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.

041. Building stop towers
I remember in Libertas we once had the so called "torenbouwstop". All multi-storey buildings (=apartments/skyscrapers) were empty and yet we kept on building them. In Lovia it's time we do a same thing. Users like f.e. Horton11 keep building high buildings while the old buildings are nowhere near filled. Just like a stop on building new towns/neighborhoods we should also stop these towers. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:12, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro, there must be a good regulation. Otherwise it'll become like Bucharest Everyone who has the money does what he wants, but there must be some restrictions to avoid it to become a chaos. Bucu 16:51, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Martha Van Ghent 07:45, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * surprisingly not alot of attention, but i agree.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:19, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

So, what's up with this one? Are you gonna do sth with it, owtb? 13:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the idea, but I don't think this is a law adaption.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Naah, you proposed it, we support it, you better get writing then  13:52, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's quite the problem: what should I write? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:53, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * whatever you want to be regulated  13:58, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wach ef.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:00, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Tower block act

 * 1) In Lovia there shall no longer be built any towers:
 * 2) A tower is a building consisting of multiple floors of which several floors have a different apartment or company place for sale.
 * 3) A tower may only be built in special cases if the governor of the aforementioned state agrees.

Something like this? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:03, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like the 'desbetreffende'. An addition for Lovia English maybe? 14:05, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * hmm yeah, but not really quite there  14:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahah, can't find a translation for it :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:06, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas to improve this? Otherwise I'll put this into vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:04, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not finished, is it? :p Martha Van Ghent 21:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's inhoudelijk finished :P As a Waldener, I'm sure you would support this simplified, easy-to read and short bill :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:40, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Pierius Magnus 08:25, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting that most congress men look over this part :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:19, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Another try
Since it's getting urgent again (with more megalomanical phallus symbol lovers), I'll rewrite it myself.

FedLaw, 50%+. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_restriction_laws

Height Restriction Act
 * 1) In the Kingdom of Lovia, no structures surpassing the maximum height of 165 feet or 50.3 meters may be constructed, in order to preserve the cityscenes and landscapes, and in order to bar projects of megalomaniacal size.
 * 2) Congress may grant exemptions to this law, by a normal majority.
 * 3) Governors of the states are entitled to introduce height restrictions for the entire state or for the designated localities, such as historic neighborhoods, which may not surpass the federal 165 feet height restriction, and which must allow for the construction of regular two-storey residences.

So: no extraordinary high buildings allowed. Congress may vote on exceptions (exemptions). Governors now have the explicit right to introduce height restrictions in their own states. They may introduce one in the entire state, or perhaps local restrictions (e.g.: no four-storey buildings in a rural zone). Acceptable to everyone? 07:23, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for me Martha Van Ghent 07:24, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need this. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:54, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup Cristian Latin 14:19, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

If no MOTCs are going to fix this I am going to use OwtbBot to put a comment on every MOTC's talk page :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:47, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * And why not fix this yourself? You want to get it passed. You fix it. Makes sense to me. 19:09, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with it, so I don't know what to fix :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:26, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

044. Initiation of a Federal Planning Bureau
I do not have a large knowledge of the laws and the constitution in our country. But I suppose for this we need a new section in our constitution/lawbook.

I want to start up a Planning Bureau, a bureau that advises congress when it faces economical troubles, or when it comes to policymaking, or when new economic/financial laws need to be voted.

I propose the following: JON  THE DUDE   JOHNSON  14:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Federal Planning Bureau is an official authoritative section situated on the federal level of Lovian government.
 * 2) Its powers are limited to:
 * 3) The proposal of economical and financial laws;
 * 4) The provision of advice on proposed bills conerning on economical and financial matters;
 * 5) The suspension of proposals on economical and financial level in order to re-calculate the consequences for Lovia and its inhabitants.
 * 6) The maximum suspension period is two weeks' time.
 * 7) The Chairperson of the Federal Planning Bureau is chosen every six months by Congress and must be a Member of the Congress. [After Federal and Mid Term elections]
 * Made some adjustments. It's pretty okay
 * One more question: what is it? An agency, a council...? 14:09, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a question I was asking myself to (answer:It is what it is :p). I'd define it as a council: what structure do you prefer? JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  14:14, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some sort of council seems fair. But then you'll have to add a definition to your bill, I think. Which says how it works, how many members it should have, etc. Currently, it would have only one member who can uphold quite a lot. A council with one member isn't really a council, though, is it? Perhaps just give one MOTC the power to do the things you would have wanted this council to do? Some sort of "Economic and Financial Planner"? 14:33, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm we could do that, indeed, but maybe we can add two more 'members' the secretary of IAT (hence the 'trade') and the PM, to make it more democratic. I'll add some info on how it must work this eve JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  14:42, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. It does need some work as Dimitri pointed out above. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:00, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * hummm...This could be good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:20, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I must be enlightened, but what is the point of this? I can hardly see how a council could fix problems that congress could do on its own. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:40, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a central bank than? Why do we need any kind of department than? Why do we need a congress whatsoever than? We need this because this 'council' can focus it self on the economics en finances of lovia, which is needed in these hard times JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  12:21, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * How could Congress not be able to achieve this on its own? We don't need advisers, we don't need complication. On its own, Congress can fix any problem to come its way (if applicable). This advising system promotes seperating Congress to different levels, so that some people are "elite congress(wo)men." Elitism is the very reason the anti-cabalism ordeal came around. The solution to a nonexistent problem is a problem in itself. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 20:41, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with elitism! It's just a way of making it more easy to respond quick and sufficient towards sudden economical/financial situations. It's a planning bureau, every country in the world has it! Lovia cannot stay behind! JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  05:55, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lovia doesn't actually have 150+ senators. There's only around 15 of us. If we do this, we end up having a mini-Congress making decisions, and hence leaving the rest of Congress behind. The Congress is good as it is, and if you have a problem with people who are elected MOTC, then tell the people to stop voting for them, but don't try to cheat basic democracy. If 15 people is too much for this nation, then we're already doomed to fall into total disorder. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:59, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hannis here, not the Elitism part but otherwise he has a very valid argument. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:53, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * All the people who will be active in the council are from within the congress, so that not making congress any larger, and secondly they are only focusing on a primordial issue in the country, and that's a good thing, because our congress is just voting on everything, mostly not knowing the effects, this will be stopped partly by this initiation JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  08:36, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not have one for every small issue? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:44, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how in the end it should be, but we are too few to realize that! And so we need to start with the most important issues, so in that way economy is a normal choice. You are disappointing me marcus by calling economics a "small issue" JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  21:11, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support congress members to be in smaller orginized comitties, then they would write and approve them and introduce them to all of congress, 15 congressmen, each in two comitties, 6 comitties. Economics is not a small issue but people will interperet and create 20 small committies "The Committie to Decide upon Committies and Committie activities" . Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:18, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the effects? C'mon, don't pretend this is an actual nation. There are sufficiently few of us so that we can be perfectly aware of a national and subnational situation easily. What you are doing right now is just making matters more complicated. We do not have economic problems, and if we do, then we already have three options: department of Finance, state government, and national bank. Isn't that enough? We do not have a problem, so we do not need a solution. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:54, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we are not a real countries we do not have any problem at all! And the creation of this nation as a solution to a non-existing problem is a problem in itself! We do not need anything at all, we could just 'funny about' and enjoy ourself a bit, but hey, this is not what I want, I give my self fully for the country (for you nothing more than a site seemingly) and that consists of getting us out of the economic crisis, because it great fun only adapting the good things in life to our site! JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:17, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah, there. Calm down. If you're incapable of remaining calm when you have all the time in the world, I dare not imagine what you may be in reality. So, going back to your argument/patriotic speech, which I don't care to refute at the moment, you must keep in mind that by adding bureaus, departments, councils, etc., you make things complicated. I'm from France, so I can tell you that a country that fails to unify everything into a single, non-complicated, organized, and unified body, becomes a "bureaucratic nightmare" (Inception quote). Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:46, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to see with bureaucracy, I only want a 'body' which can act (with 'knowledge') easy and correct when needed, and I don't think many people in congress have the knowledge to do so. When I look to the currency debate, I see many just lurking towards an own currency, but does anybody know the consequences? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it sounds like you don't like the result of democracy. If people elected those who are dumb into the highest positions of the nation, and your solution to is make a better-leading congress, then what you're fighting against is the result of a (possibly) uneducated or deluded electing people blindly. If you don't like who people vote for, tell them not to vote for them. I respect the decision of the people, and I will not prevent democracy from running its course. Representative democracy makes decisions, not appointments to a higher level of representative democracy, which it in turn makes the decisions. It seems like all you want is a smarter congress, and you're looking for a means of keeping those you judge "dumb" out of power, at least in the topics that you find important. On a final note, in my defense, I am against the national currency, but let's keep that out of it. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:37, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * What you say is 'dumb' :p. It comes to this: in every government, so in every country in the world, the ministers have one special authority, and they are for that period specialized in it (they read the bills, they make arrangements,... this improves the government! And this is what Lovia also needs! It's not that congress is dumb, it's that congress cannot focus itself on every little topic, so I propose that a council can focus itself especially on economics, so other MOTC don't need to understand the bills fully, so we can make progress faster! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever said Congress can't take care of every little thing? If you haven't noticed, Congress is basically inactive at the moment, and proposals are rare and separated. It's not like Congress is overloaded or anything, it's just that there isn't much change going on. If Congress was overloaded, which it isn't, then we would have a problem. But it isn't. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:46, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been overloaded in the past (when you were absent). I don't think that it is a good idea to make laws when needed and to abolish them when the problem is gone, laws must be constructive, this one is! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  09:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

045. Formal recognition of Mäöres
I've been scanning through the archives and I can't find anything on whether Lovia actually formally recognizes Mäöres as a souvereign country (all I could find was the recognition of Kosovo). So, could we propose this to the Second Chamber? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:30, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessary. This is why: we don't recognize the US or Belgium, do we? I think we can presume Lovia recognizes most internationally (and wikinationally) recognized states. New states we can either recognize or not recognize. That's what the Kosovo thing was about :) 18:02, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * "we can presume": We could also presume that I may build a huge nuclear reactor in Oceana (there's no law forbidding it), so I don't really think "we can presume" is something satisfactory :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:17, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's the green energy act, I saw Hillbilly Boy 18:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't mean a nuclear reactor for energy supply :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:39, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * (I hate kovoso) But on subject...We could propse a law that states "Any countries that has declared independence or has its own formal government is reconzined as a nation by Lovia, Unless otherwise or a congressional stating that they won't reconzine it"
 * In Common terms: We reconize all countires anyway, and any we don't we vote on it. Considering the fact that we could deal with 99.9% of existing countires it's okay. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:06, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then there's still a long list: don't forget Transnistria, Abchazia, South-Ossetia, Basque lands, Biafra, Sealand and all that stuff. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:15, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget political recognitions. For example, France does not recognize the PR of China, as far as I understand. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I seeMarcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 01:20, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

