Forum:First Chamber

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

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

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

016. Official note
To all Lovian citizens: you may nominate yourself as a candidate for the position of one of three Supreme Court Judges. No party may submit more than one candidate, so discuss amongst yourselves. I also advise (but not order) you not to use your main characters. --Semyon 19:46, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Also: if you plan to bring a case to court then please don't nominate yourself, because legally there's a conflict of interest and you will have to step down, and there'll be new elections and it'll all be rather annoying. :P --Semyon 19:51, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

You could ask someone else OOCly to do it for you, as long as you remained neutral. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:19, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I think people will prefer to do it themselves. --Semyon 08:12, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think I will nominate Lars Washington. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:57, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominate Rico Wasabi. A little known fact about Mr. Wasabi is that he has a short-lived career as a judge in North-Korea during the late 1990s. The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:22, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasabi, Washington and An (Bill) are good judges. An is also the head of the supreme court in Brunant. Wabba The I 14:39, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * But Bill An was not a good judge and is very temperamental and corrupt. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:29, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a pretty diverse team of judges now - the expierence of Washington, Wasabi as a link to the asian community. Now all we need is a woman. How about... Martha Van Ghent? The glorious First Consul of Rome 10:19, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what we need is a leftist. Though, I suppose Martha works out as a leftist. Another option would be Alyssa. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:55, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * So we will have Washington, Wasabi, Alyssa\Martha, and ...? The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:30, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: after at least three candidates have been nominated, we vote for them, and the three with the highest number of votes become judges. Alyssa/Martha need an active user to control them - Horton perhaps? --Semyon 12:41, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I would nominate someone but I think I'm going to be doing a lot of law enforcement so I won't so there's no corruption in the system! :L Kunarian 14:48, April 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I support for Lars Washington, Alyssa C. Red, Martha Van Ghent, Rico Wasabi and maybe George Matthews? We can also create a judge? Wabba The I 16:58, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate, since no-one seems to take any notice :P - every judge needs to have a user behind it, and it's not helpful to give a list of random names without some sort of indication of which users control them. So far, I understand these are the candidates: I can't (yet) include Van Ghent/Alyssa. Also, I'm kind of hoping Oos will nominate someone. --Semyon 16:52, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Lars Washington (User:TimeMaster)
 * Rico Wasabi (User:The Master's Voice)
 * George Matthews (User:Wabba the I)

We need a leftist. Marcus and Horton should be asked if they will judge. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:05, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I already did. :) --Semyon 17:07, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Am I George Matthews or what? Wabba The I 17:27, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I nominate Antonia Tilly, but under my control. If I get accepted I'll make a detailed page. HORTON11 : •  20:15, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll come with a name soon :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's make this happen asap! We need more judges. The glorious First Consul of Rome 20:52, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'm just going to stick to an Oceana name :P I think John Paul Hrádske will do for now :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:13, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

017. Budget
Anyone want to discuss the budget? Check out Department of Finance/Budget for a start. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:22, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:38, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, no one cares, so I guess I'll have to wake people on their talk pages. . . but I'll put a proposal up to vote on soon enough. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:51, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

018. Local Police
What do you guys think about reinstating Local Police? Would simply un-repealing the Local Police Act be sufficient? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:18, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

No i think you either need to reinstate governors and such and then get local police or nothing at all. There would be confusion if you just did one or the other. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:07, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

We do have governors... The last elections were just a failure due to inactivity. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:26, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully pro the state police, but we do need to reinstate the state law as well then... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:45, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I fully support the idea, of course, this would mean sacrificing some powers on the ministry of defences side to governers but co-operation would work fantastically and be a good way to get things moving in Lovia. Kunarian 11:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we need state law to have state police. We can make the rules here in Congress, and then the Governor can choose how they want to fit those rules with the state police. I'm also opposed to state law because that would be like the President (of the US, for example) writing laws without getting them approved by someone else, like Congress (partially because there is no one else). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

In the US there are State Capitols that pass law and it's all democratic. I would like to see states have more power; perhaps we could just create secondary characters to serve in state legislatures. That way it becomesmore democratic. HORTON11 : •  17:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

