Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The First 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 Second 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.

Place Stop Bill
we cannot allow lovia to be destroyed by building addicts. Our nature and environment need protection from these grotesk plans. that's why i am proposing a temporary place stop bill. There are plenty of towns and neighborhoods in lovia that are empty: why build more??

Content
Congress will prohibit the creation of new neighborhoods, hamlets, towns and cities until a full state reform plan has been accepted and introduced; so that the responsible governments can manage building policies themselves.

Congress will put newly created neighborhoods, hamlets, towns and cities on hold until that time. We cannot afford to have many more places: Lovia is already jammed with empty streets. These newly created places are: Bayfield, Hurket-on-Kings, Novosevensk, Orange Gardens, Plains, Portland.

It must be noted that after the reform plan, all of these towns and neighborhoods may be re-submitted, for there are some very nice ones among them.

Talk
comment splease 07:05, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * btw: this is NOT personal. I do like these towns and all that; i just don't think we should build em recklessly. 07:11, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the on-hold option at all; this matter is loose of state reform. What we really need are new state elections so that we have governors who are present and can see to the completion of the new towns/hamlets. Not that I am against the idea of a thorough reform, it is just that it would take longer than organizing state elections which is after all a more direct way to deal with this issue. 07:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * State elections must be reformed themselves, mr. prime minister. First things first: dealing with legal framework is more important than this building frenzy! 07:46, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you know a way to lineup a majority of MOTC behind a proposal that doesn't need revision a hundred times, I prefer to have elections first and reform afterwards. I support more democracy on the lower levels; putting everything 'on hold' until we figure out a solution seems to collide with that view. Portland for instance was build according to all the existing regulations, so why temporarily shut it down? 09:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not shut down my beloved Novosevensk or I shall release my vengeange upon thee! BastardRoyale 15:33, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Er...thanks for the support, BR. Seriously though, I think that it will be difficult to 'shut down' these towns. Novosevensk already has 4 inhabitants, as does Portland, and Plains has two. There are other articles that have been made concerning them as well (e.g. Truth Island Railway), so they are fairly well integrated.


 * I apologise if I didn't discuss enough before building Novosevensk, but I have worked hard on that project and would be disappointed if it was all just thrown down the drain. Semyon E. Breyev 16:15, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy only proposes too freeze the projects until we sorted things out; You wont loose the project but I still deem even a freeze unnecessary. It doesn't help no-one. 08:48, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Talk (2)
We really need to debate on how to further solve this issue. Since the Kings is finalizing his long-expected institutional reform and we can organize state elections afterwards, the only thing we need to do is officialize the newly build towns. I suggest we let Congress decide on the faith of Novosevensk, Plains and Portland and combine this with a temporary stop on the building of new towns (the end of the summer for example, when we have new governors). 09:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. What about this: we do a poll in the first chamber about which of these places can stay. When we have an idea about which places are support by Congress, we could make a sort of bill (not to be added to the law) to pass to the second chamber. Martha Van Ghent 09:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

(there was originally an anonymous wiki-poll here)

Because I distrust anonymous polls (Martha Van Ghent 09:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)) :


 * Novosevensk
 * Martha Van Ghent 09:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 09:24, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon Johnson 16:14, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * These are the final Three towns! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Plains
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * SjorskingmaWikistad 13:46, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Portland
 * Martha Van Ghent 09:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 09:24, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17:19, July 30, 2010 (UTC) (Principally I agree with Andy. This town though is a really nice article.)
 * I hope to keep my project Jon Johnson 16:14, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is still some work to do in Plains but in my opinion it could become a cozy town. Why the harsh attitude? Harold Freeman 09:32, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we're building too much. We must choose, i think. Martha Van Ghent 09:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * i cast my votes. 11:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you don't like any of 'em? Semyon E. Breyev 15:04, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Official note
The First Chamber was filled to the brim with proposals, attempts at proposals and rewritings of proposals. If you had something here which is now moved to the archive, please post your proposal again. I also would like to urge all MOTC to vote in the second chamber - it is getting crowded there too. 14:06, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * well done  15:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you vote too, we must clean it up in here. Order in the room is order in the mind ;-) 16:08, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I know an other one: Active bowl, active mind Jon Johnson 06:13, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how Congress is ought to be: active and structured. (btw shouldn't you be doing your spreadsheet magic?) 07:27, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * A long time ago I have been reading somewhere: "From clean desk to clean screen". If that is of any help to you --Lars Washington 08:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you doing Lars? It's been a long time  08:55, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Economic Involvement Act

