First Chamber[]

026. Air Lovia[]

I'd like to bring this issue to Congress/Parliment. Air Lovia is formally requesting the ability as the national airline of Lovia. -- 中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 00:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

If by national airline you mean state-run provider of transportation services, I'm in!

Even though any piece of legislation concerning this matter must also enshrine the relations between the national airline and commercial services. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:47, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like to oppose your former comment on deregulation - Lovian government has the duty to provide key services to its people. (Though you could argue if organizing airlifts is one of them). Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:50, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Air Lovia is happy to be subsidized (subsidies) and be treated as a national airline. Thank you,

中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 22:24, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Hello?! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 22:27, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

We can bring it before Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:35, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, it got brought before Congress! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:39, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Lol... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 03:04, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Travel by are is not a key service. Except for medical/aid air travel this should be private. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 08:34, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Haha wtf. Njet. Il Duce Octavian 09:11, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Even if Canada's national airline is Air Canada, people still pay for tickets, because you still got WestJet... so, it's merely a name of honor, really. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 13:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and some state-subsidy of transport would be good too. --Semyon 15:33, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

We could make it a state-involved company (minority owned) under the Economic Involvement Act. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:37, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

The plan is that Air Lovia will be subsidized and the shares will be like this: Walker (25%), Goyou (50%), and Government (25%).

Or maybe just Walker 35% Goyou 35% and Government 30%. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 22:16, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

027. The King?[]

Should we have a king anymore? I mean, it is unfair just because Dimitri founded this website, he doesn't even have to worry about being elected! He has been inactive for a long time and it's time to make Lovia with checks and balances. A new system will be proposed soon. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 03:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

NO! We will have a king. And if you have done your homework you would've seen that the automatic seat is no longer there. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 08:33, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we will have a king. And he will kneel before the Emperor we'll soon also have!

The glorious First Consul of Rome 08:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Il Duce the Emperor? :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 09:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Si, che vuole dire? :D Il Duce Octavian 09:11, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

My stance, and that of the CPL.nm, still haven't changed: Dimitri will be our last King. He can have his crown until he dies or steps down. After that, Lovia is to become a Republic. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:39, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I kinda like the monarchy. Let Dimi's oldest child take over, or his brother, nephew, niece or whoever is his next of kin. Lovia has always been a monarchy, and it's Royal Family has become a part of the Lovian culture and idenity. We shouldn't take that way, it would be foolish and not needed. The glorious First Consul of Rome 09:41, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issue will probably never be on the table as Dimi isn't expected to die any time soon. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:45, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Maybe sixty years from now our grandchildren will figure out something.

The glorious First Consul of Rome 09:47, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Dimi is not active, as you say, so it's not really different from having a wholly fictional character on the throne. --Semyon 15:31, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

028. Deployment & ending this another message from the PM[]

Tomorrow UNLOR, the US and Mexican armies, and hired mercenaries will liberate Clymene, no doubt. All rebels in Clymene seen there have the direct order to be arrested or if in the act of violence even killed. This drastic measure has to be taken. The fact that these fascist war-heads are still attacking has to be stopped. The ban of rebel leader coming to congress has been lifted in hopes of new peace treaties. It would be to my best interest that Seven, Kings, Clymene, and sylvania are given back to the lovian people, and in turn Oceana a free republic. A measure many rebels should agree with. Back to the clymene rebels, 5,000 troops will be sent and in turn Clymene back to the Lovian government. Similar attacks to rebels will be sent out in the coming days in Seven, then Kings and finally Sylvania. The rebels will lose. And with that I commend this statement to the house. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:03, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the rebels were already out of Clymene. Seven is almost gone. And Oceana WILL NOT be independent. They will just become an autonomous state. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:05, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

When HAMR was stopped, PAM took over. All PAM is asking for is a simple autonomy, because we hate Newhaven's laws, that's all. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 15:08, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

PAM doesn't have any real users that REALLY want autonomy, unlike Oceana. PAM is just a random independence movement that's there for no reason. UNLOR secured Kings 100% a long time ago. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:20, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

First "Hamr\Hammer", no PAMela...

The glorious First Consul of Rome 15:23, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Timemaster: UNLOR controls Kings now. This PAM nonsense discredits my honest efforts. Aged youngman 15:39, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but no offense Jeff. Also... is the Capitol building blown up still or was that reversed? *crosses fingers* —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:43, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

The building has been blown up - you said no godding. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 16:17, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Can yuri or somone good at maps please update the current rebel control situation? Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:33, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe... this thing is a disaster. :D --LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 03:26, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

029. Preparing future trials[]

There seems to be a general consensus on the decoupling of blocking accounts and trials. This is, most of us feel, for the best. It can't however not be an excuse not to make work of the trials. I feel we can already prepare the cases against Hessel Doorian, Dietrich Honecker, Kim Dae-su and Thomas Matombé. What I'd like to ask from Congress is that they find us a judge and a public plaintiff. I am willing to be the plaintiff if needed. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:57, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Am I to vote over this too? Well I knew I had it coming so I wont block your proposal. That is, if the judge is trustworthy. Aged youngman 13:36, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I wouldn't go for the guy who judged the Galahad v. The Brigade Trial. That was a total sham. The glorious First Consul of Rome 13:41, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yuri and Timemaster remain my favorites. Or Marcus if he isn't that angry with me anymore. But he's already our premier. Aged youngman 13:42, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

I can be imparshial and i am studying law so if you need a judge just call. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:40, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

I propose that in future two judges must judge every trial, chosen from opposite ends of the political spectrum to avoid travesties like the Brigade trial. --Semyon 20:52, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

And I fully support that, Semyon. In fact, I believe there has been a similar proposal once but it didn't get through. The glorious First Consul of Rome 20:59, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on a few lawyer characters of my own. Once this war is over, things can only get more interesting (judicially, that is!). Cheers,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 21:58, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to be the judge, if that's possible. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:53, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

So this far we have Marcus and TimeMaster as judges and me as a public plaintiff. If no-one else applies for these jobs I think Congress may vote.

Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:17, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

If we have two judges we'd need to modify the Constitution. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:04, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

What is TimeMaster's political colour? --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:42, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

In the middle, so I guess I don't qualify. We need a super-commie (Yuri) and a far-rightist-racist dude (Drabo), I guess.

—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

But I wanted to be plaintiff. Well, I still support the duo TimeMaster-Marcus, but if you guys disagree it will be hard to find another couple. We can't use any of the charged persons (OWTB, Bucu, TMV, etc.) - this leaves us with very little choice. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:22, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I also wanted to defend Dae-su. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:45, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to be either defense or judge, whichever TM doesn't want to do. (I'm in a nice mood today :P) --Semyon 19:54, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'd like to be judge. My "actor" (lol) will be Lars Washington, and if Aesopos returns, I'll turn over control to him. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:02, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

030. Clarification and passage of law[]

Would any other Rt. Congressmen want to clarify or allow the City Archipelago to become it's own state/country? How do we define Oceana now? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:16, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Allow The Empire of Oceana to become it's own country de facto then Ocean apart of it to. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:20, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

The Empire of Oceana should not become its own country, it will be ended soon. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:51, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

okay.Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:16, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

I say allow them to become they're own country, and own wikia. Lets see how long that nation will last. Richard Creed 01:11, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

One wiki, one law, one nation! (all references to historic slogans are pure coincidence). Serously though, if they want a country of their own they should start a new wiki. THIS is Lovia. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:43, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

031. Some changes to the constitution[]

Here are some proposed changes to the constitution adding NC as a state and introducing the concept of 'districts'. Changes in bold.

Proposed law[]

Article 4[]

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
1. The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
  2. All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are ~~either~~ democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia ~~or who are Member by Right (the ruling monarch).~~ Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
  3. All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
2. The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania, and one Autonomous City: Noble City.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, and to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the Autonomous City, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
    1. The term ‘Autonomous City’ and ‘mayor’ are synonymous with ‘state’ and ‘Governor’ respectively, and the same laws apply to both.
  2. ~~The local level, consisting of cities and towns, and the sublocal level, consisting of neighborhoods and hamlets, are governed by the state authorities.~~
3. On the local level, states are further subdivided, on a geographical and cultural basis.
  1. In urban areas, the subdivisions are known as neighborhoods and hamlets.
    1. Neighborhoods are grouped together into towns or cities.
  2. In rural areas, the subdivisions are known as districts.
  3. Districts, neighborhoods and hamlets are governed by state authorities or the officials that they appoint.

