consumption

 * Article 12 - Alcohol and Narcotics Consumption Regulations Act
 * The term "alcoholic beverage" covers every drink that contains ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect. A high blood alcohol reduces attention and slows reaction speed. Alcoholic beverages can be addictive.
 * The term "narcotics" covers every substance that alters body functions. Narcotics can be addictive.
 * Alcoholic beverages shall not be sold to persons who have not yet reached the age of 16 years.
 * Both the buyer and the person selling the alcoholic beverage to a person who has not yet reached the age of 16 years are considered to be violating the Federal Law.
 * Narcotics shall not be sold to any person*## Both the buyer and the person selling the narcotics are considered to be violating the Federal Law.
 * Spirits (unsweetened, distilled, alcoholic beverages that have an alcohol content of at least 20% ABV) shall not be sold to persons who have not yet reached the age of 18 years.
 * Both the buyer and the person selling the alcoholic beverage to a minor are considered to be violating the Federal Law.
 * The use of alcoholic beverages and narcotics is forbidden by the Alcohol and Narcotics Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress:
 * In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet.
 * By employees in all educational institutions during class hours, unless the purpose of a particular course is to educate about alcoholic beverages or narcotics.
 * The use of alcoholic beverages and narcotics in this case is restricted to the absolute minimum. Courses will be dismissed by the Royal Educational Aims Council when this law is violated twice.
 * Persons receiving education should be prohibited from consuming alcohol or using narcotics in the surroundings and inside educational institutes by employees of the latter one.
 * By any person whose professional occupation it is to transport other people. No alcoholic beverages or narcotics shall be consumed during the period starting two three hours before the job officially commences, and until the moment the job officially ends.
 * This includes people working on ferries and aeroplanes as well.
 * By any person whose professional occupation it is to safeguard other people's security. No alcoholic beverages or narcotics shall be consumed during the period starting two hours before the job officially commences, and until the moment the job officially ends.
 * By any person during job hours.
 * By any person doing voluntary work
 * Every Lovian person, company, or organization who owns or manages a building, room, or public place has the right to prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages within that space, supported by Local Police authorities in case of disobedience.
 * A high blood alcohol content is referred to as drunkenness.
 * Each person operating a vehicle while under the influece of alcohol violates the Federal Law.
 * When a driver's blood alcohol concentration is measured to be 0.05% or more at the moment of control and within half an hour of the moment when this person was halted by police authorities, this person is considered to have driven under the influence of alcohol, and has thus violated the Federal Law.
 * A person transporting other people as a professional occupation may not have a blood alcohol concentration of higher than 0.01% during job hours.
 * Public drunkenness is prohibited by the Federal Law.
 * Each person in a public space whose behavior is uncommon and who does not seem to be able to think clearly and act accordingly and whose blood alcoholic concentration is measured to be 0.08% or more, is considered to be under the influence of alcohol, and can be arrested by police authorities.
 * No measures in the form of a financial penalty should be taken against persons accused of being in the state of drunkenness, as the crime itself is malum prohibitum.

Additions are in red. SjorskingmaWikistad 11:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1) SjorskingmaWikistad 13:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  expanding this law was a great idea - please note that when this gets through you are still allowed to groom some pot and smoke it at home.  05:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1)  --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:59, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (alcohol is a perfect way to help people when they can't perform well for a public, so a presentation. Limited use of it therefore should be allowed at schools)
 * If you have fear to appear before a public I seriously doubt if the classroom is a fit location for you. Besides, such fear is an irrational feeling that should be handled psychologically instead of through the use of alcohol. If you had asked an exception for stand-up comedians I could have followed but the classroom is way too important. 06:50, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you fear presentations you should simply quit school? Well that makes sense.. Skip classes because the law says so :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:42, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Separate article needed, I think. This should get back to the First Chamber. Martha Van Ghent 09:08, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTAIN

 * 1)  due to neutralityJon Johnson 14:56, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  too much regulation Harold Freeman 15:28, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  the rather cold reactions of my fellow MOTC made me doubt my original eagerness.  09:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

COMMENTS
...