 * 1) The federal government of Lovian has the right and power to execute direct economic activities; either
 * 2) In the form of a State-Owned Company (SOC), when having a majority of the shares.
 * 3) An SOC is headed and run by a branch of the involved federal department(s).
 * 4) The goal of an SOC is to provide a certain public service to the people of Lovia.
 * 5) Any company providing a public service can become a SOC, by Congressial rule.
 * 6) When declared a public service by Congress, only the designated SOC may provide this service.
 * 7) In the form of a State-Involved Company (SIC), when having a minority of the shares.
 * 8) An SIC is run privately, but with Congress as a shareholder, represented by the involved federal department(s).
 * 9) An SIC is a means in the execution of the governmental policies.
 * 10) Any company that is of importance to governmental policy may become an SIC.
 * 11) Only the Congress has the right and power to approve or alter the statute of a SOC or SIC, by altering the Economic Involvement Act in the Federal Law.
 * 12) The executing powers are responsible for their own economic decisions.
 * 13) A complete list of all State-Owned and State-Involved Companies and their specifications:
 * 14) The Lovian Energy Company, of which 60% of the stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Energy and Environment;
 * 15) The Lovian Water Company, of which all stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Energy and Environment;
 * 16) The Unified Railroad Company, of which 60% of the stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Transportation.

Notes: (not to be added in the law) 09:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Lovian Energy Company will be a merger of the energy-producing branch of Ecompany and Walkernet
 * The Lovian Water Company yet has to be created since we don't have any company providing the service?!
 * The Unified Railroad Company will be a merger of the Pacific Railroad Company and Newhaven Express/Connect
 * The remaining shares will be divided between the current company owners

The Dimi Thing
May I do my thing? You know: punctuation, wording...? 09:09, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, just make sure you look out for the enjambments.  09:15, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ;) 09:17, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Say? 09:24, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we have a good bill in good a good form, even though I say so myself. 09:27, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Before we go on, we'll have to discuss the remaining shares. Since Ecompany is way bigger than Walkernet, I propose you take 30% of the remaining energy stocks, and Walker Inc gets 10%. With the railways, I'd do 30% Walker, 10% you? 09:30, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * A very fair judgement. 09:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I may hope so . Let's say we keep the bill a week in the first chamber?
 * Someone forgot to sign :-) Harold Freeman 07:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Judgments (to know whether the bill may pass on to the 2nd Chamber)

 * LibDems
 * Liberals are usually not in favor of such proposals but I wont block it because for the companies in question it is rather normal to be state-run. Harold Freeman 07:45, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Harold and Libdems in general - Liberals would support this bill it keeps big compines in line! I Hate to say it and not to get personal but your party isn't liberal anymore, I would say Classic Libertaranism, Socialy Liberal. Econmicly Conservative with a side of small goverment. Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:40, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus: I don't pretend to know much about it, but I think Liberals do NOT want to restrict big businesses (in general). According to Wikipedia: "Economic liberalism... is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics." Semyon E. Breyev 15:22, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Seymon - That page also goes onto say "It opposes government intervention in the free market, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism, socialism,and fascism. IDK but i think somone messed up on that page!Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The neo-liberal wave of the nineties did however cause the privatization of a lot of sectors in Western Europe. It kinda depends on what sort of liberal you are. 16:36, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah i guess. Marcus Villanova[[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Harold is a liberal; he's just a guy that thinks the state should relax for a while and let people do their thing as long as everything goes smooth. Am I right? 16:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's why i hate all LibDem parties... Why is the name LibDem when there always conservative! Like the one in the UK! MarcusVillanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:58, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Liberal-Conservative dichotomy only seems to exist in America (or exists more, anyway. For instance, the British Conservatives aren't conservative). And the British LDs aren't conservative either. Semyon E. Breyev 14:20, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Communists
 * I wrote it and think it is of a marvelous quality; easily passing any standard. (Okay, that was just too silly, but it is a good bill). 09:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great bill, and it's really necessary, It'll bring some simplifications I hope... Jon Johnson 10:14, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Waldeners
 * Although it still needs some time to get used to the idea, it fits in Walden's new manifesto. Also, it's a perfect bill; no mistakes, no holes. Martha Van Ghent 09:16, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * what she said. 11:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Love it is so Anti-Captialism and helps small bis to grow and large bis to be kept in line! Very Good! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:58, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * NLS
 * CCPL
 * It's trash. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:19, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Independents and Member by Right
 * : I support the bill. It's fair, balanced, well-structured. It requires no more edits. It's easy to consult and includes the required clauses. It allows adjustments in the future and new companies to be added. The bill makes the process of state-owned companies democratic and justified, just as it should be. 09:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * : I support the bill. It's fair, balanced, well-structured. It requires no more edits. It's easy to consult and includes the required clauses. It allows adjustments in the future and new companies to be added. The bill makes the process of state-owned companies democratic and justified, just as it should be. 09:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