States could simply have state elections with their own group of 100 representives, I had an idea once that this would work and you would have a voting system similar to the national elections, your first house would equal three votes in the state it was in, the second house would be two and the third house would be one vote. Then you'd have the state candidate with the most support becoming the governer there, it would make politics even more interesting and would create more activity on a state level. Kunarian 17:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

100 is too much for the state level. Also a much simpler solution would just be to allow governors to enact their own laws, of course in compliance with federal and the constitution. And if they try to pass something violating that, congress should be able to veto such laws or even impeach him. HORTON11 : •  17:48, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

We should not impeach democratically elected officials nor should congress go around vetoing them, the reason they were elected was to give states a more flexible ability in making laws and dealing with their own problems, vetoing and impeaching nulifies most of this. If 100 is too much maybe 50 or even just 25 or a multiple of three, it would be better in my opinion if we found a way to delegate more legistlative power to the states. Kunarian 18:01, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

@TM: the entire idea of the state police is that the state police enforces the local state's laws... Otherwise it would just be a local chapter of the national police (which is exactly what it is now). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:57, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

You can't exactly enforce the official symbols of a state. What exactly would they enforce if we did have state law? I have no problem with them being a chapter of the federal police. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:10, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Read the Oceana State Law, it was much more than that (most of these laws have simply been lost after the State Law was abolished). Especially in Oceana, there were plans to make a real law of it but we didn't have enough time. We were given a choice: states without power or no states at all. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

The entire idea of state legislatures set up that way was my idea, just sayin. But in any case Iove to see the support as it isbrought up here. Marcus/Michael Villanova 09:56, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

No, actually we already had state laws long before you all were here. At the same time that the last states were "inhabited" on the site (Seven and Oceana), Dimitri launched the state law idea. Only two laws ever got contents, but still, it could've been a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it didn't work out because the level of democracy in the creation of the law was way too low. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I don't see is why we can't just have a state police in each state to do everyday things, and no state law. This would be better since we now have ten times the former population, so more officers will be needed and therefore a more branched organization. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:12, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

TM, we already have that: Federal Police. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:43, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

We could change those to local police. Wasn't that added to replace local police anyway? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:53, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

No. Local police should be reserved for when the state laws can be put into effect. This might take a long time (with current activity being low), but for now I want a clear division between the terms "Local Chapter of the Federal Police" and "Local State Police". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:29, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could implement State Law, though I'd prefer that we use a state legislature, like Marcus's idea. I just don't like a governor to be writing laws and enforcing them by themself. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

@Oos - No i knew that just i meant my proposal for renstating state law and adopting the state councils. And i'm also glad the TM is expressing some support for it yay! Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:33, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Serious discussion on this
Another major thing with the states is how much power do we devolve back to the states. I feel like policing, census taking, additional taxing, job and social ventures, and (when we get it) an NHS. So yeah i'd like that more forums for them and alot of discussion and would create activity by making more, what we like, politics. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:51, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Census taking and the NHS should be with the federal government. What do you mean by "job and social ventures"? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:55, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well A) we haven't had a census so to my knowlege we still have a poulation of about 20000 B)NHS should be handeled in part to the states for better and more accurate health care to the citizens and C) meaning would we devolve Social issues to the states and D) allowing states to build public things like bridges and parks. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:43, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

A) We will have a population of 200,000. 20,000 is nothing--less than other microstates. B) How how healthcare become "better" and "more accurate"? I think a standardized national healthcare service would be better. C) Don't really care either way. Seems fine the way it is. D) They already can and do. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:01, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

So yeah no it's 20000, The page Lovia statesd 20000 and we haven't changed the census numbers or created a law to change the formula. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:41, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to have a law on the census. (You have to admit, a government passing a law saying what the population is is rather 1984ish. :P) But I agree that we haven't officially agreed on the changes, judging by the Census Reform forum. --Semyon 14:10, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