Notes[]

The creation of the autonomous city will sort out the deadlock in the Kings elections, giving TM a position. It also splits up a state which is around twice the size of any other.
Districts will play a part in our census calculations, allowing rural residents to be factored in. Currently we are in the unrealistic position of having a 100% rural population.
I also found a reference to the King's automatic seat which I removed.

Comments[]

Any? :) --Semyon 20:20, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I definitely do not agree to Noble City being an "Autonomous city". (Maybe make it something like the ~~China PR~~ People's Republic of China's "Direct-controlled municipality", like Shanghai, but I'd still disagree.) First of all, will Transcity split from Noble City? Second, if Transcity will become part of Noble City, where will Sylvania's State Capitol be? Definitely NOT Train Village! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 20:43, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

How is this going to be useful, Semyon? We don't have ridings or districts based on politics at all. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I just read the notes section. In my Census, I just added 500 as rural population to each state. I don't think population should be based on users at all, though, because all it does is make the population go up and down and up and down again. It would be better to have nice and realistic population--30,000 for Noble City, 20,000 for Newhaven, 15,000 for Hurbanova, 12,000 for Sofasi, etc. And the autonomous city thing is kinda weird, a federal district or nothing at all would be better. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:14, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Nobody listened to me! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 22:46, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Transcity has been part of Noble City and it always will be... And what's wrong with Train Village? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:21, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I support this to the fullest. TV would also make a great capital for Sylvania, which is now too much synonym with 'NC' and 'Lovia'. Even the further subdivision of states is fun; it asks for new maps!

Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:18, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

@Jeff: Sorry, I only just logged in. I don't think a new state capitol will be a difficult point; it could be located in TV or even in Charleston, if that was wished. It could help also to boost TV's population. @TM: If we're going to base everything on how 'useful' it is, we may as well delete the whole wiki :P. Doing things because they're 'fun', as Yuri points out is quite a good enough reason IMO. Personally I dislike the use of the word 'federal', partly because it sounds as if we've copied it from America (yes I know DC is not a federal district, but the word federal pops up everywhere) but more importantly because it's misleading - we're not a federation. (The name was BTW copied from Buenos Aires). @Yuri: Thanks for the support. :P --Semyon 10:38, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Great. Just great! I'd support splitting Sylvania into West and East where Noble City is the capitol of West Sylvania (or whatever name you want), then East Sylvania (or whatever name you want) will be governed by Charleston. I do NOT want Noble City becoming some sort of "Direct-controlled municipality" (like China). I can't see how it helps Lovia, and this will ruin the wiki. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 15:23, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I wish Hannis was here to give his "non-existent" problem speech...but this helps very little so most of my congressmen will vote pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:28, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

How does a direct-controlled municipality ruin the wiki? I also don't see much reason here. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:32, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah again as i read over this is really does nothing but create more divisions. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:34, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I never mentioned a 'direct-controlled municipality' so I don't know what you mean. --Semyon 15:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Frankly the 'non-existent problem' thing was a load of crap, because it allowed Hannis to sound profound while ridiculing others' ideas. No, there's no big 'problem' that needs a 'solution' but I think it would be a nice thing to do, and evidently so does Yuri. On a wiki of this kind that's quite a good enough reason for doing anything. If you disagree, by all means vote contra, but don't use that argument. --Semyon 16:07, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Read Jeff's comment, he said it would ruin the wiki. And actually, there are plenty of non-existent problems we've solved--however, not all solutions to those non-existent problems are problems in themselves (but some are--take the oasis skin--it sucks, monaco was better). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:20, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Listen, Noble City shouldn't be it's own "autonomous city". It really ruins everything, but if you want to, grrr...

--中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 16:29, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

No, how does it ruin anything? :S --Semyon 16:54, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I will agree if Sylvania's capital will remain in Transcity. (Even if Noble City is an autonomous city) --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 18:04, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think enough people have spoken out in support of the proposal. If moved to the second chamber it will most likely get approved. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:00, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

If Transcity is part of Noble City, and Noble City would be autonomous, then how would the capital of Sylvania be located in Transcity? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:53, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

OK, I moved it. :) --Semyon 18:46, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

032. Standard Knowledge Assessment[]

I am proposing the default Lovian standardized test for all schools, no matter private or public, shall take the SKA until college. The last year it is taken, the scores will be a determining factor to allow students to show colleges and upper education institutes their SKA scores. No government interference shall take place, but a new organization called EduLovia or the current educational department will develop the test and set rules, etc. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 00:52, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Jeffwang, do you have any characters with a seat in congress? If not, than this is not the place to place such a request. Especially if you are proposing the idea that this poll is open to any citizens. --LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 02:45, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any such proposal. I agree with a test to indicate how capable students are, but such tests should NOT determine what you can study. So mandatory tests without consequences of which the results could be used to indicate how well Lovian education is doing. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:26, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

@cHRIS - Any citizen can propose a law or write in the first chamber, but only MOTC can vote and disccuss in the chambers.

I dissagree with this waste of money take it from a high schooler's POV. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:43, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Erm, you know what, I don't care if I'm not an MOTC, because if you look at the introduction, you will see your shame appear. Also, the proposal has been updated. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 23:48, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

033. The 11th Amendment regarding a national military[]

Recently, I've been asking why everyone in Lovia is so opposed to a national military. After a while of not being responded to, however, I checked-up on Ooswesthoesbes' talk page and found the answer. Dimitri opposes a military. I get that our king is pacifist, but no official rule has yet been established that outlaws one, so I am here to provide us with a cleverly thought out solution, that we create a military.

The Lovian Civil War has just ended, and we chose to sit back as the United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force and the United States of America were left to do our dirty work. It took hundreds of civilian deaths in order to make the solution clear? We don't want this to happen again! We need to learn to adopt our own military!Think of it like this: if we had our own military, than that would mean that we could put down rebellion quicker and then enforce our laws with more efficiency. No more waiting around on our allies to get the job done and less unjustified deaths!

Below I've established an act for our Constitution that you all should take into consideration. The title, "Lovian Armed Forces", is definitely negotiable, if you would prefer "Lovian Royal Military" or something along those lines.

024. Eleventh (or Twelfth) Amendment[]

The Amendment[]

Article 13 – The Lovian Defense Force

The Lovian Defense Force is the official military of the Kingdom of Lovia.
1. The Lovian Defense Force must remain the nation's only militarized forces.
2. The entire Lovian Defense Force is a military reserve force.
3. The presence of a national military does not, in any way, oppose the Firearms Act of the Criminal Law Book.
  1. Any Lovian militia operating within Lovia, regardless of its alliance, is considered unlawful, except when deemed acceptable by a majority vote from Congress.
  2. Weapons such as firearms may be distributed to those serving the Lovian Defense Force, which are for official use only, in battle, and/or when authorized. Weapons distributed amongst soldiers are exclusively federal property, as are any weapons in the military arsenal.
4. The Lovian Defense Force is not responsible to the Federal Police.
  1. The Federal Police are expected to cooperate and function with the Lovian Defense Force during times of war.
The Lovian Defense Force consists of two uniformed services, the Lovian Army and the Lovian Navy.
1. The Special Forces of Lovia is revived in order to be incorporated into the Lovian Army.
2. The Lovian Coastal Police is dissolved and reformed as the Lovian Navy.
  1. Much of the Lovian Coastal Police's unit structure is retained.
Lovian High Command (HIGHCOM) is the authority of the Lovian Defense Force.
1. All branches of the Lovian Defense Force are responsible to Lovian High Command, whom's purpose is to command both uniformed service branches.
2. High Command is composed of four individuals, the Prime Minister, the General of the Army, the Fleet Admiral of the Navy, and the Chief of Intelligence who each represent their respective branch.
  1. The General of the Army is the Chief of Land-based Operations, and the Fleet Admiral of the Navy is the Chief of Naval Operations.
  2. Only the Prime Minister may choose to engage the nation in war along with a 65% special majority vote from Congress.
    1. The Prime Minister may not declare a war involved with foreign military/militia organizations unless a 70% general majority vote from Congress and both the General of the Army and the Fleet Admiral of the Navy agree with the Prime Minister.
The Bureau of Intelligence (BI) is formed as the nation's military intelligence agency. The Bureau of Intelligence is responsible to Lovian High Command.
1. It will compromise whatever security systems the former Lovian Coastal Police and the Special Forces of Lovia.
2. The command composes of the Chief of Intelligence of Lovia.
  1. The Chief of Intelligence will be elected by Congress, and must then be approved of directly by the Prime Minister.
  2. The terms are for a lifetime or the resignation of the Chief.