We could make a list of countries recognized by Lovia and vote for all of them once. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:05, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even think that's necessary. It's more or less safe to assume that Lovia recognizes all commonly recognized nations, right? I mean, it's not like we don't recognize Kosovo, and we're not going to say we recognize South Ossetia or (:P) Sealand, right? Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:04, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, (to get back on the original subject) Mäöres is not really commonly recognized :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:46, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is better to make its recognition by Lovia entirely official. To avoid problems in the future when certain politicians may change their minds. There is always the possibility they'll do just that, we have to take that into account. Pierius Magnus 17:59, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. So how do we enact this? A vote? I don't see what the Constitution says we should do. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 18:26, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * With the Kosovo recognition it was a simple vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:36, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's the way to do it, yes. If one person knows it, it's gotta be that fellow who wrote our consititution, Dimitri his name is, I believe. :) Pierius Magnus 18:38, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, do we put forth a bill with a list of all possibilities? That'd be a huge bill. Maybe it'd be best if we just vote on what not to recognize. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 19:50, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * That'd be easier, yes. Pierius Magnus 19:57, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I say we don't reconzine Fiji! To not reconize a country is a bit to odd. Don't you think? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:51, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh*. Not Really, Marcus. Inform yourself before making conclusions. Most nations do not recognize certain other nations. For instance, France does not recognize China. China does not recognize Taiwan as independent. Most countries do not recognize South Ossetia, but Russia does. Recognition is a basic value for a nation; it's what helped Kosovo, for instance, become an accepted country. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:10, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * And there are some people who still think that Kosovo should and should be a country. but in this case I don't think we will be helping and people declare there freedom to form a new country. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 23:18, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say so, Edward, but France does recognize the PRC. They've done so for quite some decades. They switched sides (no longer supporting the Republic of China, Taiwan) in the sixties, I think. 07:23, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: France established diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1964. 07:28, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

@Edward: I think it's best to "presume" (it saves a lot of work) that Lovia recognizes all commonly recognized countries and for those not commonly recognized, but of which some users same it should be recognized, Mäöres for example, we hold a vote. The number of not recognized countries is larger than the number of recognized countries.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:47, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * @DimiTalen - Whoops! Thanks for catching me there, Dimi. It's weird. I really, honestly thought that France did not recognize China. Huh. Well, once again, thanks.
 * @Oos - Sounds good. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:18, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I feel like an idiot. I just realize that France does not recognize North Korea, not China. *self-facepalm* Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:20, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closely the same thing but not quite. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:41, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * And Adlibita then? :P Cristian Latin 16:46, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah why not, on the Page Lovia it says "Lovia would like to join the United Nations and the NATO. Lovia recognized the Republic of Kosovo on March 1, 2008, and wanted to show that it was tolerant towards new nations and all people." It also went on to say: "Though, in Libertas and Lovia a successor for the United Wiki Nations has been proposed, probably the International Wiki Organization. The reactions are mostly positive in Lovia, although negative comments from Adlibita have a bad influence on the popularity of the new IWO. " I think that answers two questions. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:57, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna put this to vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:01, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

047. "State-run education" - offering a solution
At present, our legal system does not allow for state-run enterprises. The McCandless bill now in the Second Chamber will allow the states to perform their powers through agencies and state-owned corporations, which is good. But, since education is not within the realm of the states, official state-run schools are off limits. Nevertheless, Noble City has several such schools, and I perceive other states are no different. Schools, one of government's most basic occupations, are not properly covered by our legal system.

We need to solve this. LAP proposes the following:
 * 1) All state-owned and/or state-run schools will be transferred to the federal state. Congress will own the school buildings and grounds, and the schools will be (de jure) run by Congress.
 * 2) The Department responsible for Education will appoint directors to each such school. The Department will have authority over the management of these schools. The Secretary of Education should be able to summon a school's director if the legal requirements are not taken into account by that specific school. Of course, REAC's involvement will be demanded if rules are broken.
 * 3) By making the Department liable for the schools' management, parents and pupils in Lovia have someone to write to or call when things go wrong. At present, there was no one to blame when something went wrong. This system will make the educational system more responsible.

State-run schools will remain free in the areas they have been free in recent years. Curricula will still be chosen by the schools' principals - within the legal framework - to fit the neighborhood's demands for good education.

I want to poll whether the 2010 Congress has a connection with this very important and rather urgent issue. Then, LAP will work on a Federal Law Article. If you Congressmen don't feel the necessity of this small but urgent reform, then I will put it to the next Congress. Please provide me with feedback asap. Percival E. Galahad 10:45, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is not the complete story. Only "five-day schools" should be transferred, not "saturday schools". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:49, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. I am not sure we consider them official primary/secondary schools, anyway. Percival E. Galahad 10:50, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh.. No, I don't think so, but you didn't mention "official schools" :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:51, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry :). That's what I meant though. I only mean schools which currently fall under either the Primary or the Secondary Education Acts of Congress. Could I count on your support here, Mr Secretary? Percival E. Galahad 10:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * You sure have mine. Education is core business when maintaining a healthy society. 10:57, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a huge reform necessary and I think this is a very good beginning :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:57, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Idem! Good work. 11:02, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very fine. Walden supports! 16:14, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * As a govenor, and already created one school, this law gives the states to do as they please. Also is the law andy proposed passed yet? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:56, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

Comments
"Simplify simplify" is my motto. This bill is perfect in doing that: we insert one section in the constitution to solve all problems looking up when and how a bill was approved. Anyway, what's a state that doesn't keep track of its own activities? Also, it's the people's right to know what Congress is doing and has done! Thnx. 13:33, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very much pro! Though this is more like "regulate, simplify".  13:39, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! Well yes . That's the Walden approach since August, really. In order to make the lives of the people we care for easier, the government should foresee some things. A journal is a pretty easy thing to keep up with, anyway  13:41, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see the need for this. Also, I can tell from experience that it'll not be regularly updated. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:41, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be done. It's not difficult to update it while the bills are actually being accepted or rejected at that very moment. It's rather difficult to do it after that. It's about tidiness. How could you not see that? 13:43, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh.. :P I still don't see the need for this.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:45, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * People have the right (and duty perhaps) to check what their government is up to. We've just accepted a whole bunch of civil legislation and most won't even know about it. How's that "representing the people"? 13:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's about that I'd call it useless bureaucracy :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It stuns me you don't care about informing the people. 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * btw, even your homeland has it. 13:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if my homeland has it, why don't I get it? :P I really have no idea what the people in the Dutch government are doing actually, but back to the topic. I understand why you want to do this, but I don't think it's necessary in a country with only 22.000 inhabitants. It's like the municipality (or however you write that word :P), you simply know it, because it's close to you. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:51, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can access it online if you want: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/zoeken. Anyway, it's not a big deal to just write down our past activities and it saves people like me, who want to learn about our laws and who wants to know what has been done in the past Congress (which is of crucial importance to your constituency, too), a lot of trouble. The National Archivs are amazing if you want to know it all, what's being said and who voted for what, but it's a pain in the ass for basic information. 13:56, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's on the internet and I can tell you that a lot of people don't have access to internet :P Well, the wiki has a "search" thing at your left :P But I'll no longer be irritating (I like it though :P) so I'll support. If it turns out not to be working, we could still abolish it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:59, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anyway, I am willing to promise my electorate I'll pay careful attention to updating it in due time. If we all (or some of us) do that, it will work out just fine; 14:02, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:05, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Nice Andy! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:52, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Got my support. 16:53, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall I put this to vote? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Andy would've liked to do this himself, but I suppose you can . It's got at least 50% support. 19:15, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah.. I'm making a mess of it, I'm running on alcohol now, so anything I might say at this moment might not be conform the truth :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:17, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are? I'm on Coca Cola, coffee and Dr. Pepper ^^. And water.  19:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing I hate to drink it's definitively water. I always have to vomit when I drink lots of it :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:37, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I support this too. Martha Van Ghent 21:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Voting
Please vote!! 12:12, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Federal Law
Firearms Act
 * 1) Ownership and use of firearms by any person within the Kingdom of Lovia is prohibited;
 * 2) With the exception of Federal Police officers, and with any other exception enshrined in the national laws of the nation.
 * 3) With the exception of hunters, who must obtain a license in order to hunt living animals for food, recreation, or trade, using a firearm.
 * 4) Licenses can be obtained with the Secretary of Welfare, who has the authority over the Federal Police and who has knowledge of the practices and potential dangers of firearms to the people's welfare.
 * 5) Licenses can only be granted to hunters
 * 6) who have taken shooting lessons at a Federal Police bureau and who have passed the associated exam, in which perfect knowledge of the Firearms Act, unproblematic fine motor skill, the acquired shooting skills, and the hunter's uncompromised vision are required and shall be tested;
 * 7) who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted;
 * 8) who have their legal residence in Lovia;
 * 9) who have the intent to use it only for hunting, be it recreational or professional;
 * 10) who have not been convicted or arrested within the last two years before the license is to be granted;
 * 11) whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed.
 * 12) Licenses must be obtained for each firearm and may only be registered to one person.
 * 13) Licenses are immediately repealed, together with the firearms in the possession of the hunter, when he or she is arrested or convicted, or otherwise involved in a police or court case. It must be regranted without further ado if the arrest or involvement is proven to have been without proper cause.
 * 14) Licenses cannot be sold or given to somebody else. Licenses always adhere to the person who has passed the exam and who has met with the legal requirements.
 * 15) Hunters are legally bound to register with the Secretary of Welfare, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month.
 * 16) The Federal Police is authorized to confiscate all firearms without proper license found within the Kingdom of Lovia.
 * 17) If a firearm is known or suspected to be used by somebody else than its lawful owner and the person who has obtained the license, then the Federal Police is authorized to confiscate the firearm and all other firearms registered to or used by both persons, and start an investigation in the matter.
 * 18) A private militia is any organization, either formally and nominally military or not, that is characterized by the presence of firearms, and that is not operated by the federal government of Lovia to ensure the nation's safety.
 * 19) The organization of a private militia is prohibited within the Kingdom of Lovia.
 * 20) It is unlawful to establish or participate in such a militia, as well as to allow them to exist and exercise their activities on one's premises.
 * 21) It is unlawful for militias established outside of Lovia, or led by foreigners, to operate or organize activities in Lovia.
 * 22) Private security services are not allowed to let their officers bear firearms.
 * 23) It is prohibited for officers of foreign police forces and armies to bring firearms into Lovia, or to otherwise obtain or use firearms. Exceptions may only be granted by Congress.

Comments
This bill will prohibit:
 * private firearms-bearing militias;
 * bearing and owning firearms, unless if you have obtained a license;
 * foreign armies and police forces to use arms in Lovia.