019. Novosevensk Airport
I suggest we open it as a local airport which has connections to seven airport. Pierlot McCrooke 18:26, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we don't, as the Seven State Airport is right nearby. Same thing with the Adoha airport. With a population of 220,000, we have more than enough airports. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every airport has to be like the freggin' JFK, right? We could have smaller ones that are basically little more then a single landing strip. The glorious First Consul of Rome 20:38, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. But I think one State Airport for Seven would be quite sufficient, since the islands of the state are hooked to each other with bridges and ferries. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:49, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * @TM - We agreed on that population of 220,000? I don't think so. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * We did. You may not remember, but we talked about updating it and decided on a pure logic system, with around 220,000 citizens. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:58, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * @Timey: Which bridges? Anyway if those bridges exist, they were build without permssion I think Pierlot McCrooke 05:22, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * @TM: Officially, there are no bridges. We can have a ferry system though. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe there is now a bridge connecting Novosevensk and Kinley. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:51, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is no highway there, right? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. Pierlot: Semyon built it, and he's governor of Seven, so it is legal. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:09, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, we need a highway to cross that bridge :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:10, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Isn't the current road alright? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:20, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there are highways that connect towns of alike sizes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:22, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think all those highways are ridiculous thinking back about those plans. Maybe we could make a small airport that only has small flights for the tourists to seven and clymene Pierlot McCrooke 15:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Oos, you are not making sense right now. If the population increases I wouldn't have a problem with a landing strip on each of the seven isles in Seven, though I'd prefer a ferry service, plus a bridge between American Island and Philosopher's Island. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:06, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support a landing strip on each of the seven islands... I just said: we have a bridge, we have a small road: make the road larger. For example Highway 7 connects Hurbanova (3.200), East Hills (400) and Clave Rock (200). Novosevensk (500) and Kinley (1000) are large enough to support a Highway. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:28, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

020. Change misleading names
I suggest we change the name of the first chamber and second chamber to Debating Room and Voting Room because our current names suggest we have a bicameral system while we haven't., Pierlot McCrooke 15:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good enough reason. Besides, we need to preserve Dimi's seals as much as possible, and since there is no seal for Debating and Voting Room, we would no longer have good seals. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:11, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could ask kunarian to make the seals. Or not have seals, why do rooms (that are not parliamentary chamber) have seals? It just doesn't make sense Pierlot McCrooke 17:20, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the misleading part of it. I think in most countries the difference between the Dutch Eerste and Tweede Kamer is actually called "low" and "high" or "parliament" and "senate". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:24, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

021. Resigning from my Post
I'm hereby resigning from my post as Secretary of Labor because i'm too busy with other things and i'm not really suited for the job I think Pierlot McCrooke 15:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no Secretary of Labor. Were you, by chance, referring to the Minister of Labour? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:04, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you resign, Pierlot? Most secretaries aren't active either. Me neither. Also, just out of curiosity: what other things are you busy with? The glorious First Consul of Rome 16:27, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * @Timey I refer to my former position as the Secretary of Labor~. I refuse to use the new terms. What the position is called doesn't matter, I am resigning from it Pierlot McCrooke 17:18, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

022. Bilingual street names in Oceana
I would like to be able to create bilingual street signs in Oceana. As I doubt the governor has enough power to do this, I ask your permission for this. Eventually, I would like to build up to a situation in which Oceana can survive and can be seen. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:44, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * For an example of bilingual street signs in the Netherlands (Limburg), see these in Maastricht. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:46, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. Honestly I think this is something a governor should be able to do, but still you have my support. To all those against, I did the same in Brezonde and it's not a big problem to implement (though I haven't yet designed street signs. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:52, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

You have my total support for this :D maybe we could take it further assuring that governors have the right to control naming within their states Kunarian 19:28, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:14, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

@Kunarian: I think the role of the governor is a bit vague atm. Article five of the constitution does give something: The naming, organizing and maintaining of urban parks, public places, streets, markets, roads (with the exclusion of highways), waterways, natural areas and environmentally significant places that are not protected by the federal government, culturally significant monuments that are not protected by the federal government. But it does not say that bilingual naming is allowed (so making both the English name as well as the Oceana name official). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:29, April 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that its perfectly allowed according to that. However yes, the role of governer is vague and I think in need of reform into something, well, a little more clearer at least and hopefully something that can be more active in the general politics of it all. - Kunarian 193.200.145.154 14:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Well it says you can name and organize the streets, so you could do it in any language you wanted. Granted it is best to do it in a language the majority of citizens speak, but as Oceana is culturally/historically significant and widely spoken it should not be a problem. HORTON11 : •  14:24, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