Conditions[]

The previous Chief of the Lovian Coastal Police, Christopher Costello, is appointed as Fleet Admiral of the Navy.
1. Christopher Costello, the visionary of the Lovian Defense Force, may further build and contribute to the military. This includes writing articles that are not limited to the Lovian Navy.
  1. The rank structure shown here, proposed by Christopher Costello, is adopted by the Lovian Defense Force.
  2. Christopher retires as the Assistant Commissioner of the Federal Police, and is reinstated to the Navy.
The previous leader of the Special Forces of Lovia, Anatoli Bershov, is appointed as a general of the Lovian Army.
1. Members of the Lovian Land Army are offered positions in the Lovian Army.

*These bonus conditions stated above require an okay from the current Prime Minister, Marcus Villanova. ~~Pretty please!~~

Cheers,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 02:42, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pro - Submitted the idea and sees this change fit (-Pikapi unsigned)

I do support this but I think that an independent military is not really justified for such a small country. What if we made the military a part of the police (like Costa Rica)? HORTON11 18:20, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Horton. And what's up with all this voting crap? The First Chamber is not for that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:22, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

well i agree and don't I like a military but how well funded. I don't want our country to have 45 nukes, 4552422 guns and engaging in any wars. Tho, Chris i know ur smart so i don't think you intended that.

Ummm if you could change/add in That only the PM can propose an attack on another country but it needsa special majority of 60%. And in sense the REAL MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ARMY is defense. And chris Good job! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:51, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll definitely make the changes that you suggested if you accept my decision. Also, you should know that only globally substantial nations harbor, much less have the ability to create nuclear weaponry. A military would be a smart step forward, and it's kind of my specialty...

The military would always take a defensive stance. Furthermore, we wouldn't engage ourself in foreign affairs and would remain allied with the UN and the US, but actually writing that stuff in the Constitution would make the Armed Forces seem less formidable. So what will it be? I'm taking this to the Second Chamber with your suggestions in mind. Thanks,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 22:42, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

We should wait a day or two let the scruitiny and comments come in. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:56, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in agreement with Horton, and I will not vote for this. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:32, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Let's add a Lovian Air Force. I can't believe you missed an air force, because we have islands and it's faster to travel by air. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 23:51, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

That's the worse idea. We've told you already, we're a country of 20000, the fact we offer social security without taxing is freckin amazing. And seriously i really can't agree with this. Our army should just be like 100-250 specialy trained people really to defend our nation in really important times of need, along with the other 500-700 police officers. But of course a nation of 20000 is going to attack Iran...yep let's do it now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:29, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

We get it all off sports revenues and tourism! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:44, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

All spearheaded by me But honestly an air force is just insane. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:06, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

You are insane... let's just say UNLOR will step in again once something like this happens. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)•跟我谈话 01:37, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. It doesn't help the nation to have an official armed forces--for a nation as small as us, the police do the job. If a civil war happens, then UNLOR can help. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:43, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Also, let's put down "In case of dire emergency, the prime minister or congress may impose martial law and a request for agencies such as the United Nations or the United States' Army.", if TimeMaster agrees. --J T (is not my name) 02:02, November 11, 2011 (UTC)\

ARE WE serious again? Dude,Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:08, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

No, the prime minister or congress should not be able to should decree "MARTIAL LAW GO TO UR HOUSE NOW KTHXBAI." —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:20, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

@Stupid Villa of Terra Nova: YOU SON OF A BISCUIT, I JUST WANT TO PROPOSE SOMETHING AND YOU OVERREACT. I KNOW I AM TOO KTHXBAI. --J T (is not my name) 02:34, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we're in the middle of a yell fight in Parliament where two obscure representatives are yelling about how stupid each others ideas are. Except this time it's the PM and a non-congressor. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pro The UNS (or what is left of it after the war) fully support the creation of a Lovian Army to prevent further conflicts in the near future. Without it, Lovia will never truly be free nor independent, as it will rely too heavily on allies such as the USA and Mexico to step in and save it's ass. The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:12, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Ha stupid villa of terra nova? Not even the jokes are good. On a more serious note I agree with Master voice, we do need a military, we do need it to be funded, no we are not going into any wars. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:20, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

We aren't going into any wars, that's for sure. But we can easily be dragged into one against our will since we are a completely defenseless and rather weak nation. We are not Switserland, nor will we ever be. Lovia still has nationalists and extremists. It had them in the past, and they'll still be there in the future. The type of warmongering folk that begin conflicts are here and they are not going anywhere. To keep Lovia alive, free, and LOVIAN, first and foremost, our nation needs an army. The Civil War has proven, beyond doubt, that Lovia cannot sustain itself without one. The glorious First Consul of Rome 13:03, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Proposing a military does not mean that we are planning on stepping back into war. We are merely establishing an adequate defense force for those that want to take a stand next time insurrectionists try and overthrow Lovia. We do NOT plan on engaging in foreign affairs! An Army and a Navy are adequate, but adding an Air Force would mean more than just a shitload of military planes to produce. It would be a horrible idea in general. I proposed a Navy because Lovia is a maritime-based nation, and we should exploit the sea. Because we are such a small nation, I only approve of the two branches that I had proposed. Those two would be very possible to maintain with our resources.

Because the thought of us doing more than defending ourselves horrifies most of you, I had altered the name of our national military from the Lovian Armed Forces to the Lovian Defense Force. For the new, improved article, see: User:Pikapi/Thirteenth Amendment, and base your comments on that please. And please don't place any votes there, it isn't the official poll, that is just going to be my vote for when I copy & paste it to the Second Chamber, later. Thank you, and cheers.--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 14:26, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Your porposal sounds really good, so I'll be voting pro. HORTON11 14:42, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Why do you require an actual army? Why isn't a police, like the system in Costa Rica that Horton said, good enough for a country of 20,000? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:19, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Do we need an intelligence agency? I can't see why not. --J T (is not my name) 13:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I've learned to ignore your suggestions. Please think we're a peac keeping nation of 20000 Who is gonna bomb us? If we wanted to keep up a CIA of sorts is would take about 50 billion US dollars and since ours is prob weaker is would take a lot more. I'm socialist but i don't feel like taxing everyone and everything to 99.9%. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:28, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I say no to an army either. Just so you all know. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:45, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Marcus, you don't approve? A military intelligence agency isn't one of the thinks that I need to keep, and it isn't really in the same field as the CIA. A naval intelligence agency only keeps track of what nations could pose a threat, and then analyzes their strengths and weaknesses. We don't have to tax anyone for this either. I have millions to kick-start a military. And we don't have to start producing weaponry, boats, equipment or anything! All of the equipment and tools of the dissolved Coastal Police would be transfered to the Navy, and I am willing to support the army to the best of my ability. Please remember that our military is not so much for outside threats as those that could tear our nation apart from the inside out...--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 15:13, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