2010 State Reform Bill
'''This is very important. I need all Members of the Congress to read this bill carefully and to consider everything very well. Therefore, the bill will get its own subpage of the First Chamber.''' 08:27, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Train Village Me or King?
Hi i am the mayor of Train Village if you know, my question is can i combine Nicholasville, Muza and TV together! With that our population would frow and Muza would bring people to the town for entertainment purposes! My question is can i do this, does congress have to vote on this, or does the Govenor/Dimi grant me the power do this? I think the new state reform would let the Govenor do it so what do I do? Marcus Villanova WLP 21:01, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing about towns and governors has been under fire quite heavily the past weeks. I suggest we first vote on the Reform Bill (which should get a majority quite easy I believe) and then follow the new procedure. (Congress votes) The King will probably support me on this one, but for now he is on a (2 or 3-day?) trip to London. A little visit to the queen.  07:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha okay i'm glad to know we're cool with Great Britan, So I see are timeline...
 * Reform
 * Final votes on other bills
 * State Elections
 * and maybe combing the two towns and the no extint Muza!

Marcus Villanova WLP 16:14, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone support this bill...
One of the parts of being on a wiki is wikian ideology! Would anyone support a well written bill that i would produce later that would Make it mandatory for a tri-yearly checkuser of all accounts... This bill would not restrict Admins or Buracrats to do checkusers at any other time of the year but the bill would make sure that we crack down on these pepople. Now I'm not gonna be all like "JESUS WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL" I just wanna now if anyone else would want it! Marcus Villanova WLP 20:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this issue has surfaced before, but without results. I'm pro nor contra for the moment as such checks are regularly performed when suspicion arises. 07:06, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah again i'm alway curious i just wanted to see! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Marriage Definition
Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including without limitation “spouse,” “family,” “marriage,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” “bride,” “groom,” “husband,” “wife,” “widow,” and “widower,” shall be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law. Upon application in a form prescribed by the department, a justice of the peace shall issue to a person a civil marriage license in the form prescribed by the department and shall enter thereon the names of the parties to the proposed marriage, fill out the form as far as practicable and retain in the justices’s office a copy thereof. At least one party to the proposed marriage shall sign the certifying application to the accuracy of the facts so stated. The license shall be issued by the justice of the town where either party resides or, if neither is a resident of the state, by any town justice in the state.

Persons authorized to solemnize a Marriage
Marriages may be solemnized by a justice of the peace, or by a member of the clergy residing in this state and ordained or licensed, or otherwise regularly authorized thereunto by the published laws or discipline of the general conference, convention, or other authority of his or her faith or denomination or by such a clergy person residing in an adjoining state or country, whose parish, church, temple, mosque, or other religious organization lies wholly or in part in this state, or by a member of the clergy residing in some other country, provided he or she has first secured from the probate court of the district within which the marriage is to be solemnized a special authorization, authorizing him or her to certify the marriage if such probate judge determines that the circumstances make the special authorization desirable. Marriage among the Friends or Quakers, the Christadelphian Ecclesia, and the Baha’i Faith or any other reailion that may not reconize it may be solemnized in the manner heretofore used in such societies but is still reconized by the government.

WE NEED THIS PASSED! Marcus Villanova WLP 20:30, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a nice idea, but not exactly a ready-to-vote-and-enact-law. 07:08, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah if anyone wants they should edit it, i'm not so sure the final part about "Reilgion" should be in threre but I thought it was good at the time. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:27, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * what a strange thing.. we don't have all those judges! we only have one, in Lovia. we do need to recognize marriage, but this isn't the way, i fear. 19:38, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as Lovia has almost no mention of religious beliefs in its laws and does not discriminate between the "major religions" and "sects and cults", specific mentionings in the FedLaw are quite odd. 20:15, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure it make it better in a week or so. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 21:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * i've changed it alot, I do think we have justices of the peace right? A pastor or offical that signs a marraige into law? Again this law reconizes Gay Marragie or any kind but does not write it out right there. I guess i won't be getting the support of the CCPL. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 21:58, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I will protest against this bill, please let me explain why: in Lovia two people of the same sex can marry each other - but, we also recognize religious matrimony as 'having legal power'. Last time I checked, religious people don't like gay marriage too much. However, every marriage should have the same status in law. I see two ways to solve this: (1) make the law so that no person who can officialize a marriage can refuse to do so (forcing priests to marry gay couples) or (2) drop the legal status of the religious marriage. 07:37, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * no surprise, walden backs Yuri's plan (2). 07:39, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I was hoping for option number one. It would be fun! 07:48, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * i think we should write our bill from another point of view. we should focus on what marriage means in legal terms (benefits, etc.) rather than focus on the ceremonial thingies. really, legally, a marriage should just be a bond fixed by some civil servant - ceremony is for fun anyways. 07:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * We just need to foresee some options (married; legal housemates; etc.) and a way to achieve them through a civil servant. 07:56, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * that's right. I agree. what about letting governors do this? would be nice =) 07:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Yuri - Fine then re-write it so that it proposes gay marraggie and is to your liking, i'll sure it'll be fine! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:05, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