023. Honours Act
--Semyon 11:14, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This Act makes provision for the creation of two bodies, recognized by the Lovian Government and sponsored by the monarch.
 * 2) The Order of the White Pine.
 * 3) The Royal Academy for the Sciences and Humanities.
 * 4) The Order of the White Pine (OWP) consists of Lovians who have rendered service to the nation, either by bravery, work or other means, and is headed by the Grand Master of the Order, who is appointed by the monarch.
 * 5) The OWP may be awarded to no more than 20 individuals every year.
 * 6) Any inhabitant of Lovia may nominate an individual for the award.
 * 7) The decision as to which individuals will receive the award will be made by Congress, and confirmed by the monarch.
 * 8) The insignia will be awarded by the monarch and Prime Minister on the 21st of June every year, at the Royal Palace.
 * 9) The insignia of the Order consists of a circular badge struck with the image of a pine tree upon the obverse and the data on the reverse, suspended on a white ribbon.
 * 10) Any member of the Order has the right to use the initials OWP after their name.
 * 11) The Royal Academy for the Sciences and Humanities consists of academics who have made a significant contribution to their field, and is headed by the Rector of Blackburn University.
 * 12) The purpose of the Academy is to fund scientific research and advances, and to create a forum for academic discussion in Lovia.
 * 13) Prospective members must possess a postgraduate academic degree awarded by the Blackburn University.
 * 14) New members are created in the following way:
 * 15) Candidates may be proposed by any member of Congress under the guidance of the Rector of Blackburn Univerity.
 * 16) The members of the the Academy will then vote, on the 1st of June each year, to decide which of the shortlisted candidates to admit.
 * 17) The new members will then be inducted by the Rector.
 * 18) Members of the Academy have the right to use the initials MRA (Member of the Royal Academy) after their name.

I can support this bill, it's time we had such a way to show our long term appreciation for those who contribute more than the ordinary sweat and blood to the nation. Kunarian 11:24, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. What do the members of the Royal Academy do? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I added some clarification. --Semyon 18:02, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm doubting. Consider it a 50% support :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:36, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

024. Inventory of absent laws
Time to get this done I'd say. I think the following laws should preferrably be done by the end of the year (hopefully a bit earlier :P) Anything else, add it to the list I'd say :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:24, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Animal rights (though an "anti-halal slaughter act" will not be supported by CCPL)
 * 2) Traffic rules (so right-of-way is coming from the right, we drive on the right side of the road, maximum speed, mandatory yearly vehicle check-up, license plates, a bicyclist is not allowed on the highway, you know stuff like that :P)
 * 3) Agriculture protection law (what to do in case of crop failure etc)
 * 4) Transferring and adjusting some of the Oceana State Law (which is still not done..): mining act (+new mine workers' act). And perhaps reinstituting the state law differently (such as a set of laws which are to be changed by Congress in consultation with the local governor, pertaining to state symbols and state departments - this would mean an amendment of article five in the Constitution).

I still would like to see the states with assemblies and state law put back in. it certainly gets my vote. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:00, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Mine too, but for now it's not top priority I guess :) If you already have new ideas, you're welcome to post them though :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:59, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Add tax system, a budget, and healthcare laws. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:29, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Tax and budget are primary needs. Kunarian 15:13, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what why don't we pause the discussion of the transport and get the important laws like tax, regulations and protections and healthcare out of the way so we can start to make a way for the other laws. We also need basic laws against assualt don't we? Kunarian 15:13, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case our Constitution and Federal Law are no longer sufficient. We need a separate set of criminal law codes for that. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:18, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

No, the Federal Law is sufficient, because it has a criminal law book. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:20, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Ow, but we should consider splitting it up though. But if it's not split up yet, we could leave it as it is for now. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:33, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

What about an economic stimulus plan? The recession must have affected Lovia in some way, and Occupy and Liberation movements are a sign that there are problems. What I woiuld like to see most, though, is a comprehensive public healthcare plan. One we have healthcare, we can focus on welfare, labor, taxes and how to pay for it and other ways of offsetting the costs. HORTON11 : •  17:54, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

When I hear "health care" I always think of all those Americans who prefer the chance of dying from easily treatable diseases which they can't afford to paying a very tiny little bit of insurance money :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:09, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but insurance is messed up here. It's really expensive and insurance companies pull all these tricks on you to contribute as little money as they can. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:04, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Its very easy to actually not be tricked, and most insurance companies (mainly the smaller ones) do not pull tricks at all, however like most situations its a few people who make a big noise that get heard. Kunarian 09:03, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