If a civil war happens again, and somehow all those rebels have achieved really gun weapons, then we can call in UNLOR. Otherwise, a police force is perfectly sufficient for a nation our size. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:10, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Lovia should be independent and capable of taking care of it's own business, without having call in foreign nations to fight the battles for them. Only then can we truly be free and self-sufficient. All the arms you guys have taken from the rebels, what'cha gonna do with those, sell them, throw them in the ocean, give 'em to UNLOR? It'd be ridiculous. I say you take those guns and equip a LOVIAN army with them. It does not have to be big (in fact, it's more or less impossible for it to be big) but still. " 't is pompen of verzuipen"... The glorious First Consul of Rome 17:03, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point! We, being a small little (mostly socialistic) nation, shouldn't even try pushing around the US and the UN, and calling them into our business. Eventually, they'll have enough. Lets not get pushed into this corner later, lets establish a defense force now!--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 02:43, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how we can possibly upkeep such an army. . . they are very expensive and I also like the current names. An updated and strengthened police force, made by modifying the Federal Police Act and adding back the Local Police Act, would be a better choice, in my opinion. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:49, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please don't keep amending my article, I never even had the chance to finish writing it yet. An updated version can be found here. --LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 15:26, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

@Costello: It is not like the US shuns socialist countries. Just across the Ocean lies its little friend the UK, often ruled by a government that likes to think of itself as socialist. In fact, most of its European partners implement 'socialist' policies like huge social health care, price control mechanisms, etc. A lot of Americans would label certain Canadian laws as 'socialist' too. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:28, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

I am just stating that tensions may arise. On a similar note, you know what the US did when it suspected that the Russians would be converting Koreans to communism, right? An unnecessary war erupted. Anyways, I'll be proposing my article now before this forum gets to clogged with new stuff. Cheers,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 00:14, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

035. Lovian Citizenship and Immigration Act[]

This is just to replace Article 3 of the Constitution, but this is a major rewrite.

The Lovian Citizenship and Immigration Act is a proposed act of the laws of citizenship in Lovia.

Lovian Citizenship and Immigration Act[]

Article 3

All previous Citizens are hereby declared a citizen.
1. In order to become a citizen, one must reside in Lovia for seven days and has made at least one hundred edits.
2. If one holds citizenship in another country, they are hereby naturalized unless they have issues with naturalization.
  1. If there are issues and the Lovian embassy may not solve it in any way whatsoever during a period of one hundred and eighty days, the person will lose their citizenship of Lovia.
3. Any naturalized citizen may not participate in any elections until they have went through a probation period of six months.
4. Citizenship comes with requirements, rights and responsibilities (3R):
  1. All rights are described in Article 2 of the Constitution.
  2. A Lovian citizen must reside in Lovia in his/her own domicile.
  3. He/she must have 100 edits and at least one week (seven days) of experience.
  4. If not, the person is considered a permanent resident awaiting naturalization.
  5. Permanent residents may only reside in one domicile (housing/estate/property) at a time until they are naturalized.
    1. Acts of spam, vandalism, trolling, and related acts are strictly forbidden and do not count as 100 edits.
  6. He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information to the federal government of Lovia:
    1. His or her given name and given surname.
      1. One may not change their name or surname until they go to court.
    2. His or her biological sex, which must be either male or female.
      1. It may not be intermixed, otherwise naturalization is forbidden.
    3. His or her domicile (permanent residence); which must be a full address recognized by all levels of governments.
If one is not a citizen, they are hereby declared a permanent resident.
1. A permanent resident enjoys limited rights.
2. A nomad - or one who chooses not to have a permanent residence - will be recognized as a permanent resident.
3. A permanent resident may not vote or elect.
4. A permanent resident may not own more than one piece of property.
As opposed to the former Article 3, a court or any government office and/or official has no right to take away a citizen's citizenship away unless the citizen agrees to do so, or if the Prime Minister authorizes the court to do so. Congress and the court may also authorize the stripping of one's citizenship.
1. If the citizenship of one is taken away by a federal court, the former citizen is either deported or becomes a permanent resident.
  1. In order to become a citizen again, a judge must grant the former citizen re-naturalization.
  2. A deportation of a former citizen means a block for one hundred and eighty days (six months).
All legal visitors and permanent residents are hereby declared "legal aliens" of Lovia.
1. Legal aliens must keep their travel documents (visas) or their permanent residence card/booklet to themselves at all times in their domicile (if they are in the domicile) or with them.

Contributors[]

Bill An - CEO of Goyou and well known professional lawyer at GoAction. Alma Mater is at Yale Law School.

--J T (is not my name) 03:59, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

I find this a bit overdone. It seems to hand out universal citizenship to practically anyone. It also doesn't make enough distinction between the administrative side of the wiki and the creative/fictional one. I know this is a borderline subject, but still feel that the formulation of 'purely destructive for the wiki' doesn't belong on a piece of legislation. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Constitution say that people can become citizens with x edits and y days, as well? Also, these scroll boxes are getting annoying, because they mess up the headers. I will have to either remove them or add includeonly tags. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:19, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

036. Rewrite the Constitution[]

With all these amendments being proposed, and the Constitution being cluttered even before this, I think we should heavily revamp the Constitution, reorganize it and change things. Thoughts? Some things we can add are the new police system being worked out by Pikapi, and possibly a new election system I'm conceiving. If we take this further we can just adopt a new Constitution, but keep several things the same, like what (fictionally) happened in 2007. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'd support any amelioration. If you guys are in for some more radical legislation, I'm always willing to write a contribution too.

But perhaps it is better to keep the amount of editors to a minimum, at least until we have a first draft version. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:15, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

We could have a constitutional convention tomorrow (or Sunday unless Oos objects). Anyone up for 7 AM Lovia time (UTC -9 (not DST))? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what is it? Or is it for MOTCs only?

--J T (is not my name) 22:15, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

No, everyone can come. Even you, Pierlot.

I'll make a channel on Coldfront. 7:00 UTC -9, that's 19:00 in Belgium, and 13:00 in the US east coast, though we can make it earlier if any of you want, I guess. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it's start up at #wikination. Instructions to get to the convention: Go to the chat. (Link) Accept all the warnings, and you should be in the #coldfront channel. Then type /join #wikination. Then go back to the #coldfront channel and click the X to close that chat window. Then type /nick [yourname], and you'll be set. I'm in there right now, so if you don't see me there was an error. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:20, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Awesome but first two things::::::1) Let's set out a debate time frame like 13:00 -13:20 A debate on the role of congress, 13:20 - 13:40 Role of PM, 13:40 - 13;45 a break:::::or so forth.:::::2)I will be gone on sunday from 14:00 - 20:00 so i could still be there for 3 hrs.:::::and wait is this debate for today. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:23, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's telling to download some plug-in should I? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:25, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, today, and do download the plug-in. There wasn't enough warning time so I am just starting once we get 4 people on or so, maybe 3. Before that we can just discuss things. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:26, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oh well sorry. Can't do it family matters and such. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:29, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Not today? Why not? You were coming on before, before the plug-in debacle. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:33, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Also Marcus, what time zone were you using up when you were listing times? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:43, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot join. --J T (is not my name) 13:59, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Weird, what errors is it giving? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Java (parse) errors. --J T (is not my name) 14:21, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Is your java up to date? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:21, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

NVM, it was a stupid error of my fault. I'm on chat now. --J T (is not my name) 14:22, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Damn thing isn't working, and I even downloaded Java. HORTON11 16:07, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

What errors is it giving? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:31, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention[]

Pierlot and JeffW - In favor of abolishing states.
JeffW - In favor of reforming the Unicameral system without two pages. One page will host all discussions and votes.
Pierlot and JeffW - In favor of abolishing property limits.