Customs bill

 * Article 13 - Customs Act
 * To ensure the border control of Lovian borders the Lovian Border Control is erected under the Federal Police Act, supported by Congress and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
 * The Lovian Border Control is charged with the following duties:
 * Safety matters transgressing state borders together with the Federal Police.
 * Controll matters transgressing state borders together with the Federal Police.
 * The Lovian Border Control is therefore appointed to check passports of any person entering or leaving the country.
 * The Lovian Border Control is therefore appointed to keep track of any person entering or leaving the country.
 * The Lovian Border Control has delegations in all states and is always prepared to help local authorities.
 * The Lovian Border Control is headed by the Federal Head of Border Control, appointed by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

SjorskingmaWikistad 22:05, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1) SjorskingmaWikistad 13:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:00, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (though no direct need)
 * , since it helps us become a more realistic country. 06:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jon Johnson 14:54, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Harold Freeman 15:29, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Christina Evans 12:03, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:38, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1)  As a Waldener, I stand for simplicity in the law. This is making things LESS SIMPLE. We already have a federally organized police authority! Martha Van Ghent 09:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Guys, we have a federal police. I am at the very moment re-writing that law as part of the huge state reform. With little effort, we could incorporate border control, passport checks... into that law. The Federal Police could easily do that. Please reconsider your votes MOTCs. Signing this bill into law only complicates our police system.  06:30, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

COMMENTS
...

Copyright bill

 * Article 14 - Copyright Act
 * Copyright and copyright works
 * Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this act in the following descriptions of work
 * original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
 * sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes, and
 * the typographical arrangement of published editions.
 * In this act “copyright work” means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists.
 * Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this act, with respect to qualification for copyright protection, are met
 * Rights subsisting in copyright works
 * The owner of the copyright in a work of any description has the exclusive right to do the acts specified below as the acts restricted by the copyright in a work of that description.
 * The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this act, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the Lovia
 * to copy the work
 * to issue copies of the work to the public
 * to perform, show or play the work in public
 * to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service
 * to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (Under discussion)

SjorskingmaWikistad 22:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC) - This bill is purely fictional, and isn't of any importance for the wiki users SjorskingmaWikistad 13:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

PRO

 * 1) SjorskingmaWikistad 13:52, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:03, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (copyright is the biggest nonsense mankind has every created. In mediaevel times people were very glad if their work was copied or adjusted, because it is a sign that you are doing something good. Copyright is a big attack on creativity and the possibilities of creating something)
 * 2)  I believe this is the first thing OWTB and me fully agree on. Copyright suffocates creativity; new works of art are always inspired on culture as a whole. Try copyleft as an alternative. (i.e. drop the last line)  06:53, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you dropped the last line I'm reconsidering my vote. 14:44, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTAIN

 * 1) without that last line there is not much too it Harold Freeman 15:30, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree.  08:49, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Martha Van Ghent 09:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

COMMENTS
...

Abortion bill
SjorskingmaWikistad 09:11, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Article 15 - Abortion Act
 * Abortion is legal throughout the entire nation of Lovia, on the following grounds.
 * To save the woman's life
 * To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health
 * Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman
 * Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
 * If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped
 * When the situation doesn't meet at least one of this standards, abortion is illegal
 * Abortion can only be performed in a certified hospital
 * An employee of a certified hospital can't refuse to perform abortion when at least one of the grounds stated in paragraphs 1.1-1.5 are met

PRO

 * 1) SjorskingmaWikistad 13:52, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  07:07, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Jon Johnson 13:38, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Harold Freeman 15:31, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 21:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Christina Evans 12:04, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA

 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:06, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (it fully contradicts to the constitution, article 2. If you kill someone using abortion you take a way all the rights which are summed up in article two, so you violate the constitution.)
 * I disagree. The law is believed to generally refer to 'persons' in stead of 'human beings'. Whether or not a fertilized ovum or a fetus is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is a clear legal issue. Corporations for instance are treated as (artificial) persons, because they act on the information provided by their surroundings . 07:06, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Medvedev is totally right. And when you don't remove the baby and as a result the woman dies, you have caused two kills, not one. (I know you are leader of the Christian party ) SjorskingmaWikistad 11:44, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't really say whether there are persons that can rationally think without yourself, so actually then the law is only referring to you.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:45, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now that I understand what you mean? SjorskingmaWikistad 11:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Srry, edit conflict I guess :) Well, actually if the woman dies then she is supposed to die, because God wants her to die. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:15, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you go Descarting on me; the base premises of behaviorism states that outer signs suffice to show that a subject interacts with its surroundings. I don't want to go arguing about the nature of the mind so lets call it a draw. 13:37, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  I am not being conservative; I support abortion rights. This bill however lacks sophistication. Medical issues require medical knowledge and sophistication.  08:50, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Dimitri is totally right here. There are more complex situations that are not even being dealt with. Martha Van Ghent 09:10, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

COMMENTS
Could you ad that no certified hospital or physician can refuse to perform an abortion when the legal conditions are met? 17:47, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this can't be said. What can be put in the law that a hospital can't refuse, but an employee can. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:16, July 4, 2010 (UTC) (though I still believ abortion should not be done!)

Yes what yuri said! Marcus Villanova 21:51, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Census Law (Try number two)
So i messed up on the first one lets forget about that one. This was written by Semyon but since he is not a MOTC i will propose it. Please if you have a problem with it re-edit it in the First Chamber. But while you are voting censuses don't need to be complicated just a simple head count of people! So here's the law!

An Act to make provision for the taking of a census for Lovia and for obtaining statistical information concerning the population of Lovia.

Regulations concerning the appointment of a census taker.
 * 1) A census must take place in the July and December of every year.
 * 2) The Prime Minister must appoint a Census Taker at those times, whose duty it will be to carry out the census.

Regulations concerning the taking of the Census.
 * 1) The Prime Minister must give the Census Taker an official list of all settlements to ensure clarity.


 * 1) The Census Taker must count each residence once and only once. If an inhabitant owns multiple residences, they will be counted multiple times.

Marcus Villanova 13:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The population must be calculated using the system already in place in Lovia.
 * 2) From the data obtained, official figures concerning the population will be calculated and published.

Pro

 * 1) Please we need a census! Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 13:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  though I would like to say that it is better not to throw proposals in here with the kind remark we can discuss in the First Chamber. Commenting/altering should occur before voting.  17:12, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * True. 08:51, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:06, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) SjorskingmaWikistad 07:49, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Christina Evans 12:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1)  Back to the First Chamber with it. July is the worth month to do anything, for instance. Martha Van Ghent 09:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Absent

 * 1) as miss Martha pointed out another time-table would be more appropriate Harold Freeman 09:30, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Jon Johnson 12:28, July 30, 2010 (UTC) We really need a census but as Martha said the month are not the best ones.
 * 3)   06:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Are there any?I think we just need aa good census for lovia that helps everyone! Marcus Villanova 13:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have, did you notice, that you'll have to wait to months to get this through? Everyone is gone... You have time enough to discuss it in the first chamber Jon Johnson 21:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say there is indeed a strange phenomenon lately that I like to call High Speed Proposing. We have a lot of proposals while a lot of MOTC are on holiday trips. I have no doubt everything will turn out just fine in the end though, we just need some patience.  07:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

✅ We have waited long enough. SjorskingmaWikistad 09:35, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Did you speak with Dimi on this one, you've been telling people to buy extra houses and saying bills have been excepted, i don't think you have this power? Marcus Villanova 16:26, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any MOTC can say a bill is approved as long as it actually is. And sorry, but time is of no importance - a bill can only be approved if the result is definitive. Four out of fourteen votes isn't enough. 07:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we start - unofficially - collecting the data anyway? If the law isn't passed by the end of July, we'll have to wait till December. Semyon E. Breyev 14:25, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Make it august and January then... Jon Johnson 14:31, July 16, 2010 (UTC)