Percival E. Galahad 13:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good! Didn't know you were so skilled in writing legal texts :) 14:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I give my support! Very good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am mostly in favour, mostly... I still think it needs some minor changes though, as this law would make The Brigade illegal, if it passes. Pierius Magnus 15:18, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * and that would be a good thing Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:19, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not. How else could one defend himself? Also: how does one define "private firearms-bearing militias"? The Brigade is made up out of licensed hunters, all above the age of twenty-one, clean of record and of good conduct. Pierius Magnus 15:22, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Guns are for weaklings: A) If your so scared someone's gonna kill you, your paranoid you should be in a mental hospital and B) You probaly can't fight with or hands and/or are too scared...but knowing you mangus that your like a kickboxer...your probaly insane Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Pierius: It would render The Brigade illegal. Percival E. Galahad 15:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it would not, it is all perfectly legal. Why? Because they (the Brigade) are no militia. They are licensed hunters, plain and simple, and not on my payrole. Pierius Magnus 15:57, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the bill. Any group, even informal groups, that is characterized by the presence of firearms. By the way, please read the hunting license requirements: "who have the intent to use it only for hunting, be it recreational or professional." You can try and try to evade the law (that is, if this would become a law ), but it would only show one's dishonesty. Percival E. Galahad 16:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I included a clause that solves the issue. Group hunting is now allowed. Percival E. Galahad 16:09, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, sir. Most appreciated. Pierius Magnus 16:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Man this bill is bulletproof Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:23, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be :). As you just saw, someone like Ygo would try to find loopholes, and would be willing to use them. Percival E. Galahad 16:24, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm against all guns! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:25, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else see the problem in not allowing the creation of militias within this nation? It is a fundamental right of the people to overthrow their governments should they not be given what they want, and have reason to believe there is a better option. If we do not allow the creation of militias, how is the people supposed to overthrow its government? The government is only so through the consent of the people. Not having the right to have a militia is a powerful message, like it or not: you cannot fight back. "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:04, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see why you're with the conservatives.
 * Now look. We have four elections every year. Come on, don't tell me you need virtual gunfire to change the government. Government-overthrowing armed militia would cause deaths, also civilian deaths. A simple vote or a Supreme Court case goes without casualties.
 * And by the way, I really really love Thomas Jefferson. But libertarianism sucks. 17:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support this bill but it seems unconstitutional. I like the part about no guns but the Milita part is a bit too far, soon people will be interpiting it and saying a club about the enviroment is "too far, or extrimist" and well have to go through this whole thing all over again. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:21, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus: it's not unconstitutional. I've written 95% of the Constitution and I can tell you, there's no such thing as a "right to kill" or a "right to bear arms". Also, nothing else is prohibited except groups who bear arms. People with rifles on the streets. You should all read the laws better, really. 17:24, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't discredit Jefferson, Dimi. John Basil Barnhill said that quote. Check Wikiquote if you like. And people have the right to happiness and all that good stuff, and if the government does not give it, they have the logical right to ask for it. If you refuse to allow militias, then you have to give the people the right to vote their government out of power, and put it in the constitution. That way, if the government were to infringe upon that vote and still stay in power, then the people would then assume the right to create a militia, taken their government no longer recognizes the constitution. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:31, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, bad research . Sorry for that.
 * I believe it is so: if a government breaks with its own laws, then the people may stand up against it. I agree. Perhaps we should indeed incorporate that in the laws (although I must point out we have an independent judiciary which could just as well settle these issues). But a nation that is governed according to the laws which were voted democratically, and which do not discriminate in their own right, does not need weapons. 17:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all good.
 * The judiciary system is part of the government, and I think it best that the power to end a government would be outside of the government. So, to summarize, we could take that stuff about militias in this bill, and then pass an amendment to the constitution allowing a referendum of some sort to overthrow the government, which if ignored, allows the people to create a militia. Also, I do believe we should give trained experts firearms so that they can defend stuff. I'm talking about security and stuff. Of course, standards would be very high, but to prevent potential crime, we need officers to be armed if they want to protect valuable goods. Just a thought. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 17:46, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm btw very glad it was my dearest Thomas Jefferson who said that . I really like him.
 * Check the proposal again: it's already in there. Police (and a future army) can bear arms.
 * Referendum is tough one: we've had weeks that only progressive politicians were around. Any referendum would have been extremely biased (and therefore, unjust in its own right). 17:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Article 1A - Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Lovian people and shall be guaranteed.
 * I too hate interperating the Constitution of any knid, but this goes both ways. I think it means that we have the right to do anything within the law, but in the way of "democratic traditions" we have the write to form a small group.


 * Article 2 - The right to: Privacy, Of freedom though and meaning, of Property, to relax and recreate


 * That's all that applies right now. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marcus: No explicit right to bear arms, as you can see. 17:40, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess but as i said i can think that the right to privacy and proprty can be my guns or handbombs. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try, but I wouldn't bet my money on that one  17:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's quite okay. But I think it's too much to f.e. ask: "who have not been convicted or arrested within the last two years before the license is to be granted." --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the period could be lowered to one year. I agree. 19:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think six months is way better, but I can live with one year too :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could find a comprimise on this bill. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this and would also back up the change to one year rather. Martha Van Ghent 21:41, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a politician (nor a citizen, as of yet), but there are a couple contradictory statements in the law.
 * I quote:
 * "With the exception of hunters, who must obtain a license in order to hunt living animals for food, recreation, or trade, using a firearm."
 * " Hunters are legally bound to register with the Secretary of Welfare, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month."
 * While I'm not saying this scenario is likely in Lovia, wouldn't this law prohibit a group that is of three or more hunters from gathering food needed more than twice a month if these people need food for survival? I have a friend whos' dad got into some serious debt and had to sell everything. He ended up living out of the back of his SUV for three years with nothing but a change of clothes, a water filter, and a .22. Some revision may be needed there. Also, this law seems to say that self-defense is not a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be kind of appalling. BoredMatt 23:13, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm not saying this scenario is likely in Lovia, wouldn't this law prohibit a group that is of three or more hunters from gathering food needed more than twice a month if these people need food for survival? I have a friend whos' dad got into some serious debt and had to sell everything. He ended up living out of the back of his SUV for three years with nothing but a change of clothes, a water filter, and a .22. Some revision may be needed there. Also, this law seems to say that self-defense is not a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be kind of appalling. BoredMatt 23:13, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Voting
See Forum:Second Chamber! Percival E. Galahad 13:08, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

050. Wikination:Census
I think we could regulate it, if it isn't regulated yet. What do you think? Setting a specific date, like let's say once a year for calculating Lovia's population. Cristian Latin 16:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Dimitri proposed a "fixed number" before, so it would no longer change on sellings of houses. F.e. a town has 5.000 inhabitants in 2011, and 5.100 in 2012 (making a growth/shrink limit of f.e. 5% per year) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:46, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be possible too... maybe a bit more boring but yay Cristian Latin 16:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't "calculate" it. Choose understandable, logical, normal figures. Every year is fine. 16:53, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me ;) Cristian Latin 16:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, who will be taking charge of this? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:57, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ehem, I suppose a Congressman :P Cristian Latin 17:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone appointed by some Secretary. Welfare, IAT, Finance... 18:10, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah i would like a up-to-date census...finally. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:49, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the PM should choose this person directly. It's highly important, and no small order. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 22:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Good solution but I also think we're overthinking this. We could just make it as simple as NC = 15.000, HU = 7.000. Lovia is a good country why wouldn't you want to live here! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:57, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Our approach is not too complicated. We need to account for population growth, and do so in a reasonable manner. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * PM appointment is fine with me. If we want a "Census Bureau", though, we should place it under some department. 06:57, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I think the first thing I ever said in the first chamber was: "So when are we gonna have a census?" Glad were finally having a disscussion about this. I'm all for a census bureau of three congressmen/women to decide census issues. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:22, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * You could also say that the governor decides the numbers of inhabitants. That would take all needs for a census bureau away. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:25, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would get quite political . You could raise your number of inhabitants just out of pride. I rather go with this option: someone appoints someone (the PM appoints one of the MOTCs, for example) who "does the census" and comes up with the figures. He/she presents them to Congress, who have to "confirm the reliability" of these figures in a vote. This way, we keep it real, but we also involve the democracy in it. 09:32, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little strange to let the state decide the demographics.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:35, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * No no, that's why I added the "_" thingies. We don't let the state decide. We appoint someone who goes from door to door with his crew (not for real, duh) and who presents his data to the population. Just to make sure that person doesn't do silly things, Congress checks whether his data has been "obtained correctly". You get the gist? :) 09:39, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I understoor, but I don't know.. :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:42, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it sounds weird . Look at it this way: (fictional example) Medvedev is PM, appoints Johnson to the job and he makes Portland second largest place in the country. We all know that's stupid. But hey, the Dude's appointed by the Chief. Other example: Governors choose demographics. Andy perhaps wants Oceana to stay small and "overzichtelijk", but Marcus and Van Ghent might want to expand their states. Silly, right? So, we do need a check-up, and who's better qualified than an elected Congress. But Congress can't make up the statistics, that has to be the work of one person with one uniform vision of how the Lovians live and so. 09:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I at least think that if we'd choose this system, we should have the 5% barrier: a town can't grow or diminish with more than 5% of the current number of inhabitants. The guy appointed by the PM should think about these things: 1. Have there been a lot of houses sold in the state last year or have a lot of people moved away? -> decline of f.e. 3%. 2. What is typical for the population? F.e.: conservative, generally spoken more children, but really orthodox people might not want to take inentingen, which results in a moderate growth -> growth of f.e. 4%. 3. The economical situation of the area, f.e. bad -> decline of f.e. 2%, total: -1% growth. Something like that. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:59, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there should be limits. As prescribed by the Constitutution: it's the (Deputy) Governors' duties to assist the federal government on all issues that concern the states/local politics  10:03, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the census ain't politics è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:07, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * In a fictional nation like ours, everything is :) 10:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dacht jij :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:12, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yap  10:17, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

051. Public Transport Bill
This was just a though I had, but i wanted to see if anyone else would like it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:36, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Each state shall issue a system of public transportation systems at an affordable rate to the citizens of that state.
 * Each state system is required to have one of system of bus lines that allow citizens of all kinds to have an affordable bus system that last at least three miles long.
 * The route, prices, and overall state system of the train or bus system are ran by the state governor.
 * I could agree on buses, but we already have a national train operator. 18:39, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * We do? In what bill? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:41, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Economic Involvement Act. 18:45, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need more trains, but we do need public busing systems. Instead of the train e could have short light-rail transit or maglev trains, or a subway system. Horton11 18:49, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