025 Re-instating State Laws
I've been a bit unactive but can say i feel quite passionate about this. With us reinstating the laws and allowing a small state assembly I feel like we could get back on the right track. It's only one line but afterwards i'd like to set up a law where we devolute powers down to the respective states and write the election laws. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:47, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) With approval of this proposition state laws are reinstated.
 * Only if we get enough users after getting spotlight Pierlot McCrooke 12:48, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * You can count on my support. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:43, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

026. Foreign affairs
In order to boost Lovian participation in international dialogue, I lay before the honourable MOTCs some possibilities.
 * Signing a treaty with the USA, in order to establish closer links, enabling freer trade and simple travel between the two countries. Also the US may agree to be responsible for Lovia's defence, and allowing Lovian citizens to use American embassies.
 * Refounding the UWN, possibly under a different name, to coöperate more with nations such as Brunant or Mäöres with whom Lovia has a strong cultural connection. Inactive wikinations could also take part as associate members.
 * Becoming an associate member of the Nederlandse Taalunie in recognition of the widespread use of Dutch in Lovia and the strong connections that Lovia has with the Netherlands, Belgium and Libertas.
 * Joining the UN.
 * Joining the OAS, NAFTA or the North American Forum.
 * Joining the Commonwealth of Nations (not very likely imo, though it is possible for nations not formerly part of the British Empire to join).

--Semyon 13:16, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, my reaction:
 * Indeed, we should definitely sign a treaty with the USA concerning Lovia's defence. I also see the practical advantage of using America's embassies.
 * !! If you want, I can help you with this one :)
 * Weak . I think there is not enough room in Lovia for Dutch to become an official language. While it is not explicitly necessary for a member of the Dutch Language Uninion to have Dutch as an official language, it currently is the case for all members. I don't really see the need for it. Unlike Belgium (Vlaams), the Netherlands, and Suriname, Lovia does not have its own Dutch linguistic tradition and therefore we don't have anything to gain by becoming a member.
 * UN.
 * I don't know any of these to be honest, so I can't get you a reply until I've read the Wikipedia pages :P
 * Commonwealth? Why? :P
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:36, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully support the first two, especially the UWN thingy. But why join the Taalunie? It would be the same as Lovia joining a Russian language organization or a Lusophone one. To 4 and 5: pro, but I see no need for the Commonwealth. Lovia was never a colony, much less British. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:50, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong - Lovia should not join any of these. Trade with the USA is fine with me, but Lovia should handle it's own defense and not be dependent on such a treacherous ally for it's safety. Other then that... re-creating\joining the UWN is fine with me. No to the Taalunie and as for the commonwealth: our only head of state is King Dimitri. No Elizabeth, pretty boat-parades or not. The glorious First Consul of Rome 20:28, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I would love the commonwealth. but i'm an anglophile so A bit bias I might say. to UN Contra or just unsure about the rest. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:04, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

I started a new forum here. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:29, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

027. Changing the Marriage Act?
I was just reading through the Lovian law and the Marriage Act is really odd... Link:.

I find the "two parties" construction very ambiguous. Can a native speaker tell me whether this law makes it possible for a man to marry legally with f.e. two women? If it's ambiguous, we should replace "two parties" with "two people" (preferably "a man and woman", but I fear that ain't gonna survive the voting :P) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:20, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact that a definition of 'party' is not given makes the bill flawed. --Semyon 16:07, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, suppose we had someone trying to get a pebble and a grain of salt married. I did think there was something related to monogamy in the law, though. I'd support the change. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:05, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but I don't know a pebble would be able to fulfil the condition to 'voluntarily agree to take up certain rights and duties' and 'to offer each other respect, affection and consolation.' ;) I also see some spelling/grammar errors in this bill. --Semyon 05:41, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahahah, well it was proposed by Yuri, so that explains it I guess :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:32, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could also leave out line 2.1: Both parties are at least 18 years old or have permission of the parents and a legal advisor ? Why should we allow people under 18 to marry? It makes no sense.