--J T (is not my name) 16:59, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind merging the First and Second Chambers, but property limits and states are good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:30, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

States should be kept - you know my stand on that. I prefer the unicameral system and here's why: it keeps everything clean. If you have voting and discussion on one page, it will get messy and you'll loose all oversight (my experience from the unicameral system in Mäöres) --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 19:25, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's any worse than the current situation, though. Also, Oos, what times will you be available in the next week? I will be available mostly until thursday, friday, saturday, and perhaps sunday (8 days from now). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:02, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

So was there like only two people there? Or like 4 or 5 should we do another one? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:20, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm never available actually, 'cause you guys are living in another time zone and you're awake when I'm asleep :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 10:15, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

There were three but only Pierlot and Jeff seriously discussed while I was afk. So we should do another one. And Oos, if you're in UTC +1, that's not the other side of the world from -5. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:15, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Still this is not workable, 'cause at the time you are free to go IRCing, I'm at university or in the train :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:23, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

So i think we should do this again. sometime. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:34, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone just list what times they are available in in Lovian time, UTC -9? We should aim for the first Saturday in December, about 11 days from now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:58, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Eh? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Where is everyone? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:38, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

037. National soccer team[]

I would like to propose to congress to officially allow the creation of the Lovian National Soccer Team. I have created the page User:Horton11/Lovian National Soccer Team, but some coaching positions will need to be taken over. (as some users behind them are no longer here) HORTON11 15:38, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Make it yourself, it's fine. FIFA does not get subsidies from any country, does it? I don't think such strict regulations are needd. --J T (is not my name) 16:51, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

038. Recess and Travel appointments[]

Under the certain holiday times I would propose a congressional law for lenacy for members during vacation times. Like the middle of the summer and the end of fall/begining of winter. Not to say congress would be shut down but just longer wait for bills in the first chamber and double the time for bills in the second chamber. Let's be honest no national assembly is open ALL YEAR. So let's change this.

Also within this for the next few days I will be meeting with foreign dignataries. With This I also have glad news two things:

1) In light of the global economy many investors are expecting the passage of a budget this year, I Will propose this in due time.

2)Our national economy grew to 77th largest in the world which is quite acceptional for such a small country.

In the next days I will be meeting with foriegn political leaders in Europe with some high ranking positions.

November 25th - First Minister of North Ireland - Peter Robinson
November 27th - President of Ireland - Michael D. Higgins
November 28th - The United Kingdom Exchequer - George Osborne
November 29th - French President - Nicholas Sarkozy
November 30th - Italian Prime Minister - Mario Monti

Thank you. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Jeff stop Only FIFA accepts a national team. So yeah it need congressional approval. I think it's nice

Pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The recess is pointless, but the second part sounds good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:01, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

039. Labor Law Act[]

Several months ago, Yuri made this law to replace the current Labor Law Act which is not as good as this law. I think it ought to be made into law. What do you guys think? Here's the text: —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

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

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here but shouldn't this really wait until after elections? Kunarian 22:18, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

We're not even in the voting stage yet, I don't see it as a problem at all. This is just a good law to protect laborers. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:25, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

True, some parts are unquestionably good others may protect labourers but harm employers and businesses, especially small businesses. But thats my final word. This is a matter for the leaders of Congress not a backbencher. Kunarian 22:29, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Any MOTCs up for discussion? Is this law missing anything? Yuri's laws are generally perfect, though, so perhaps not. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:19, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Why does no one care? Would anyone mind if I move this to Second Chamber? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:08, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see this. It looks good in essence. I corrected one spelling mistake. --Semyon 19:43, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Lovian English doesn't change -yed to -id (as in payed vs paid). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:03, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

I Like this as a Labour Party. I'll vote pro! Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:00, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no one objected and there is support, so I think this is ready for a vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:59, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

040. Census change[]

I want there to be a population boom for several reason. One to make things realistic. We have alot of sports clubs and things but only like 20000 citizens. I good population boom to 45000 or to 60000 is needed to make things realistic and kinda show we are a serious force.

Two we need to also pass a budget. And in this budget we have a pretty Socialized Health care system, Social Security and alot of benefits but for who? 20000 people that really doesn't make sense. Also what kinda loops into this is tax revenue. So I wanna change these numbers so we can have a serious and better lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:06, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

So here's a formula (N = Variable):

All states start with 550 people do to rural regions which aren't incroporated into Hamlets or towns, etc.

Old Hamlet/Village formula: 200 + (N x 121)
- New Hamlet/Village formula: 210 + (N x 130)
Old Town Formula: 1000 + (N x 121)
- New Town Formula: 1275 + (N x 165)
Neighboorhood Old formula: 100 + (N x 121)
- Neighboorhood New Formula: 120 + (N x 125)
And the city formula stays the ammount of neighboorhoods combined. This needs a quick response and vote and a new census will take place in the week...I'll do it of course. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:16, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

No, we should completely change history instead. The connection between the fake population and wikiusers should stop, so we can just set the number of people at a realistic number instead of multiplying wikiusers by a random number. Also, it's too early for a census. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:39, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

It has been proposed before to increase historical populations as well. I quite agree with doing that, but it would mean a lot of work. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 10:56, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

What do you think we should do? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:04, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Pass a law/whatever vote is necessary with this change so I can implement it (next week my Christmas holiday period of two weeks start) and there is no problem at all :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:55, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Actually we do not need to change the law for this. I want to know whether most of us agree that the census should not be user-based. If we can come up with a "goal number" for how many Lovians we want (like 50.000?), I can make proposed number of inhabitants for all "governmental" bodies (state>rural areas/town>neighborhood/hamlet). --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, plus there is a calculator that I have which could tell us how much population would change without immigration or emigration. 82.18.203.83 16:56, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do have immigration and emigration a lot, but it could be useful though :) --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:59, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

It's good that we will be expanding the population. Also, the natural growth rate is probably quite high seeing as though there are quite few very, very fertile celebrities. The Donia Clan is a good example of this. That has a bigger impact then emigration and immigration.

The glorious First Consul of Rome 17:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you should keep in mind that Lovia is quite a "militaristic" nation (Civil Wars, etc.). This should cause a population decline, generally, as there will be people fleeing and killed. That's why this high fertility rate is so important: it'll keep the nation stable (with about 2% growth each year). --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 10:46, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

with 50,000 people btw, in one year (without immigration, emigration) the population would rise to 50,375 thats acounting for the recent civil war. 82.18.203.83 13:22, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

041. Special Forces of Lovia[]

I would like to come to congress to propose that the Special forces are recognised as a land companion to the Coastal police. I will say that honestly I do not like armies and violence, but in the Civil war there were many deaths and the regular police did not do well. I will let congress decide everything to be the most democratic and also so no body has unlimited control.Granero 01:42, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This special forces has been operating as what is termed under Lovian law as a private militia. Congress has already refused the bill that would have made the so called special forces of lovia the standard land forces. I am taking them to court on accounts of illeagally owning firearms and of operating a private militia on Lovian soil. Kunarian 01:48, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This is not a private militia! It is part of the police made for public security. If you want I can tone it down and make it more like a police, I can even rename to Special Police of Lovia. But, please I do not want to go to court for this, it is bad enough to go to court. Granero 02:44, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

And also could you recognise the Lovia Coastal Police, it is vital to the national security as well. Granero 02:48, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding it had been recognised. if not it may be included in the court case. Kunarian 03:15, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion to recognize these entities which have been vital to Lovia's security during the Civil War. Though Kunarian dies have a point over control so maybe congress should operate them directly but with nominal control under Mr. Costello and Mr. Berbashov. HORTON11: • 19:54, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I argue that the coastal police stay as they were approved before, they are not in question. What is in question is the special forces of Lovia, they need to be taken from a military level and put onto a police level, I was hardly aware we had the money to fund this in the department of welfare and still have enough to fund hospitals, one of the two is being neglected and its not the "special forces". They should only operate on a law enforcement level as the coastal police has done and should not take priority over other items in the department of welfare. Kunarian 20:07, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Dept. of Welfare has not funded this yet, have you not seen our large hospital funding program put in operation recently? I agree theis should be more like a police (Costa Rica has a specialized police instead of an army). Perhaps we should rename it to Lovian Defense Force, used only for defense against any threats. HORTON11: • 20:11, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

No, they shall not be our armed forces. And how do you expect to fund the 200 man force that equips itself with military weapons. Kunarian 20:16, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Horton, you know I've already proposed the Lovian Defense Force a while back, and it got denied because no one wanted it. As much as I support a military, this isn't really the time or place to recap that earlier proposal. I would be glad to incorporate any willing members of the Special Forced into the Coastal Police for now, and when we have the time and we all decide to create a military, they can return as an Army, and the Coastal Police can become our navy. That would mean we don't have to deduct anymore of the Lovian population, that might serve in the military. Back to the subject, though, what do you think about my proposal?-- LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 20:29, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I am still agianst the idea. But to integrate them into the Coastal Police is the best short term solution but would mean taking on too many members, you may simply have to lay some off. We need quality in Lovia not quantity. Kunarian 20:34, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I saw that the arguments were not doing anything good, and also I chatterd with my cousin and I decided to change it to Lovian Defence Force.