No subways we'd be digging overselves into a hole. I'll check that bill out and I'll see what i can do. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I changed it after seeing that a train system is suppose to occur soon. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:59, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was seeing it differently, King with thy permission I'd like to put forward an idea: The executive power must be replaced to the state level. It solves many issues: (1) the states become active, and gain some 'power', without actually interfering in the federal level (2) Secondly the inactive departments will become an unofficial 'leader' of the state level: helping the states with coordination etc. All to gather we are a bunch of isles: I cant imagine that people of Kings moving to seven to follow education: so a bit of liberty in the execution of bills and laws won't hurt. What about it? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:52, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, buses are fine. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:27, January 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * So can I have some more feedback? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:15, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of buses, and maybe some ferry boats too as Lovia is an archipelago... Cristian Latin 21:03, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should take the part from the economic law and put it here, and name this the Lovian transportation bill giving people cheap and accessable transportation. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:52, January 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Problem with the first chambe is that we need alot of input beforer second chamber...and that takes two months! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:39, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

052. Highway 6
I would like to propose an extremely short sixth highway, which would be a ring road of Hurbanova. This highway should connect the Highway 2 to Highway 7 and Overbanken Regional Airport. For the entire plan, see here below. Cristian Latin 21:16, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
This is not going to work with the Highway 2 which has exits to Downtown and Drake Town, unless this Highway would be placed just south of Hurbanova instead of north. However then it wouldn't intersect Highway 7, as - read Overbanken Regional Airport - Highway 7 ends in Millstreet, coming from the north across the Hurbanova Stream. What shall we change then? My proposal:
 * 1) Highway 7 stays as it is. There should come a bridge across the Hurbanova Stream. Then finally Hurbanova is connected to its airstrip.
 * 2) Highway 2 will be put south of Hurbanova as described above. Practically nothing is changed. It won't intersect Highway 7 though.
 * 3) There will be constructed a rather short highway, let's say Highway 6 (from northwest to southeast), which will have a length of just a couple of miles. This one should connect Highway 7 to Highway 2. Then, Hurbanova will be the first place with an orbital :P
 * 4) This highway will have 3 exits: 1. Overbanken. 2. Regional roads to the north east. 3. Hurbanova-East.
 * 5) Because there are so many exits on a relative short distance and to reduce the noise, the max. speed will be 100 km/h or 60 mph.

Arguments:
 * To avoid traffic from entering historic neighborhoods of Hurbanova. Without Highway 6, traffic coming from Highway 7 will have to go through Drake Town to get to Highway 2 in the direction Noble City. Vice versa, people coming from the east or south also have to intersect Hurbanova in order to be able to arrive at the airport.
 * Good connections. Airport & all parts of Hurbanova will be very accessible. No more slow traffic in the town itself. Traffic will avoid Hurbanova.
 * Extremely low costs. It is actually an upgrade of an already existing road. The bridge is already there. A "normal road" is turned into a "highway". However in the current state, this road is more of an agrarian road.

Cristian Latin 20:24, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Extremely short but i'll give a "yea" vote! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:43, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Niceee. Cristian Latin 21:44, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm.. Let me think about it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's upgrading the profile of a normal road to a highway. The bridge, the road, everything is there already. We just expand this road a little bit to connect those highways. The costs would be minimal. It makes Hurbanova, its historical neighborhoods and its airport more accessible from outside and as a result there will be less traffic in Hurbanova's historical center. Cristian Latin 11:16, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Je sais. I've made that map myself è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:22, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. It's the only possibility to avoid all those outsiders to pass along my house in Drake Town when they want to go to the airstrip... or airstrip restaurant! ^^ Cristian Latin 11:26, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * You ain't got no home in Drake Town :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:27, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I had one though :P But my little churchy is like my second home, isn't it? Cristian Latin 11:28, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, even then. The road between Drake Town and Newport is not on street level, but below it. :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:34, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it marked as a street? Well we could always add or delete an exit. It's about the principle :P. Cristian Latin 11:53, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * ? I think you don't know which street is which :P --`O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:57, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if I had to guess, I see one street with a width of 1 pix and another one with 3 or 4 pix. :P Cristian Latin 11:58, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the one of 1 pix is the paralel road, which is not very large, and the other one is the 80 km/u road :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:00, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already deleted "Exit 2 on the map" ^^. There is now another exit on the other bank of the Stream. So you're pro? :P Cristian Latin 12:02, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, veuroed denne :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:07, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

053. Landwirtschaft so what is it?
Umm...I just want to know what you all think about this? Like should we have it or not? If not it's okay i'll just make truth island a mountinous beuatiful region and island and try to get it protected by the wildlife department. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * No offence, but I'm not a big fan. It's not up to me tho' (Off topic: do you really need 3 hospitals in Clymene? ) Semyon 21:55, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Congress has already decided which places should be recognized and which not in August/September 2010. Unfortunately, Landwirtschaft didn't seem to be very desired. Let's accept the decision of the Congress I'd say. Cristian Latin 22:01, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay actually about Lanwirtschaft...it can be deleted. The three hospitals are needed tho. If we only had like four hospitals in Lovia tens of people would dies from not making it to the hospital in time. I just want the option to get to the hospital fast and operate quickly. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:59, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution: trauma choppahs :D Cristian Latin 22:02, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a minor medical facility on every isle, one that can carry out emergency operations, seems no luxury to me. I do however doubt we need major hospitals outside NC. 13:57, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing. Semyon is right on this one (Category talk:Hospital) Cristian Latin 14:00, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

054. Appointment of the Supreme Court Judge
I know some of you have already considered the issue I would like to bring up today. Our supreme law states that "the Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice in agreement with the Prime Minister". This has major implications. One of them could be that a Supreme Court Judge, who is appointed by Prime Minister A from party X and Secretary B from that same party X, would lead the "independent judiciary". In a court of law against the government, the court's independence would be highly dubious.

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

This new amendment will allow Congress to break the "ruling party's" monopoly over the judiciary. More than half of the Members of the Congress must approve with an appointment - which will result in the appointment of moderate and consensus-seeking judges.

Furthermore, the term of the Supreme Court Judge has been specified. It will now be so, officially, that the Judge stays on even without a government or Congress - which must allow Lovia to maintain its laws in such periods of governmentless (being from Belgium, I know the implications).

Furthermore, the regulations to discharge a Judge and appoint another Judge have been specified in a better way.

I now also included a clause which allows Congress to fire a Judge forthwith (without delay, stante pede), by a special (two thirds) majority. If a Judge proves to be corrupt, Congress should have the power to intervene immediately. The two thirds majority (instead of a normal majority) was chosen to bar the majority party from ruling over the judiciary. No party can reach a two thirds majority in Lovia. Therefore, Judges can only be discharged forthwith if MOTCs from different corners of the spectrum agree on the urgency to discharge that person.

I hope you read this through carefully. Our current clauses on these subjects were insufficient. -- 12:35, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Good stuff, Jefferson. It became about time our judiciary gained more independence. 14:01, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems only fair. I support the bill. 14:07, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Idem. Cristian Latin 14:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pro. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:46, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not hold separate elections for supreme court judges? Horton11 19:19, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * They would get very political. As a matter of fact, as there are more progressives, the judge would always be a progressive. With a Congress that has to agree on a judge, we open up to centrist and consensus candidates :) 19:31, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * But even then, if congress was more conservative (or progressive) the judge would always be conservative (or progressive).
 * A better solution would be for all citizens to vote on several (2 or 3) judges. Then there will be a greater chance for judges on both sides of the political spectrum to represented. Horton11 19:39, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think Arthur's plan is better; if we make things more complicated, we'll undoubtedly grind to a halt. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 20:30, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Election are the biggest sign of popularity and nowhere near impartial. Judges should be impartial, not popular. A hated, impartial judge who puts away honoured killers is better than a loved, partial judge who puts away his political opponents who've done nothing and gives allied killers undeserved freedom. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:34, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Walden gives support! I love this idea! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:38, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself, Marcus. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 20:43, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus is right. Walden supports =) Martha Van Ghent 21:20, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Oos- but if we have several elected judges, it will be more likely to have representation from both conservative and progressive sides.
 * My amended section seven would be:
 * 7.1 The Lovian supreme court judge(s) are to be elected by citizens of Lovia in a general vote.
 * 7.2 All supreme court judges must be impartial and have no affiliation with a Lovian political party. (Must renounce party membership for duration of term)
 * 7.3 All judges elected are to serve a term of 2 years.
 * a. Congress has the right to remove a judge from office if he is not impartial or is i violation of sec. 6.10 (Article 9) or the Lovian constitution.
 * b. Congress may remove a judge if over 50% of congresspersons are in support of his/her removal.
 * this would be a good democratic alternative to the current system in place. Horton11 22:10, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, why? Very simple: Lovia is not active enough for more judges and also if we'd elect them you'd get 2 progressive judges and 1 conservative judge, so still the progressive judges would have a majority, but that's not the only thing. If we'd elect them it will have other influences. Elections cause expectations. You vote for someone, because you expect him to help you achieving things and that's exactly what we shouldn't have for judges. I can't think of a single country where judges are elected... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:45, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. @Justin: unlike a parliament, we want a Judge to be "righteous" above all, not just "representing people". 06:25, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, why? Very simple: Lovia is not active enough for more judges and also if we'd elect them you'd get 2 progressive judges and 1 conservative judge, so still the progressive judges would have a majority, but that's not the only thing. If we'd elect them it will have other influences. Elections cause expectations. You vote for someone, because you expect him to help you achieving things and that's exactly what we shouldn't have for judges. I can't think of a single country where judges are elected... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:45, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. @Justin: unlike a parliament, we want a Judge to be "righteous" above all, not just "representing people". 06:25, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the constructive comments. I believe the bill enjoys enough support in Congress, and I will therefore move it to the Second Chamber. -- 15:44, January 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what happened in the american Judical system, The supreme court in america doesn't uphold the contistitution just there belifes. Marcus Villanova <small style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-size: 0.78em; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; ">Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:13, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

055. Postal system
I was thinking that Lovia should have a postal system with stamps. Most (if not all) countries have one. Even the Vatican City has its postal system and stamps! I think a postal system can improve daily life for people and businesses, plus it can help achieve less dependence on other countries for these kinds of services. Horton11 22:00, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * You know that having stamps is even a must if you want to be recognized as a country? Cristian Latin 22:02, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the postal system. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:03, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea, Horton and I love those stamps you made, very beautiful. I am all for it! Pierius Magnus 22:04, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i think everyone wants it only if it's good! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:06, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