The only thing indicating that there should be two "partners" can be deducted from line 4.3:  Both partners agree upon the termination and inform the governor of this. Not very clearly stated and actually in the divorce section... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:35, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

In Britain you can marry if you are over sixteen and have parents' permission. But I agree, they should have to wait. I'm just reading some divorce stats and apparently in America 59% of women who marry before their eighteenth birthday divorce within 15 years, compared with 36% of the average population. --Semyon 09:08, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find 36% disturbing enough... But well, Britain's law is probably because of the travellers :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:13, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but the point is that 59% is a lot worse. ;) Don't know about the travellers. --Semyon 13:46, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true :P Well, gypsies are still quite common in Britain and they tend to marry relatively early :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:05, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

028. Decalogue
We could take over the Mäöreser Dikkeloeag in a more secular form. While in essence based on the Ten Commendments, it generally regulates murders, theft, and false witnesses in court etc. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:42, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

029. Abortion Regulation Act
This piece was stranded some time ago. I decided to give a new version as it's better to have murder regulated than leaving it up to everybody to go killing 'round. Changes are indicated with strikes and bolded text.

(Social Law Book, Federal Law)
 * 1) Abortus Provocatus, defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
 * 2) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 3) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
 * 4) Executed no sooner than seven days two weeks after the first consultation.
 * 5) Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy.
 * 6) The mother has been impregnated against her will.
 * 7) Abortus Provocatus after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
 * 8) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 9) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
 * 10) Executed no sooner than three seven days after the first consultation.
 * 11) The physical health of the mother is considered to be severely at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated.
 * 12) The fetus is considered to be inviable or has already deceased in the uterus.
 * 13) Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
 * 14) To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
 * 15) To bring several other facilities for unwanted undesired children to the patient's mind.
 * 16) To ensure themselves of the patient's full will to carry out the abortion.
 * 17) If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences may follow:
 * 18) The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
 * 19) The executing physician will be fined $10,000 plus the cost of the operation prosecuted with murder charges and held responsible for the costs of the operation.
 * 20) The mother will be fined $10,000.

Changes:
 * Prolonging the legal time of thought to two weeks.
 * Adding the "rape section".
 * Adding the "dead kid scenario".
 * Higher fine for the executing physician to ban out all illegally carried out abortions.
 * Some wording.

This is as progressive as I find acceptable. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:07, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

i'll say pro.Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:40, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear definition in section 2 of when that time period ends. After a certain period women and doctors can know if they are pregnant. Perhaps a child after 5 or 6 months could be deemed too developed to allow an abortion. This would allow sufficient time for an earlier abortion. HORTON11 : •  13:25, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, should we take the risk that both the mother and the child die during birth? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:31, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Horton does have a point though. The mother will have to give birth to the child, even if it's dead (gruesome I know) so the risk to her health is still there. In some cases, the child might as well remain alive. --Semyon 13:44, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

(edc) I see we're adopting the Breyev standard of additions and removals. :P On a more serious note: I'm a bit dubious about 'the physical health of the mother is considered to be severely at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated.' The problem is that giving birth is inherently risky, so a doctor could potentially argue that by carrying out an abortion he was removing a serious risk to the mother's health. I propose we change it to 'when the risk to the mother's physical health is estimated to be at least one hundred times greater than the usual risk of childbirth.' There's an identical loophole in British law, btw.

Also: when laws contain a list of circumstances when a procedure can occur, I'm never sure if it means all of the circumstances have to occur, or just one. Could we maybe clarify this? --Semyon 13:44, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a good system :P The 100-risk is a good one. No, it is per line in the Lovian law, so if it said The physical health of the mother is considered to be severely at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated. The fetus is considered to be inviable or has already deceased in the uterus. then both would apply. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:08, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think abortion is murder, so I'm not sure I could support the new line that says the executing physician will be charged with murder. Also, 100 times-risk seems a bit too high. I'd support 10 times. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:16, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

If you consider that maternal mortality rate in the US is 16 in every 100,000, then 100 times the risk is 1.6% - still rather small, even though this only accounts for death and not just injury. --Semyon 18:12, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I see. So if the risk of dying due to giving birth to a baby is 1.6% or greater, you would be able to get an abortion? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:05, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