1. The Lovian Defence Force will act mainly like the civil defence and emergency aid team but secondly like an army.

2. The official abreviation is LDF

3. The LDF will do humanitarian aid for hurracanes, tsunamis, and natural disasters.

4. In times of wars like the Civil war congress may decide to have the LDF operate the army portion and use weaponst to protect Lovians annd defend the country.

That is my plan. Granero 22:13, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This is just a face for you to install your own military piece as the Lovian Army. I will not support it and will make sure that other members of congress flatten these bypasses of the legal system. 82.18.203.83 22:21, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This is not my own military piece, it is for all of Lovia. Granero 22:25, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

What that you lead and control without consulting congress one bit? not at all. not at all. 82.18.203.83 22:31, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Congress will decide everything, not me. Granero 22:35, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

No you have just gone ahead with it, not waited or anything, you are even trying to get them bases! THis will be dealt with by congress and unless you cease and desist it will go much futher than you think. 82.18.203.83 22:43, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Please do not take it much further, I do not want to create more conflict. And I dont wknow waht is cease and desist? But please I will continue through congress before making bases. You should see that I removed most of the military parts and it's mostly humanitarian and peaceful aid. Granero 22:45, December 20, 2011 (UTC

IT WILL go futher unless you STOP everything NOW. If you wanted to make a humanitarian and peaceful aid force then go and make that, do not do that to cover up your military intent. 82.18.203.83 22:49, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I have no military intent and I am not covering it. Anyd you are very rude, doing accusations and not llistening. I am trying to completly co-operate but you do not want it. Granero 22:51, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

THEN WHY DIDNT YOU STOP AT THE FIRST POINT? I am preserving Lovia from people like you who seem to just want to godmod stuff in. I have listened but you have not. You want to do it now, now, now instead of waiting for congress to even make a comment. I have given you the level with which you must comply but you fail to do that, in fact you go even futher going full out military. 82.18.203.83 22:54, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

No this not full military, only a reserve emewrgency unit. I have listened and not you. I have made the compro,mise but not you, sp please be calm and be rational and negotiaite. Granero 22:57, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

There should not be a reserve emergency unit at that point. If somehow a bunch of hooligans manage to get control of machine guns, automatic rifles, and other illegal guns then I guess we'll have to call in UNLOR again. But realistically, you can't really smuggle in that kind of military gear. We should have everyday police, police over waters, police over air, police over cyberspace, police for traffic, but no true military. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:28, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

A system like the national guard in the USA might be okay. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thats the kind of thing I'm writing a bill on now. Kunarian 03:15, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, we need to reimplement local police. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:17, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

When did we get rid of local police?! Get them back on the beat now! Kunarian 02:18, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest we have a body which is neither police nor army, but somewhere in between? If we give it quite a vague name, then both sides can be happy - something like the Royal Guard sounds nice. --Semyon 14:09, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

We are a maritime nation, and we need a small defense force (and navy) of our own. A "royal guard" just wouldn't do. What do you find bad about my proposal?-- LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss - What's up)} 15:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Royal Guard already exists, to protect the Royal family.BTW Pikapi your proposal is great. HORTON11: • 16:14, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Guard does already exist. Plus Horton could you note which parts you particularly enjoy about his proposal? 82.18.203.83 16:16, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Plus let me note what I don't like about your proposal:

It could give rise to private militia as you have put a way for people to sneak them into legality.
You have engineered it specifically to reward yourself and a small group of users with power in the military whether the intent was malicious or not, you have done it.
You have created another secret service which is uneeded.
There are no given limits on the operational powers of the military, basically as soon as congress lets it loose its a bull in a china shop.
They are not written to be responisble to any given force.

Things I like:

Its a step towards a military.

82.18.203.83 16:23, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

On Pikapi's proposal, I am in agreement with Kunarian. Another thing I don't is that there is a lifetime term for the leader a useless intelligence agency, which of course is going to be Bill An. And Jeff added that, lol. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:22, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the Royal Guard or something like it exists (@Horton and Kunarian), if it does, I would like a link. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:35, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

042. OAS membership[]

I propose Lovia submits an application to join the OAS.

Also, we should consider Lovia's foreign affairs in more detail. --Semyon 16:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support. Don't know if it's necessary, but it wouldn't harm us either. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:53, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I will look into the OAS, but I completely agree we must stop being isolationist. Kunarian 16:53, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Given that even the dubiously democratic American states are members, we don't want to be the only state whose voice isn't heard. --Semyon 17:04, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Considering it I don't think we need it and I don't really think Lovia needs to get involved in any political union other than NATO. It does effect us to join and not completely positively, it does not effect us to leave it alone and just focus on building foreign affairs interaction instead. Kunarian 17:11, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Which of the 'goals and purpose' don't you agree with? --Semyon 17:27, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree with them, I disagree with the likelyness that we may have rules and regualtions forced upon us that do not come from the Lovian government.

BTW, I created a proposal for a passport. --Semyon 17:29, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to propose this seperately? Kunarian 17:31, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The only union that Lovia should not join is NATO (we don't even have a military and aren't even on the Atlantic). Joining the OAS is a much better idea. HORTON11: • 17:32, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

This section is just intended to be discussion. Another idea I had was to join the Commonwealth, but I understand no-one will like that. --Semyon 17:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

@Kunarian: I understand your concern, but don't think that is an issue. Quoting from the Charter of the OAS: "The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever." --Semyon 17:37, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The commonwealth is for English Empire nations primarily and doesn't really fit Lovia in too much. Could you link the charter. Plus Horton, without NATO we would probably not be having this conversation right now, due to the civil war which would most likely still be runnning. Kunarian 17:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

It was the UN which sent troops to Lovia, not NATo. HORTON11:

•

18:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yes so it was, I confused the two. Kunarian 18:27, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I feel UN membership is a must, and OAS would be benefitial too. Maybe Lovia could rejoin UWN (maybe I could get Brunant to join it too). HORTON11:

•

18:47, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Are the other wikinations even active? Kunarian 18:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Link as requested. :) --Semyon 19:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

@Kunarian: Well... From time to time especially Libertas and Mäöres show signs of life, but at the moment it's quiet in both countries. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 19:39, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I was thinking of setting up my own wiki nation but if they seem to die out... :/ Kunarian 19:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now my problem points:

An act of aggression against one American State is an act of aggression against all the other American States
The Member States recognize that, in order to facilitate the process of Latin American regional integration, it is necessary to harmonize the social legislation of the developing countries, especially in the labor and social security fields, so that the rights of the workers shall be equally protected, and they agree to make the greatest efforts possible to achieve this goal.