THanks guys! I really think this is necessary. If the Vatican has stamps, why doesn't Lovia?Horton11 22:08, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we get a better image-maker to work on it, I'm all for it. No offense, Horton, but you're image-editing doesn't compare to that of some of our Photoshoppers. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:09, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes but some people can't afford Photoshop like me. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 23:59, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then get good at Paint.NET, like me. Or settle for letting others do it.  Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hannis here. Also, we (the state) would first have to establish a good, national postal service, before we focus on those stamps. Although they are nice Martha Van Ghent 07:41, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The postal office would require an extra line in the Economic Involvement Act, so that's an easy one. I'd say we design three official stamps to be co-voted over with the establishment of the Lovian postal service. Any objections to the method? 12:21, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean that the service is completely owned by the state? I'd like to prefer the Dutch system, a private company, not a state company that hired too many employees for too high wages. Cristian Latin 13:35, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be an autonomous company, but it would have a state-given monopoly (The Belgian system, and I believe it is the same in the Netherlands?). Such a private company would put up bench marks in cooperation with the government, but it's not like Congress is going to run the postal offices.  13:53, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said such a thing... Cristian Latin 19:47, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not, I was only hinting that there are many ways for the state to regulate a sector. A national postal office should have a decent amount of economic freedom, just as the state should be able to prescribe guidelines for it. 08:30, January 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess so . Anyways, postal systems are not really my pakkiean :D Cristian Latin 08:36, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

056. Request to read
I'm working on three major bills, the first two are already finished: It is very important these acts are read carefully by all MOTC. I would like to get this voted in February, with the new Congress. Also note that the bills are complementary - they support each other to form the core of our social legislation. I'd rather have them voted at once and without endless whining about details. Small changes can be made afterwards too. 14:44, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Labor Law Act with minimum wages, working conditions, etc. (replacing the out-dated Laborers Act)
 * The Social Security Act providing Lovia with pensions, health care, etc.
 * The Financial Outline Act about the federal budget and some general taxation principles
 * I'll print them off and read them carefully by somewhere mid-next week. Martha Van Ghent 15:14, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll read them when the third is finished :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:43, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I already read the first two half-a-year ago! They were fine! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 17:10, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:11, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm onto it! 18:26, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here. Percival E. Galahad 18:50, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

057. Political Rights
We need a new element in our constitution, this element protect the active users of the site. Therefore we have to make a devision between political rights and civil rights. In general we could define those two respectively as the right of Lovians towards the state/congress and vice versa and the rights of Lovians towards one another.

1. Why do we need a devision?

Several reason can explain this need: (1) First of all, it is necessary to strengthen the position of congress, political rights can be used by the congress (e.g. for the claim of goods without compensation) to handle severe and quick when need. (2) Secondly, it could make a devision between users who "come and go" and the real active users, without really making it impossible for new users to join. (3) There is also the problem "running for the running sake (Pierus (C)): some politicians are claiming a political post and they leave afterwards, when we introduce political rights, they can lose those, meaning an immediate stoppage of their term at that post. (4) Last but probably the most important is certainly the change which will occur during the elections. In a country as Lovia, which is rather small population wise citizens who live abroad can directly influence the country by voting based on their civil rights. This is of course perceptive, since they leave after the casting of their vote. The direct consequence of this is, that the chosen politicians are not fully/directly supported by those people, who are active. Several solutions to solve this last are possible.

2. What do you think should incorporate POLITICAL RIGHTS ?

<font color=Navy>JON  THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:20, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you were talking about "if you haven't made an edit in the last 2 months you can't vote" Well that's wrong but we can comprimise on this say six months? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:25, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I you have to be around for the past month, with at least 20 edits over that past month. That way, we prevent from making the elections decided by those who aren't as informed or concerned. As Dimi said, "the elections are chosen by the last five voters, not the first." (or something like that, I paraphrased) Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 19:46, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great things, I hear. Marcus, I don't know what you mean actually. Could you further explain? And Edward thanks for the support mate! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  06:53, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good thinking Jon. I'd say we make a division between citizen rights (only support vote) and political rights (all three votes). The division should be based on a certain grade of activity. 09:18, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly support a debate and the writing of a bill on this topic. If it turns out to be a piece of superb legislation, I'll back it up  09:51, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

058. Garbage
Anyone ever thought about the garbage, water supply, electricity and gass of the Lovian people? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:57, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am going to become the supposed IA&T so I think I should plan for this. I should have a Written bill for this by June, beacuse I'm getting a Netbook in april then I should be able to stay on longer and write more complex and fullproof bills.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:01, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok :) But before you start working on huge bills in April, I think a little bit discussing would also be helpful :) Anyone some ideas? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:02, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think all should be supplied by the government, at a low affordable rate. Lower Income families = lower payments. Garbage of couse free and pick up twice a week with different days for different objects. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:06, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to reduce costs I believe it would be useful to say something like Monday: Oceana, Tuesday: Seven, Wednesday: Kings, Thursday: Clymene, Friday: CR and TV, Saturday: NC. That way you only need a few garbage teams and they have full jobs. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:09, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * But it would be hard beacuse there are Recyables, Garbage, and the large objects. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for recyclable things we could have a central place in each town where it is collected, like this. Larger objects are usually brought to the dump here and if they're iron, the local schutterij takes them. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:18, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, we could have house collection for recycling; the 1st week is paper, 2nd week is metal and 3rd week is plastics. HORTON11  19:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice Idea! I see you'll be good for congress! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 19:44, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I lived in Canada, they had something like this. But garbage was collected weekly. HORTON11  19:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still needs more added to it, but this is just one of the things I've been working on my personal page, I also have another one. Nathaniel Scribner 23:06, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay hopefully it's good. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 01:08, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

059. Safe Drinking Water Act
''All public drinking, swimming, cleaning areas shall all be directed to this law. All sources to public drinking water shall be streamed trough a government adminstrated purificaton plants before supplied to the public. All of the following rules are to be regulated and seen under the eyes of the Department of Industy, Agriculture and Trade and the Department of Welfare;''

(a) the action level for lead is 0.015 mg, and for copper is 1.3 mg/L. ''All pipes with a higher level then this shall be replaced, all materials seen dangerous for use as a pipe are too be replaced. ''

''(b) all public drinking waters shall be inplaced with Fluoride to combat tooth decay. ''

''(c) bottle water shall also be inspected before going to the public. ''

The Department of Welfare and The Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade specifies the optimal level of fluoride to range from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L depending on the average maximum daily air temperature; the optimal level is lower in warmer climates, where people drink more water, and is higher in cooler climates.

''The creation of Waste Plants and purification plants shall be issued by the co-joint operation of the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade and the Department of Welfare. The two departments shall have a approprite ammount of federal reserve money to work with in order to create these facilities, determined by the Congress.''

''Water is a free substance, and everyone has the right to have free clean drinking water. The government shall provide parks, public places, government owned property, drinking fountains. All private owned places are to have a zero price on the serveing of tap water.''

Shouldn't the Department of Welfare have a part in this? This has a lot to do with health, and they oversee it. HORTON11 23:09, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this should be a co-project between the Department of Welfare and DiAT.Nathaniel Scribner 23:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you should contact Oos Wes Ilava or Marcus Villanova, they will be the new secretaries for those departments. I am not in charge of any of them though? HORTON11  23:15, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Always nice to talk to people not in charge, get what they're sight it :D, but yea I'll contact them. Nathaniel Scribner 23:20, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should administer replacements to pipes for all dangerous materials, setting the minimum at all official limits of the US FDA. As for the Fluorine, I think it would be best that we keep that out; water should be as pure as possible. There should be another common food additive we could use. We could use salt, just like we do for Iodine. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:30, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fluorine is a much much more strong substance then Fluoride. I drink Fluroride every day, its perfectly fine. Now some times fluoride can become overly used in places were water is already abundent with flouride in that area. Nathaniel Scribner 23:38, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a fine idea. The bill would require some minor changes, mostly in style and formal aspects, in order to be adopted. Still, a very fine idea. --American Eagle 12:10, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 'All sources to public drinking water shall be streamed trough a government adminstrated waste areas.' What the @#!*% ??!! --Semyon 19:00, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * You do know when you poop- pee or when you use your sink, its goes to a waste plant? It is then stunned with chemicals, they do alot of things. I live in Indiana, and we call our water purification plants 'waste plants'. -Nathaniel Scribner 19:11, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * To me a waste area means a rubbish dump. --Semyon 19:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it, in American you don't send good ol' pee or poop into the dump- your send it back to the American mouths. Nathaniel Scribner 19:36, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha. Not sure its that different here in Britain to be honest... there are urban legends about London water having been drunk seven times. --Semyon 19:44, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they do this in alot of nations. I know this act needs alot more work on, but what else I should add? Nathaniel Scribner 19:55, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * You could add a clause for the creation of such water treatment plants. I don't think that there are any. HORTON11  19:59, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the big guns up stairs come talk the ammount should be given to the project, but for now, this should work. Nathaniel Scribner 20:14, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an outline which is good let me have this "on your desk" by march also that sports bill you wanted will be done by march. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 20:30, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