001. Order in the congress
I'd like to propose a small informal rule for congress to keep things in order. i propose we add a number to the title of each bill. let's say the next proposal in the First Chamber is 001. if the bill goes to the 2nd, we just keep this number. it will be a lot easier for us to archive the chambers then. the bill proposed after 001 is 002 then of course. 08:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would indeed come in handy. Please all just try to use it. Don't worry if you forgot, we wont decapitate you. (Will we already use it for the next C1-to-C2 proposals?)  08:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't we count the past proposals? They have all been archived. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:51, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * there isn't much use in that, is tehre? btw: they're all mixed up and so. would be a huge work. 08:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine idea, Andy! 16:01, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support such an effort to facilitate our Congress . -- 08:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

thereyougo! 08:59, August 7, 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 citizes 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.
 * 12:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:50, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks okay but I don't think it's needed, I do Like to simplfy! So I won't vote contra but I might abstain or vote pro! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just need an occupation once my examinations are over and aiding the poor by writing a page or two sounded like a nice thing. It is in fact a program that consists out of two branches: (1) direct assistance through financial means and guidance, (2) providing knowledge and self-esteem through education. 16:25, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * A board is not actually "constructed" . You mind if I do some dimi things later this eve? 17:13, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. Don't forget that we.put.a.dot!  07:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is my re-write okay? 15:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.  06:52, August 24, 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
 * 12:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

This one looks fine too :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:51, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good Pro! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We could incorporate the natural reserve part in the National Park and Monuments Act... That would be neat. Would that be okay for you Medve? 14:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a map that shows where people can Hunt/Fish? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:36, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * In due time, I think so, yes.
 * @Yuri: consider my suggestion please. 17:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, a map and incorporate in another part. I can do that but not until I've finished my last examination (September 1st). 06:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. 16:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

004. Sports and National Team Act
Marcus Villanova WLP 20:03, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) A player can come under review of the LSCA, Players Union of Lovia or Lovian Congress if...
 * 2) If a player takes an illegal substance that can illegaly improve the player's game as in the follwing:
 * 3) Seroids such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH) or testosorone that isn't needed or was presribed by a medical professional
 * 4) Illegal Drugs that are already inact in the Narcotics Act such as Cocaine, LSD, Marjiuana (Not presrcibed), Opiates (Heroine, codine, morphine), MDMA (Ecstacy), GHB, or Phencyclidine (PCP).
 * 5) If a player commits a crime of some sort.
 * 6) Lovia's national sport is Lovian boules beacuse it's the game the Founding Fathers played.
 * 7) A national team can only be granted by 50% of the Lovian congress.
 * 8) A national team can be funded by the congress or by a private funder.
 * 9) All players are protected by the government and LSCA group Players Union of Lovia.
 * 10) Being apart of the union alows player to be paid only if the are out year removed from Secondary School.
 * 11) The union protects the players from wrongful conduct.
 * 12) No player can go to a sports association unless they are one year removed from Secondary school.
 * 13) Children under the age of 18 can not train over temperatures of 35C. or 95F.
 * 14) Children under the age of 18 can not play over temperatures of 37.8C or 100F.
 * 15) Players can not accept payment or prizes if they are still in college, Secondary School, or in any other youth orginzation.

Comments
I like it! Anyone else? Marcus Villanova WLP 20:06, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's lovely, a bit strange to write a law on this, but nice though Jon Johnson 20:07, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Players in the sence are laborers so they need to be protected, but it also clarifies some things! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:11, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, good bill, we'll see what the others think of it, but i'm confident Jon Johnson 20:18, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Might need a little re-write, perhaps. I propose we leave it here for a week or so to allow the King and others to do a legal check. -- 13:45, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, sounds fine. I'll do a Dimi-legalization soon, if that's fine. 17:01, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! It'll say in here until Saturday! ! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone edit it (Meaning Dimi) Remember it stays here until Saturday! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:41, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ok. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:23, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * i think we ought to be more careful with terms and so. Also, some of these clauses need serious re-writing, i guess.. 13:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
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 performation.
 * 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.