The points i like:

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Still iffy. I'll wait for some other people to state their opinions. Kunarian 19:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Kunarian, you could join Brunant. Its quite active these days. HORTON11:

•

21:05, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I see it does have a few people online, I'll think about it. Kunarian 21:18, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

OK, hopefully you do decide to join. HORTON11:

•

21:35, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

What does Brunant have to do with this, Horton? Anyway, I don't think joining OAS is something that would help Lovia, per the facts Kunarian stated. Lovia is against war, if I recall correctly. The Civil War only further increased opposition. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:20, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

043. Anti-Monopolization Act[]

A monopoly is a corporation that has achieved complete or nearly complete dominance over one or more business markets and uses anti-competition practices to preserve their influence over their controlled market. Monopolies often raise prices to achieve unfair profit for themselves.
1. Other reasons may be defined by a court of law, and the court should decide whether the corporation in question actually is a monopoly based on several different facts about the corporation.
2. A monopoly always controls at least 50% of the market in question. Not all companies with over 50% or even 100% of the market under their control are monopolies.
  1. An accused monopoly should be acquitted if they are technically considered a monopoly by market share, but are not practicing anti-competitive tools.
Being a monopoly is illegal in Lovia, and monopolies should be split or dissolved when possible, to open up the business market for competition once more.
1. Cases against monopolies should be settled in a fair court of law, with a plaintiff on one side and the corporation defending itself on the other.
2. To start a case against a monopoly, the plaintiff must first have sufficient evidence presented to the court. If the court's decision-making body agrees that there is evidence that suggests the corporation in question is a monopoly, the session may begin, whereupon standard practices should be adhered to.
3. During the case, the plaintiff should bring arguments about the unfair and anti-competitive practices that the corporation is using, if possible. The corporation should justify arguments that the plaintiff brings.
4. Eventually, after arguments have been raised and discussed, the court should make a decision on whether or not the corporation is a monopoly.
After the decision had been made, three outcomes are possible:
1. The first outcome is that the corporation is declared a full monopoly that must have action taken on it.
  1. The court may prescribe liquefaction of all or part of the corporation, but not in market areas where the corporation has proven it does not use anti-competitive practices to ensure its dominance.
  2. The court may also prescribe to split the corporation into two or more separate parts, but not in market areas where the corporation has proven it does not use anti-competitive practices to ensure its dominance.
    1. Such corporations may not merge without the permission of a court of law and must not form an alliance to continue unfair dominance in the sector.
  3. The court makes the decision on which split parts of the corporation go to which people, who may or may not get compensation if the corporation is dissolved or split, and has the authority to make actions upon the corporation in the way it sees fit.
    1. Such actions may only take place during the "outcome" period of the monopoly trial.
2. The second outcome is that the corporation is declared not a monopoly that needs no action taken on it.
  1. The corporation may only be tried for monopolization again after two months have passed.
3. The third outcome is that the corporation is declared a semi-monopoly, that does not need to be dissolved or split.
  1. Such corporations must be put on probation by the Department of Finance for a duration of two months, and cannot be tried again until two months have passed.
    1. If the Department of Finance finds that the corporation has not made an effort to stop its semi-monopoly-like practices within two months, then it can immediately be tried again, but can be dissolved or split if declared semi-monopoly.
All split monopolies should act as completely separate corporations.
1. Split monopolies may be charged again as oligopolies if they form a corporate alliance or oligopoly.
Charges for oligopoly may be charged for split monopolies and other oligopoly-like corporations, and should proceed like a monopoly case.

Here it is. What needs changing? What do you not like? Other thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Pro, but I'm dubious about how the court will draw the line between a monopoly, semi-monopoly and and non-monopoly. Also, how will splitting be enforced? --Semyon 14:56, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I support this going to the second chamber AFTER you write in something that clarifies what as seymon said what is a monopoly, semi-monopoly or non-monopoly (basically a competitor). Make it so that it's based more on individual companies owning all or a large percentage of a market. for instance, if I own 5 retail stores from one retail company and there are three other retail companies with 5 other stores between them, that is a semi-monopoly. A monopoly in that case would mean I owned all 10 retail stores or 7 and up, in that case it would be nigh impossible to compete with me I would out compete my competitors then monopolise. 82.18.203.83 15:06, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Could you sign in please? It seems to me there are too many IPs editing these days. :( --Semyon 15:09, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

For splitting, a company simply is broken down into separate companies that can't merge or become an oligopoly together. I think I see what you mean, so I'll expand the definition part some more. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:16, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I just added a clause (1.2) that clarifies it, at least, I think it does. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:18, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy the change. :P Kunarian 15:37, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

TM, I don't think you understand my other problem. How is the company split - which part does the former owner get, who gets to own the other part, does the former owner get any compensation? It's a lot more complicated than just 'splitting'. --Semyon 15:44, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What do you propose to add? Maybe the court should just decide? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

It could be improved further. For instance, companies that maintain a presence in multiple nations cannot be dissolved by Lovia. I think that the best reaction to a monopoly is to ban it either as a whole, or in part. -- LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss - What's up)} 15:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

They could be kicked out of Lovia, which is what we could do with Goyou. If any of you want to make some changes, just make a new section with a revised version below. Just don't change the original that is up there. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:00, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a monopolisation tax? really big to hurt them and force them to break apart or sell off parts. Kunarian 16:01, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but since monopolies make so much money, I don't think that it would work. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:10, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

It would if we imposed a really high VAT on all products made by monopolies. They can only subsidise their products so far. In conjuction, however, we'd also have to break the monopoly, so customers have an alternative choice - still that doesn't solve the Goyou problem. --Semyon 16:17, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Not VAT, I hate Vat. I think that we should have an efficient Judicial system, a critical media and a monopoly tax. That would sort it out. Kunarian 16:22, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think Goyou is a monopoly in most sectors, but it is just an unrealistic company. I think I might have a hatred for conglomerates... —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:25, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous[]

This actually makes me laugh... In Lovia there is only one company producing and selling "flaaj", De Limburger, according to this law it's a monopoly and thus it's illegal. I'm sorry, but I can't support this... --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:42, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

True, we need to write in something to moderate this otherwise we cannot let this law pass. Kunarian 16:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Btw I think Flaaj comes under food products and so is not a monopoly but you raised a point that needs to be dealt with. Kunarian 16:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

We do sell a lot of other Limburgish things that are fully monopoly though :) --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:52, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a law for this. If there's just one company it ain't no problem: nobody else is interested in it then. If we'd ban the monopoly company, we won't have any company in that sector. And if a company is unrealistically big, we can downsize it per community consensus. No need for a law at all. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:52, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and that's not the aiming of this law, to eradicate every company that controls a market, such as that of flaaj. That doesn't make it ridiculous though, because De Limburger doesn't use unfair practices to control its market. . . it's just the only one. This isn't trying to be ridiculous, it's trying to fight Goyou (and Plus Company for that matter) and its mindless expansion. And I think it's better to try and keep things more in character if we can. You can argue the same for every other law, even the Constitution. So yes, we do need a law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:03, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Helloooo? Once again, this is not ridiculous, and it's still being worked on anyway. I just made a few revisions to start the fix to the flaaj argument. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:40, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good stuff. Just need to scan it again once or twice and see if I could get round it or abuse it again. :P Kunarian 18:25, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good. I think we've made good progress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Being the only company to sell a product does not make it a monopoly! We have a million of those in Lovia, and plenty of small nations! In my opinion, a monopoly is best described as an organization that has over 60% of an entire industry, or 40% of every industry. Why not put that in your act as an alternative, so that Lovia's market doesn't have to crash? -- LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss - What's up)} 21:23, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I've already made some fixes so that if a company technically is one but doesn't have unfair practices, it will be acquitted (see 1.2, Not all companies with over 50% or even 100% of the market under their control are monopolies.). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:32, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

This law is so vague... --J•t 03:23, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

You could probably argue the same for any other. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:24, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

How many of you would support this in the Second Chamber, and if not, why? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:32, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

When I am an MOTC I will vote "Contra" or "Abstention". Why? It's simply vague, and as OWTB says, would ban De Limburger, which is unacceptable. --J•t 02:48, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think that in light of the refusal of even the improvements of this act I think we must go back to the drawing board and work out a better way of stopping monopolies from arising. 213.81.126.43 02:52, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns already and it is not yet fixed, so an abstention for me. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 11:09, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Also, Jeff, I've added provisions for the De Limburger case. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Monopoly? Anyone[]

Is Goyou still considered a monopoly? Why and why not? --J•t 16:08, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Goyou still controls large nd important parts of the economy and even in Brunant too, the internet, airlines. It is good to be involved in the economy, but in important sectors don't take complete control. HORTON11: • 16:51, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

That's all I'm interested in. --J•t 16:56, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

044. Police Restoration Act[]

I. Police and Army[]

The Police of Lovia are the general policing forces of the Kingdom of Lovia.
In case of a declaration of state of emergency, martial law, or an emergency act by the Prime Minister or the Congress, the Police will be replaced by the Lovian Guard.
The Lovian Guard is the lawful defense force of the Kingdom of Lovia that will replace the Police of Lovia in severe unrest, civil war, or conflicts with other foreign states.