060. Possible Exemption from Firearms Act for AAI
I'm not entirely sure where to put this, but here seems a likely place as any. HRH has expressed some concerns regarding the operation of my business, Anderson Arms, Inc. According to Dimi, firearms are entirely prohibited under the Firearms Act (?), so AAI and any related ventures would be rendered illegal. HRH also stated that even if firearms were legal, there's specific clauses that prohibit the importation of firearms. If the first scenario is true, the I'll delete the page. If the second is true, then may I get an exemption from Congress in order to supply firearms to Lovians (from what I've seen, AAI is the only firearms supplier in Lovia, it doesn't make much sense to allow firearms in Lovia and prevent them from ever getting to Lovia in the same bill; especially when there aren't any production facilities here yet!). I just need to know whether to continue with my business or not. Thanks, BoredMatt 21:06, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sign up as a hunter, but I'll be happy to use my 'hunter only gun' to shoot a man trying to hurt me inside my own house. Also, Lovia is a leading to being unrealistic, PEOPLE CAN STILL GET GUNS. Guns really need to be controlled but not banned! Guns at a Utah Colleges, this is one of the reasons guns can be good in some instances. Will you go to a Utah school, or go to a Lovia College to kill tons of school students, now we are not so far from the United States and I'm sure some loon will drive his fathers boat into Lovia's waters 'which arnt protected by any military' land and go to the nearest school and shoot it up. Nathaniel Scribner 22:25, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My dad kept (and still does, I believe) a Browning HP in his glove compartment for situations just like that. I don't really think Dimi was being serious about the whole "no guns" thing, but we do need clearer wording in the Firearms Act for this kind of stuff. BoredMatt 22:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * A total ban of weapons is dangerous and unrealistic. Lovia could become helpless and liable to be taken over by another country. As for the Firearms Act, it should be reworded to allow certain uses of guns HORTON11  22:42, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wish we could be more like Switzerland..Nathaniel Scribner 22:43, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mandatory service in military reserve until age 60? Hooray! That'll go over well in Congress! BoredMatt 22:49, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * We would need something like 1 or 2 years training, in case we ever do go to war. HORTON11  22:53, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Age 60, highly unrealistic. Nathaniel Scribner 22:58, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel, I was being sarcastic. That's what Switzerland has. I'm not for any mandatory training/conscription in the least. I'd like a small, well-trained, well-equipped force (ie The Brigade but run by the government) plus a larger part-time government-run militia (also voluntary); there's no point in mandatory training if a good bit of the citizenry has no experience with firearms to begin with. BoredMatt 23:10, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Brigade could be turned into a specialized force or army, under government control. The country will at least have some protection, and there will be the regulation required to make sure things do not get out of hand. HORTON11 23:38, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Firearms will remain ILLEGAL. Also our country does not need an army (and that is not that unrealistic: why?. We are a bunch of isles with no real oil wealth, or other sources of natural energy (I believe), furthermore, we have close friendship with the us, and last but not least, we are neutral in every single war). We do NOT need an army! It costs money that we can use elsewhere. <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed: no to the warmongers! I oppose this pseudo-legislation. 09:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * ....Firearms are legal for hunters and police, last I checked. The bill only asks for a possible exemption from the Fireams Act for AAI because Dimi thinks firearmsimportation is illegal. This has nothing to do with war, that was unrelated conversation. I'll move it to the talk page of The Brigade. BoredMatt 13:41, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, can I atleast keep firearms on my own property- I mean its MY property. Nathaniel Scribner 16:15, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * With this new congress- I hope I'll be able to defend myself in case of an emergancy. I'm not a Warmongers, I'm a very peaceful person and I will never fight unless attacked, I have the policy of Switzerland- don't say anything and carry a big stick. Nathaniel Scribner 16:20, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Firearms should not be completely banned. Our right to self defence and our nation's security and protection could be at risk because of this. HORTON11  16:23, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I completly agree. Nathaniel Scribner 16:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * So can I please keep nuclear bombs? It's MY property! I think statistics are against you. Ever seen Bowling for colombine? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  21:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I think people should be allowed to have weapons, they should be used for purposes of self defense. People should not have nuclear bombs and other WMD's in their private possession. Congress should set up a sort of "Weapons Committee", to determine which weapons can be used (for hunting and self defense) and which weapons (like wmd) should be banned. HORTON11  01:32, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Horton, it is the same, only on another scale, people should not have weapons for self defense, in The US people can defend their selves, on the other hand, it's the country with the highest murder rate! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:10, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I support Jon here: individuals don't have the right at anything, they get their rights from society. Widespread firearms are no good for society. If it was up to me I had all firearms banned with the sole exception of policeman. The monopoly on violence should be with the state. 08:19, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what is it with people who think they need to defend themselves? If nobody has arms, their's not need to defend you with one! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:30, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * GUYS! That's not what we're arguing about. The Firearms Act is passed. Read my first post! If policemen and hunters are allowed firearms, then there should be a store to allow them to buy firearms. AAI is such a store. Do they have a license to operate UNDER THE CURRENT LAW, or not? If not, I am applying for an exemption from this act so that I may supply Lovian hunters and law enforcement officers with weapons. BoredMatt 13:28, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Congress will buy them abroad <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  14:35, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * And if they wish to purchase their own weapons? BoredMatt 15:17, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Such unreasonable rules will push these hunters & co. onto the black market. Cristian Latin 19:08, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that all weapons in Lovia before the Firearms Act were imported quasi-legally, since we never had firearms legistlation (that I've seen, that is) prior to said act. I see no reason why that wouldn't continue. Lovia=archipelago=large coastline+low population=easy to smuggle weapons. Prior to the Firearms Act, all firearms used by criminals have been imported over water and dropped off at some obscure little dock. The definitition of "criminal" is more or less someone who breaks laws. Just because a new law is put into place doesn't mean they will stop smuggling. Laws by definition only stop law-abiding people. Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Thus, a full ban of guns in Lovia is highly inefficient because there is just no way on earth to patrol hundreds of miles of coastline without blowing the police budget out of the water for very little results. On the other hand, the partial (but highly regulated) legalization of firearms in Lovia would serve to effectively arm our populace against any criminals that might come to corrupt this nation. Simply put: criminals will always have guns. I see no reason why our citizens cannot. BoredMatt 20:38, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree on this. Citizens should be allow to own weapons, and congress should allow law abiding citizens to be able to have them, provided they are registered. The government should have a gun register, to allow people to have guns and to makesure they are legally used. HORTON11  20:46, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well not in my opinion horton, sorry mate. I'm defending those people who don't want to live next to people carrying a gun. And every country has a black market, every country has his points where it can't control everything, but in Lovia no weapon stores will be build, that's my opinion <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  20:50, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

This is the only option. It is impossible to ban guns nation-wide. The police and hunters should be able to bear arms - and will have to remain. Why then buy guns abroad? For plain economic reasons, buy them in Lovia, and let our own market profit! There are guns - this is a fact. No nation can do without 'em. Let us accept this undeniable fact and try to find out a way to make our country safe despite their existence. Remember: guns don't kill people, people kill people. -- Magnus 21:13, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * What we need is a law that allows the purchase and use of weapons for police, hunters and self-defense. With good laws and regulations in place, we can allow guns without compromising the safety of Lovians. HORTON11  21:22, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to sign up as a hunter, and I'll be happy to shine it up on my front porch, loaded. Nathaniel Scribner 21:56, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon, there are reasons why US states with high gun ownership have low crime rates. No criminal in his right mind is going to attack, steal, rape, etc. when there is a high chance that his or her victim is going tobe able to fight back. That's just common sense. We might as well build the store, because criminals are going to have guns anyways. BoredMatt 22:01, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lower rate of criminality, yes, but also the crimes committed are often with more serious consequences. Why? Because of the easy access to guns. If everyone is armed, that doesn't make it safer. If the whole hunter license is being misused, we should tighten legislation. How about forbidding guns for all with the sole exception of policemen on duty?  06:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * The US is a joke when it comes to guns. After the colombine shooting incident, (you know an incident that would never of happened because someone else would have a gun, to defend him or her self, BULSHITT), this was said in a speech planned after the shooting happened by president of the NRA: . Well let me say this: this man is nuts, carrying guns to defend yourself is nuts! Police should have weapons: correct. Hunters can have weapons: after a procedure the supreme court has to give a permit, this should be the general rule <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  07:05, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * One side will be for guns, another side completly against it, why can't we come to some mid-point? Lets say..heavy background checks for people who would like to use a firearm, small magazines, only allow pistols. Well- the thing about giving good people guns is somtimes a tumbs up, Utah Colleges allow students that have been heavly check to carry guns. My state is getting scared to shit, who will the crazed man go for the heavly armed Utah School, or the Defenseless Indiana School? See in a make believe nation- we have zero crime, zero shootings..so really we don't need a gun, but I'm glad little johnny is in the lock box when you live in Gary, Indiana. Nathaniel Scribner 07:44, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel, you do acknowledge that you like to have a gun because there are crazy folks walking around with guns, right? Under Lovian law, there would not be such fools. The state will have total control over firearms, with no illegal firearms either. That's what we're working on. In such a case, it is EVEN SAFER not to have a gun. 07:50, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly, every place in this world HAS bad people. There can never be a utopia, and also- were is all of our public housings, or ghettos? Nathaniel Scribner 08:05, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Kid, listen. Hundred people, where one illegally owns a gun (we couldn't catch the guy yet), and where five policemen have guns to catch the bad guys. Or hundred people, where fifty own guns. Which scenario is most likely to get lots of people killed? It's not just about bad people, it's about giving good people a horrible tool in a moment of stress. 08:09, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Facts, not opinions
Okay, this discussion is not really leading anywhere. Let's summarize what Lovia needs.
 * 1) The Firearms Act does not specify how people should acquire these firearms. We should think about a solution which explicitly resolves this issue.
 * 2) Under the Firearms Act, which will be enshrined in the Federal Law tomorrow, all firearms are forbidden. Since we are an island nation we assume that the government is able to make sure no guns come on the islands illegally. Let's just assume this out of good faith. If it is prohibited, there should NOT BE A BLACK MARKET. If there is one, the bill fails (partly).
 * 3) Prohibiting all private firearms possession is not impossible, as one of you said here. It's possible. It just requires strict laws, good procedures (that's what we're working on now) and total control.

Instead of talking about why - let's consider how we shall tackle this issue. How could we legally, and in agreement with the existing laws (which I suggest you all read), solve the issue of where to buy arms?

For those who read TIME Magazine (I do), there was an interesting reportage on fire arms in the January 24 edition, of course in reaction to the Tucson Tragedy. Some short facts? Research has shown that in states with very strict gun laws, less people die or are hurt in gun violence - obviously. If there are no guns, you can't fire them. Think about this. Owing a gun is not a premise of western freedom. 07:46, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * In the US, 8 children and teens die from gun violence, every day.
 * On a yearly basis, 31,224 people die from gun violence in the US. An additional 7,000 kill themselves.
 * 613 people are killed every year - accidentally.
 * What about the people who die in a car accidents should we ban them too, I could drive my car into a large group of people, would that be a weapon that kills people accidentally- I've heard of people suicide with they're car, Nathaniel Scribner 07:59, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a sick argument. Obviously, you haven't had car or gun accidents in your family yet? Should we allow nuclear weapons in our backyards too then? Don't you think there's a degree of danger here? Guns have one purpose: shoot. Cars can also drive, like to your work. 08:09, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dimi here. Gun permits may be handed out by the government, though I don't think Congress should vote on every new permit request. What about letting court approve/disapprove of permit requests? 08:12, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. 08:15, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * There should indeed be some sort of control on the control. Clearly, some people would use it for other purpose than those prescribed by the Galahad Act. Court must be able to intervene rapidly if abuse is reported. --American Eagle 08:17, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * And lets say people with a permit have to collect their gun at the police station nearest to their residence? The qualified department could buy and distribute the guns. 08:18, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's another good idea. We could include a clause which states the fed state is the only one allowed to purchase guns abroad, and to import them. They could then be sold to those who just acquired their license. I definitely support that. 08:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhm, I thank you Dimi for enganging with me on the questions I have to talk over every day, and these are the things I'm pumbled with every day by Republicans.. the car thing and what not, but I do want more control, less ban. We should let the states kinda have a say in this. Nathaniel Scribner 08:24, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be fooled by the name . Lovian states are in no way comparable to US states. There's no judiciary, no police, no legislature... on state or local level. Letting one man (the Governor) decide over issues of such political nature, is not what we intended for the states. We have Congress for these kinds of things. It's our most democratic and powerful institution. If the people use it well, it can do virtually anything for them. 08:28, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know. It seems odd to even have a state then. Nathaniel Scribner 08:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we do need someone to do the little things :). Like what Martha Van Ghent has done for Clave Rock: that's good Governor's work. 08:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Another Fact: The Flint Case
 * In Flint, Michigan, a 6 year old boy whose parents owned a gun, took this gun to school and shot a 6 year old girl. Is this a bad person to whom we should defend ourself? Don't think so, if this boy did not have access to a gun, this would not have happened, but seemingly this is what some Lovians want to achieve. If we allow firearms, we create a opportunity for 'good people' to abuse their goodness (sometimes (aka the flint case) not even knowing that they are abusing it) <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:37, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes fine point, I agree with you on gun safety and it being put away properly. Nathaniel Scribner 08:41, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jon: we're on the same line here but as Dimi said it is best to concentrate on the legislation. Otherwise the discussion will never end. I can live with court-controlled permits for professional use. 08:42, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Yuri: thanks. @Jon: yes  08:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know yuri, however I'm trying to convince some others too, and I know: It was my proposal to do as following
 * Police: congress buys and provides of necessary tools to exercise the monopoly of violence
 * Hunters: Need a permit (given by someone, court seems logic to me <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:49, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