Comments
@Marcus: Is this alright for you? 15:03, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine! It'll stay in the 1st chamber until saturday! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:41, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for being such a good MOTC, Marcus! 17:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is fine indeed. -- 17:47, August 24, 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.

Comments
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)
 * I'm pro. We did need something of this kind, to get rid of towns and hamlets that somebody "just made", but that aren't actually used. 16:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also pro. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * So am I. -- 12:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  12:51, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden say Yea!!! But still maybe Plains should be a Hamlet? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:07, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * It got to little votes and is it worked out a bit? Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  18:06, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yea I still think we should add it! But it's still a ! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:31, August 26, 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)
 * PRO!! You work very hard martha, i like that! Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  09:05, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Martha Van Ghent 09:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support!!! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. Your swift action as an MOTC is appreciated! 13:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my support just as well. -- 14:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * For Martha's current bills all get s! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Got my support.  06:34, September 2, 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)

007. Amendment (Art.2): less legal residences
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)

Comments
Very good. I'd been planning to do this myself too, but you know... forgot about it, I suppose. I suggest you better move it to the 2nd Chamber fast then. 12:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; Martha Van Ghent 13:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be a very good thing. We need to de-establish the hierarchical structures embedded in the law, inherited from our Libertan days. As a matter of fact, we needed this structure to make people want to become a politician. Nowadays in Lovia, we have politicians who want to be politicians for politics' sake. So, we may abandon this artifact. -- 14:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden srtikes again! Again very good martha! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:18, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

008. Census!
Okay State Elections are coming up and we couldn't get a census law Passed so I think we extend the power of the Department of TL to count the census every December and August. So I would do the work! No One would have to do anything at all! It would just be me! I don't think this needs a law but just a formal agreement since I'm appointed. Thank You. Marcus Villanova WLP 23:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Marcus, check proposal 006., I already proposed to count all citizen residences, in order to know who can vote where. So, we just have to get the 007. bill passed and then we'll count in a hurry. Martha Van Ghent 05:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * True. 08:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

009. Full authority
I noticed a possible future problem concerning the disappearing state level and the federal level. We are just in a beginning phase of constitutional evolution, and future authority problems might show up in cases which haven't been fully 'donated' to the congress by the law or constitution, so here is what i propose: It's only a small phrase, but it might solve future problems. This might include that some states will hunt to find undistributed powers and competences so here's what I suggest concerning this accessory problem:
 * 1) The state governors have full authority on state matters unless the competence has been given to congress by the constitution or the federal law.
 * 1) The competences which are appropriated by the states and the decisions which could be made due to this appropriation can be rolled back by the congress.
 * 2) Congress has to vote on these matters and can only roll back decisions following out of incorrect authority appropriation or subsidiarity.
 * 3) When the governor wishes not to agree with the decision of congress, the case has to be judged by the authority court. This court will control whether the congress had the power to destroy the state decision, checking the constitution and the federal law.

This will of course mean that a judge court needs to be implemented, but it can be done easily, we can use the same judge of the State Court, or someone who has a greater knowledge of the laws in Lovia. Please read carefully and give comment fast, if this law must pass, it must be done before the state elections. P.S.: @Dimi, I'm very busy at this time, with my 'herexamens' so I'm unable to check where these phrases should be implemented, could you check it please, and if they need to be rewritten could you also do that. JON  THE DUDE   JOHNSON  11:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an important issue you bring up here Johnson. But in fact, I already built in an "achterdeurtje" (backdoor) in the state reform. Article 5 of the Constitution now includes this phrase:
 * "All competencies not covered by the states inhere to the federal level."
 * Which implies of course, that unless the competencies are explicitly given to the states (e.g. the naming of waterways), all the others belong to Congress. This is by far the most simple solution. It does not require the complex judgment of a Supreme Court Judge. Also, it is the more democratic solution - Congress being a representative institution, more than the Governorship. 14:39, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, but I think that 'my solution' (it's a big word for a small issue :p) could mean a faster evolution of our law and constitution, meaning that we could renew our law every time some state comes up with a new competence of which the governor think's it might be in his hands, also what about competences not for seen in the law? Since everything not being in the law is authorized some smart asses (read Jon) could use that against the country :p JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  15:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting issue. I must look into this for sure! 16:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)