@murder: It would definitely stop illegal abortions and that's what we want. @1.6%: yes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:09, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems agreeable enough. This has the LDP's support. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:30, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Second version after discussions
(Social Law Book, Federal Law)
 * 1) Abortus Provocatus (referred to hereafter as abortion), defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
 * 2) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 3) Positive advice Permission has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
 * 4) Executed no sooner than two weeks after the first consultation.
 * 5) Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy, except in circumstances considered in section 2.
 * 6) The mother has been impregnated against her will.
 * 7) Or the risk to the physical health of the mother is considered to be one hundred times greater than the average risk of childbirth.
 * 8) Or the fetus is considered to be inviable before the twenty-fifth week of the pregnancy.
 * 9) In every case, the mother has to give her approval to carry out the abortion.
 * 10) Abortion after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
 * 11) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 12) Positive advice Permission has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
 * 13) Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
 * 14) The risk to the physical health of the mother is considered to be severely seventy times greater at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated than the usual risk of childbirth.
 * 15) Or the fetus is considered to be inviable or has already deceased in the uterus before the twenty-fifth week of the pregnancy.
 * 16) In every case, the mother has to give her approval to carry out the abortion.
 * 17) Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
 * 18) To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
 * 19) To remind the parent of bring several other possibilities facilities for undesired children. to the patient's mind.
 * 20) To ensure themselves of the patient's full will desire to carry out the abortion.
 * 21) If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences may follow:
 * 22) The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
 * 23) The executing physician will be liable to prosecution for murder prosecuted with murder charges and held responsible for the costs of the operation.
 * 24) The mother will be fined $10,000.

Changes: --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:08, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Making clear that it's an "or situation".
 * Leaving out the deceased part (Ceasarian section or normal birth).
 * Making a fixed term for abortion of inviable life.

I still see a slight problem - it seems that in the case of the health risk the mother has to wait until after the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, because only women who have been raped can have an abortion before. --Semyon 10:41, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Better? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:04, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, better. I made some other (mostly grammar) changes as well. --Semyon 11:21, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:28, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that the risk to the mother would have to be one-hundred times greater is saying that the mother would definitely die in giving childbirth. I think that this percent should be lowered to at-least seventy percent, so that there is less of a chance that this abortion law will be responsible for deaths during childbirth. For the sake of freedom of decision, and more importantly, to avoid having the government forced to take responsibility for such deaths, I'd say that this line (1.6.) should be revised to say something like "If there is any risk to the mother, and she wishes to carry out this abortion." This way, you are giving the mother the freedom to decide wether she really wants to carry out an abortion, but only if it puts her life in direct danger. This seems not only to be a more friendly approach, but a potentially life-saving tweak. — Beer.png Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 14:15, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can live with that. I changed it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:04, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for compromising with me, but the more that I think about it, It only seems permissible to me that if their is any risk to the mothers health, that she should have the right to request an abortion. For instance, if a woman becoming pregnant with good intentions turns out putting her life on the line by holding offspring, her survival shouldn't be left to chance. In other worlds, as long as it is for a good reason, abortion should be offered as an alternative to possible death. I think that this is a compromise that liberals and conservatives can agree upon, and you will have my vote. — Beer.png Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 12:51, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. We already discussed that unless we quantify the risk in some way, we essentially give abortion a free rein, because all childbirth entails some risk (0.0016% in the USA to be precise). Also, I think you may have misunderstood the 'hundred times' thing: the risk is not 100 times greater than 1.6%, which is 160% (nonsensical, as you point out) but 100 times greater than 0.0016%, which is 1.6%. This is both progressive, in that it allows women to have an abortion for even small risks to their health, and conservative, in that only one-hundredth of potential abortions will be legalised on health grounds. --Semyon 13:17, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * You lost me. If the problem is that there is always a risk, then why don't you make it where the mother has the right to request an abortion if there is any added risk that the doctor finds? — Beer.png Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 03:50, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's also an option, but personally I prefer a stricter regulation. --Semyon 17:54, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah... but people could die because you feel like being a totalitarian. — Beer.png Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 14:51, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * No offence, but you need to look up a definition of totalitarianism. Also, isn't the child's life important? and isn't a 1.6% risk threshold actually rather generous? --Semyon 20:34, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

030. Rural districts
Our censuses now include rural districts in a few states. Should we mention the rural districts in our laws? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:28, July 16, 2012 (UTC)