I've never owned a gun, nor do I live in a area with bad crime. I was really just trying to make the wiki more lively, and see how Dimi could bounce back :D. I'm not a very good conservative. Nathaniel Scribner 08:52, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * You were sort of convincing . American conservatives are already a parody of themselves, so  08:55, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to react on "I agree with you on gun safety and it being put away properly": What do you need a gun for when you put it away? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * For safe keeping untill the Zombies come. Nathaniel Scribner 09:01, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote Dimitri: "We could include a clause which states the fed state is the only one allowed to purchase guns abroad, and to import them. They could then be sold to those who just acquired their license. I definitely support that". Sounds fair. But why not allow states to purchase these guns on Lovian soil? That way the Lovian economy would be the one to profit from these purchases, and not the nation the guns are taken from (that being the US). I see no problem whatsoever in allowing a store such as Anderson's to sell guns to representatives of the Federal States.--Magnus 09:27, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point Magnus, I only doubt the fact that this will cause no problems. I totally follow you in this case! Inland stores can also provide guns to congress, But that states should be able to buy, is a strange thing to me, some states could provide ammo, others would not, this would lead to the following, person A moves from his hometown to buy guns elsewhere; which is a weird situation <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  09:33, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would a state provide guns but not ammo, or vice-versa? Why not just heavily regulate the business itself and then let the business sell guns? I'm all for banning handguns and assault rifles fully and completely if we get to own hunting rifles and shotguns, and get to buy and sell them independent of the state. BoredMatt 14:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hunters can have weapons that's not the point, but what I fear is, that lovia will suddenly be full of hunters  <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't exactly go around shooting up schools with a bolt-action hunting rifle or a shotgun ;) BoredMatt 16:11, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Matt, I suppose you could. There has even been a case in the Netherlands in which a kid shoot his mother trough the eye with a pencil from a home-made crossbow. You can outlaw guns but violence itself? Impossible. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 16:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perius (or Ygo, what should we call you now?), I'm not talking about violence, I'm talking about hunting. Violence can never be outlawed, and that's understood by all parties here. We need the ability for private citizens to hunt with their own firearms. Next thing you know, Dimi & co. are going to ban bow hunting, and then crossbows, and then trapping. BoredMatt 16:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * No we are not! Hunting is good i think, but i think magnus is with us on this one (i hope so ). If everybody in Lovia because a hunter we have accomplished the inverse of what we would <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:20, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Matt, you may call me Magnus or call me Prime Minister. Or sir. And as for allowing hunters to purchase guns, I'm with you 100% on that, you know that. I have nothing against stricter requirements to purchase guns but to own a gun for protection should remain a possiblity and a right protected by law. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 17:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Your Most Immaculate Eminence ;D. However, I don't think we can get a right to self-defense into this without everybody else bailing on the bill. BoredMatt 22:38, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * No we are not! Hunting is good i think, but i think magnus is with us on this one (i hope so ). If everybody in Lovia because a hunter we have accomplished the inverse of what we would <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:20, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Matt, you may call me Magnus or call me Prime Minister. Or sir. And as for allowing hunters to purchase guns, I'm with you 100% on that, you know that. I have nothing against stricter requirements to purchase guns but to own a gun for protection should remain a possiblity and a right protected by law. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 17:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Your Most Immaculate Eminence ;D. However, I don't think we can get a right to self-defense into this without everybody else bailing on the bill. BoredMatt 22:38, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Your Most Immaculate Eminence ;D. However, I don't think we can get a right to self-defense into this without everybody else bailing on the bill. BoredMatt 22:38, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

061. Order
The First Chamber should remain orderly at all times. Please use the colons before each comment, one colon more than the previous comment. Please keep it orderly. 07:48, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Humane Slaughter Act
''1. No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the Kingdom of Lovia unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:''


 * 1. in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical,or any rapid and effective manner as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, where rapid is deemed a near-instant neutralization of life and effective means either a single shot, blow or use of force to render it insensible, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or


 * 2. by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.


 * 3. Report
 * The Secretary of Agriculture, Industry and Trade shall investigate and submit to Congress a report on the scope of nonambulatory livestock; the causes that render livestock nonambulatory; the humane treatment of nonambulatory livestock; and the extent to which nonambulatory livestock may present handling and disposition problems for stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.


 * 4. Authority


 * Based on the findings of the report, if the Secretary determines it necessary, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock by stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.


 * Seems to be a good bill. BoredMatt 22:35, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it is slightly vague; what exactly is meant by 'rapid and effective', for instance? --Semyon 22:41, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Rapid..as in a fast method of killing the animal, effective as in a method that woulden't requice you to do twice as in..using a second bullet. Nathaniel Scribner 22:47, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all pro for this but we'll just have to see what others think of it. HORTON11  23:12, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should make a universally accepted means of killing anything short of humans. Something fast and clean. Something like a poisonous drug. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:24, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't exactly apply a poisonous drug to a bullet. BoredMatt 01:41, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Poisonous drugs would not be a good idea, if they got into the wrong hands, it could be disastrous. I would agree to traditional methods like shooting or better yet a blow to the head. HORTON11  01:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a special, low-velocity 12-gauge shotgun round on the market that fires a special slug that's supposed to humanely cull livestock through the concussive force of the impact alone. That might be something to consider. BoredMatt 01:49, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems much better than using poison. HORTON11  01:58, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well this seems like a good law. I'd change this sentence, though: I'd change this sentence though "by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith" into "or the Islamic faith" because basically Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter is the same thing. Other then that: great! And no poisonous drugs: the meat should be consumable, remember? We don't want to poison ourselves. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 09:29, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * So my Human Burgers are out of the question? I agree with Seymon in saying that it is very vauge. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 16:34, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Zackatron: I know what 'rapid' and 'effective' mean, but terms like this must be very closely defined. --Semyon 21:53, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I fixed it up. I'm giving the DAiT shall have work to do, Mr.Villanova :D Nathaniel Scribner 23:08, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * The first part might need some reworking, but the second part is really great. Its very professional! Hopefully you can run and get elected in the midterms, cause you could do good in congress. HORTON11  23:31, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some more, it should clearify the powers of the DAiT. Nathaniel Scribner 01:14, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would probably rewrite the first part to make it clearer and define rapid and effectiveness:
 * 1. the killing of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and all animals, when they are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow, gunshot or any other means, whether electrical or mechanical, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Such termination of life should be employed in a' rapid and effective manner as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, where rapid is deemed a near-instant neutralization of life and effective means either a single shot, blow or use of force to render it insensible.
 * This should be clearer and better styled. But the other parts are just great,no need to really change them HORTON11
 * I added some more, it should clearify the powers of the DAiT. Nathaniel Scribner 01:14, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would probably rewrite the first part to make it clearer and define rapid and effectiveness:
 * 1. the killing of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and all animals, when they are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow, gunshot or any other means, whether electrical or mechanical, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Such termination of life should be employed in a' rapid and effective manner as prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, where rapid is deemed a near-instant neutralization of life and effective means either a single shot, blow or use of force to render it insensible.
 * This should be clearer and better styled. But the other parts are just great,no need to really change them HORTON11

Looks great now! I'll vote yes, and hopefully the other Congressmen and women can do the same. HORTON11 01:41, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ha it seems like we've been in congress for two seconds and me the DAiT has done more than any other position right now. I'm currently writing a water law and just wrote a short sentace for the Sports act. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 01:44, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Preamble
''Lovia, unlike most other countries in the world, has no national bank. I would like to propose to Congress the establishment of such a bank, as it can prove necessary in most economic aspects of Lovia, and can achieve a greater economic independence for our country.''

The Act
1. The National Bank of Lovia will be the official central bank of the Kingdom.
 * a. The National Bank is to be a publicly owned enterprise under the complete control of Congress.
 * b. No other banking or financial institution will have the right to proclaim itself as the "national bank".

The official duties of the National Bank are as follows:

2. Issuing and use of currency- The National Bank will oversee the use of all official currencies in Lovia.
 * a. If necessary, the bank is to issue the official national currency, which would consist of:
 * i) printing Banknotes (bills)
 * ii) minting Coins
 * b. No other Lovian or foreign banking or financial institution will have the right to issue coinage or currency, in the name of Lovia or any other country, office or institution.

3. Keeping Federal And Foreign Reserves- The Bank will:
 * a. Be in charge of keeping and protecting Federal currency (holding government money) in the bank vaults.
 * b. Keep international currencies, gold and other precious metals (in the vaults) as a reserve currency:
 * i) to ensure that Lovia does not stay dependent on any single currency
 * ii) to ensure that the country does not become bankrupt in the case of an economic collapse of the market or of any Lovian currency.

4. Regulating private banking institutions- The National Bank should regulate Lovian banks in such a way as to prevent economic recessions and banking collapses by:
 * a. limiting the amount of money a bank may lend to no more than 86% of its total currency amount held in reserve,
 * b. having background credit checks to ensure customers can pay off the loan
 * c. ensuring banks employ fair and reasonable interest rates when charging for loans.

5. Assisting congress and the Department of Finance in enacting economic measures
 * a. Congress (and the Department of Finance) should collaborate with the National Bank when:
 * i) enacting economic measures or trade-related laws to ensure they will not have an adverse effect on the economy
 * ii) economic agreements are being drawn up with foreign governments and/or their respective central banks
 * b.Likewise, the Bank should assist the government in any way to ensure that the said laws will aid Lovia's economy and help it grow

6. The bank is responsible for setting minimum and/or maximum interest rates for:
 * a. The lending of currency by financial institutions and private banks
 * b. Accrued interest on persons personal bank funds

If approved, a follow up bill would be one for the creation of a National Currency.

Here is the proposed bill. It would be nice to have comments and suggestions, to improve the bill and see it pass to the Second Chamber. HORTON11 02:28, February 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * looks nice! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 02:37, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Aventis National Bank of Lovia is partially a state owned institution. [...] It acts as the central bank of the country since it fused together with the Lovian National Bank in August 2008. --> So we do have a bank that performs the tasks of a central bank. I propose we fully nationalize this already partially public bank and turn it into our NB. Also, please try to look before saying 'we do not have this or that'. 07:55, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad yuri: okay, but the name needs to be changed, so it won't really matter in the end i think/ ad marcus: You need to add some lines on how the bank will be ruled and also I say again that national reserves do not exist (so when the cb holds government money, than it is a consequence of a payment from the gouvernment to the cb, which makes the money base smaller and also the money quantity) <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:53, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

064. Notification
My three laws on the social issues of Lovia are finally up for voting in the Second Chamber. I hope all of you took the time to already read the bills. We all know that hope is vanity, right? Anyway numbers can still be adjusted later on, it are the mechanisms I really want to introduce. More information can be found on my sandpit or you can address your questions to me directly. Thanks to all (former) MOTC who offered their constructive criticism; in particular Marcus Villanova, Edward Hannis, Martha Van Ghent, Oos Wes Ilava and Jon Johnson. 08:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks the PCP will support this law. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 13:10, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

065. Party Loyalty Act
Party-swapping seems to be a key feature of Lovian politics, one that IMO isn't very democratic. F.e. would you have been so keen to elect Edward in 2010, had you known he would join the CCPL? Here is my proposed solution.
 * 1) By joining a political party in the Kingdom of Lovia, a citizen agrees to the following conditions:
 * 2) If that citizen, holding a government position, be it that of a Governor, Deputy Governor, or Member of the Congress, leaves the party of which they are a member, the remaining members of the party have the right to call a by-election if they so wish.
 * 3) In the by-election, a new candidate chosen by the party will stand against the original holder of the post. The winner of the by-election will take up the post.
 * 4) The regulations for by-elections are as follows:
 * 5) If the post is that of a Member of the Congress, all citizens will be entitled to vote.
 * 6) If the post is that of a Governor or Deputy Governor, only the citizens of the relevant state will be entitled to vote.
 * 7) Each citizen will have one vote, which may be cast for either candidate.
 * 8) Other normal electoral rules apply.
 * 9) This law shall not be applied retrospectively.

I don't expect anyone will like this, but please consider it. --Semyon 16:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I recognize the problem and am open to a solution. The current person-bound positions are indeed undemocratic. On the other hand complete party-bound positions would be undemocratic too. I like the idea behind this solution. 17:00, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a solution. And what to think of this: this law also means that if f.e. I am elected as a CCPL Gov and I don't switch parties, but I do change my ideology, it is not contra the law, while it is especially that the law is designed for. And what if someone is thrown out of a party? In my opinion this is not a good solution. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a fine proposal, actually. People will think twice before joining or leaving a party as a result of it. Although not much party-hopping has taken place since McCrooke decided to leave us. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 19:55, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Decided to leave us" lol! Sure. Okay, any way i say nay, very undemocratic. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 20:51, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Soon we will be creating laws like "if you watched 30 Rock on Thursdays that is the only day it can be watched for you personally." Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:06, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Party loyalty is good to some extent, but it should not get in the way of personal choice. So, I have to say no. HORTON11  21:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed we need some common sense here this is a bit facist even to say that you can't switch when ya want to. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution is not optimal but I still believe a solution has to be found. Parties do their best to support 'their candidates', IRL you can't just hop parties without losing your seat to. Maybe our elections need to be reformed parallel to the secret voting? Anyone would be in favor for party lists? Independents can of course still run 'on themselves' (as a one-man party so to say). 06:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well.. The first thing is not exactly true. At least here in the Netherlands it goes as following: if you disagree with your party, you have three possibilities: 1. stop complaining and vote like your party does. 2. don't leave the party, but lose your seat. 3. leave the party and keep your seat. If you choose for the third option, then you could still join a different party (btw, only a party which is not already represented in congress). It's not that common at all, but it is a possibility.
 * The last thing indeed is something interesting. I'm fully trying with secret voting and party lists. There is one thing we should take a look at then: what if a one-man party gets f.e. 50% of the votes? what is done with the votes for this party that can not be used as there is only one candidate? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he would 'transfer' his votes to the party closest to him. The problem I see with this is that if I like Walden but dislike Martha, as she'll be at the top of the list I cannot avoid helping to elect her. (this is of course just an example.) If it were possible to vote for individual candidates as well as for the party as a whole, it would work better. --Semyon 08:35, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * That issue can be expanded to 'what about parties with more seats than members'. I'll take a look into it and try to find a solution to that. Any suggestions are welcome. 08:37, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marcus and Justin: I know this probably won't work, but you can at least read the bill. Members can still move party whenever they want; there'll just be some consequences. --Semyon 08:39, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Yuri: I think an overview of the electoral system would be a good idea; just look at the conflicts caused in the past year. --Semyon 08:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Semyon: I think you propose some kind of combined list-person voting system with preference votes, like in the Netherlands. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:49, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can vote for the party and for the candidate, it could be a good idea. But, we would need to have secret voting, and that is hard to achieve. HORTON11  13:08, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Semyon: I did read it which is why i commented.
 * I feel like this won't work out and just make things more complicated, too much off the wikia stuff. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:30, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * My conclusion after working out a few scenario's: too complicated and too punitive for smaller parties. I suggest Congress approves a law which allows individual parties to decide whether they wish to 'bind' seats to them or leave them in the hands of their members. In other words: we still keep voting for people but party statutes can legally require that its members have to give up their seat(s) if they loose membership. This solution balances realism, fair representation and ease. 07:05, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds acceptable. But what happens if a member has to give up his seat? Is the seat replaced by someone else from the party or is the seat simply opgeheven? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:26, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Where's hannis to say "don't fix it if it isn"t broken" Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 11:28, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno man, I'm kinda missing Hannis right now. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 11:35, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it is broken. In the Netherlands we call it kiezersbedrog (voter's deception). You vote for someone because you expect something from him, but if he comes to the conclusion that he wants to change his mind, the voter's will will no longer be heard in Congress, which means that it actually is very undemocratic. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:56, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's undemocratic, but its unfair to the voters. Say they voted for a liberal and he became a conservative, they would not be happy and would feel misrpresented. HORTON11  13:01, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, democracy means that the people should decide. They do this by electing candidates who they expect will do what they want. If these elected candidates later on change their views, the people's indirect decisions are no longer done, which means that it is not democratic, because the people can no longer (indirectly) decide. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:05, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're clearly missing something, OWTB. Shall I let you in on a little secret, little goodie-two-shoes? Screwing the voters is a major part of politics. There is no such thing as an honest politician, just like there is no such thing as an honest lawyer. We lie: it's what we do. But we call it differently. We call it "compromising". Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 13:13, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * The new idea:
 * Political parties which exercise power through a mandate required in a recognized election are entitled to 'bind' that mandate to the party.
 * If bound, the party which the seat belongs to has the right to replace the person occupying the mandate under any of the following conditions:
 * The person occupying the mandate formally drops his or her party membership on his or her own account.
 * Through court verdict, the person occupying the mandate loses the right to exercise a political mandate.
 * The person occupying the mandate is deprived of his or her party membership through an internal procedure.
 * The person who replaces the former occupant must have membership of the same party the seat belongs to.
 * The involved political party can opt out on the usage of the replacement procedure if it wishes so.
 * Any comments or additions? 13:38, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very clear law. Looks okay :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:56, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and as Oos said, its really clear and precise. HORTON11  15:03, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of this bill, or any such bill. In my opinion, individuals are elected under the Constitution, not parties or lists. --American Eagle 15:06, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * People vote for them based on their party and ideals, so if they change their party/ideals, the people who elected them in would not be happy. HORTON11  16:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I still hate this law it's so overcomplicting evrything and just way too undemocratic, and i will challange it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:12, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can very well see what some of you have against it, but please consider it. The bill fixes an actual problem and you all can still vote contra its implication within your respective parties. If the bill is passed, the CPL.nm will decide whether to use it or not by democratic vote under all its members. 06:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * This can only work if other editors do not touch (read: change) the content of ones own userpage. Which has happened in the past, as we all know.. Aesopos 07:04, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't quite follow here? If you would change the content of this site from 'Yuri is a member of the CPL.nm' to 'Yuri is a member of the CCPL' that would not be on my own account, thus not allowing my party to hand my seat over to someone else. 07:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I dislike your revision, Yuri. The key feature of the original was that an election would be held between the old person and the newcomer. If the old one is simply replaced, that's quite undemocratic. --Semyon 08:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends. If you were going to let everyone vote (including people who didn't vote the first election was held) you would have a very strange bias. My revision is supposed to be a compromise between party-based voting and personal participation in the elections. I'm open to suggestions, but I do prefer my current (of course not perfect) proposal. 14:19, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends. If you were going to let everyone vote (including people who didn't vote the first election was held) you would have a very strange bias. My revision is supposed to be a compromise between party-based voting and personal participation in the elections. I'm open to suggestions, but I do prefer my current (of course not perfect) proposal. 14:19, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Notification to Congress
I would like to restart the above discussion on a new election procedure with secret voting. Parallel to this I want to address some general issues concerning the organization of the Lovian state. For instance: Congress can issue laws which are incompatible with the Constitution, and (even worse) a judge would not be able to make a decision when faced with conflicting legislation. Therefore we should make a 'reform package' that solves all of this. More concrete measures will be proposed soon. 15:03, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Lovia needs some reactivating and I believe that it's very important that a judge should be able to do that, but then we should have a complete separation of judge and congress. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:51, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great initiative. Also a good thing that you mention the judges - I am planning on changing a few things when it comes to our Supreme Court Judges as in: what are the requirements and the maximum and minimum ammount of active Judges and their function(s). I will also appoint new Judges (indeed, more then one). Of course it'll have to wait until after the trial, which is taking way to long. Ygo &quot;the Brigade&quot; Donia (Lovian PM) 16:07, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I like everything exepct that secret voting thing. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 21:00, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I like the secret votin thing, but it will be difficult to make a good system that works. HORTON11 21:33, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * From the signals I'm getting here it seems best to vote both proposals separately: a reform of the voting system and a better worked out legal system. 13:05, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm for a new better legal system but a secret voting system can be tampered and changed. I can just make a new e-mail like Horton11Walden from aol.com and just vote for him.Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 14:25, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could only count those votes that have been confirmed by the accounts. So first I vote per mail and then I say somewhere on the wiki 'I voted'. I know there are difficulties, but we should at least try to overcome them. 08:02, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The part on a stronger judicial branch of power is getting shape. I made some recommendations which I would like to work out in actual legislation. Please check the few points and formulate your opinion. (PS: the voting reform will best be separated to avoid too much controversy in one proposal). 10:51, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

The first the sports addition Act 0.61
The national sports team of Lovia need to be approved by congress by normal majority. The national teams are as followed :

This was also posted a long time ago in my bills for congress subpage Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 01:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lovian National Soccer Team
 * Lovian National Sevens Team

I also wrote a water providing bill in a subpage called /Government Provides and going to write a judical re-write act. Thanks, Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward 01:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, i think this is good. There are afterall Lovia's 2 most popular sports, so i say for this. Just fix the wording and make it a more professional proposal. HORTON11