II. UNLOR[]

In case of an emergency where no lawful police or military are around, the Kingdom of Lovia, without congressional approval, will ask for aid from the United Nations and the United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force, also known as UNLOR.

Discussion[]

Both parts of this bill will be voted on separately; so in case one cannot pass the other can pass. Also, the bill is currently very vague; please feel free to suggest ideas below. --J•t 03:42, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay. A textual note: I'd drop the "of Lovia" and "Lovian". It is clear the the Lovian constitution/federal law is about Lovia I'd say :) --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 11:11, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I feel like this bill just restates the fact we have a police so i say contra to that. And with UNLOR i don't think our debt ridden allies care much for our minor revolts. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I would also vote contra, I believe that our national guard work in progress and police are two separate things that are both active at the same time. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:27, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

045. Prime Minister Making it Manditory![]

Until i see who's who I can't allow elections to take place. Now Don't fret this is mainly a simple and small matter to deal with but in addition we need all people running for congress to also leave there User name so I know who's running. Thnx. Once done we'll be back on track. (This is simply done to eliminate fraud) Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:32, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point. People will just run their main characters that other people know. We haven't any fraud so I say don't start unless someone somehow manages to get two candidacies in without detection. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:03, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I still want the users there. Some of there character pages don't even have a connection to there User page. I don't know who "Bill An's" user is and i won't remember unless I see it there. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:05, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, user names should be given. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 20:10, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:06, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Wow OWTB tells you so you do it...okay wow. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:41, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted some agreement. The PM doesn't really have the power to order anything they want done. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

If you need checkuser (suspect some socks) use SpecialContact. --J•t 15:58, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

It's not about checkusering, it's about the fact that some of us are still unable to couple all user names with the characters. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 18:07, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it confused me and It now allows be to understand you all are. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:09, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

046. Judicial Reform (Amendment to Constitution)[]

This idea was thrown out a while ago, and I recently started thinking about how it might work. What if the Supreme Court consisted of a judge (with the current system of appointment), and a panel of four either randomly selected citizens or lawmakers that switched for each court case? Then, each of the five would have one vote in the case (the judge has a vote), and the judge would preside over the case. I haven't made a draft of the idea yet, but what do you guys think about it? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:25, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

No. Why? Well i would say yes to this maybe if it was like a year ago and we had like 12 to 14 users. But now we have like 7 (oos, me, TM, Jeff, Chris, Horton, Donia (Kinda), others) so I don't think this works out. Not to say it's a bad idea but I think i've supported it in the past, but not now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:36, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I would argue for twelve: you listed seven, but there's also Semyon, -Sunkist- (kinda), Kunarian, Granero, and Pierlot (who uses his IP). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:47, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Also not exclude them but also we have alot of youngester...wait like until like april for this. In raw numbers, like old, active users, we have like 5 or 6. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:57, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

That's still enough. We could have 2 experienced users, like Oos and me, and 2 less experienced ones, like Pikapi and Jeff. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:18, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Or we could just appoint 2 judges. Though the jury idea is cool.HORTON11:

•

16:21, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I see alot of problems here how do we even choose the jury and change it? It can be really problematic. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:21, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

We could have a Secretary of Justice (formerly YgoD) and let him/her choose (but we need someone wise like TM). --J T (is not my name) 17:30, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Guess who hates the USA the most here...ME!!! Look at the supreme court...freind and political ideolog minded people are appointed to the bench and don't honestly judge the cases but instead just vote on how the lobbists and friends want them to. To much politics for a non-political office. And yeah you can say TM will be wise, but I doubt 100% or even 75% of the time he will. Just being honest, and no offence to him. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:06, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but my main problem with the USA is with the two-party system. People complain and complain... but they refuse to vote for an independent or third party candidate!! Back on-topic, I am very able to be neutral, but when I am not required to, I don't, since I prefer showing my views. If I was judge I would certainly be neutral. I think that the panel of four should not be appointed by Congress, to make sure the majority doesn't get 4/4. The minority should still get 1/4 on the panel at least. Therefore, I proposed my random selection idea (like what was done for the site council) to ensure that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

As a round-up for my idea: There is a panel of five judicial people. One is the supreme court judge, appointed the same way they currently are. The other four are four randomly selected citizens that are active and have enough edits. The five will then make a majority decision (3/5) on a case. The panel of four changes each trial, i. e. one panel of OWTB, TM, Pikapi, and Granero might be replaced by Marcus, TMV, Jeff, and Horton the next trial. The Supreme Court judge is permanent (unless removed by Congress, like in the current system) and presides over the trial, while the other four and the judge are the jury that vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go draft a law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:03, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Done. You can read it here: User:TimeMaster/Sandbox#Judicial Reform (and other things) Opinions? Supports? Opposes? What do you think of it? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:22, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

No. I oppose this reform because I probably won't be an MOTC in this case! :( --J T (is not my name) 20:26, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

So you don't support it because you aren't an MOTC? That's illogical. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:05, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think I would have three votes, because everyone would vote for someone like Oos. :( --J T (is not my name) 23:35, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're talking about. What three votes? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:45, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone else than Kunarian or I vote for me? --J T (is not my name) 02:33, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Vote for you for what position? Congress? And if you mean the jury, there is no vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:54, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) In Congress, I want to run for elections. However, since I am so unpopular I will probably not get any votes. I know Kunarian and I will exchange votes, so yeah. --J T (is not my name) 03:08, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. There are three types of votes: One vote is worth three votes, another two, and another one. So if you self vote yourself the three, you will have it already. It's just so inactive people who won't self vote themselves or get many other votes don't get any seats. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:53, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

047. Air Lovia (purge)[]

Forum:First_Chamber#026._Air_Lovia

Discuss please. --J T (is not my name) 05:25, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

We can just list it as a state involved company with 30% after a vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:32, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

048. Ban Ben Opat' from the 2012 Congress[]

He's just an abstentionist who will get a vote anyway. WTF. Who agrees? --J T (is not my name) 01:15, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know. Let's ask him if he'll be serving in absencia before we make such bold accusals. Jumping to conclusions about people is always especially upsetting and stressing to the victim. I get that he created an account in 2007, though, and that he is rarely online. I personally think that just because he had the dedication to return to Lovia during voting time and place his name in the ballot that we should give him a fair shot.--— Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 01:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

The Wise PM Beats You :P. --J T (is not my name) 01:34, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I agree! I say total pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:40, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Contra, because this is illegal. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say this is illegal. --J T (is not my name) 03:36, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Constitution, Article 2, Clause 2.2: [Every Lovian citizen has the right. . .] To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:51, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. It doesn't say we can't ban him, it says he can be running. "Unless someone kicks him out" is not prohibited. --J T (is not my name) 23:58, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Invalid again. There are no rules that he doesn't meet, and banned people can run in absentia (and there is no reason to ban either). And there is nothing that says someone can be prohibited from running or be kicked out. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:05, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I say we formally ask him on his talk page. WHO'S WITH ME! *crowd watches silently* --— Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 03:29, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Ben Opat' did not run in the 2010 and 2011 state elections, the 2011 and 2011 second elections, and the 2010 mid-term elections. I also believe that he didn't run in the 2010 federal elections. If this is the first election he's run in since 2008, then what makes him an abstentionist? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:45, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

He is not very active. Granero 03:48, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Simple yet completely true. --J T (is not my name) 04:23, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't know a man is not a reason to ban him from an election. That's called a corrupt regime. Lovia is a wiki that runs for over 70% on politics. If you do not have a political job, you can not function. A perfect way to get back in the game is getting elected. Ben (talk) 09:49, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We simply do not need you to take up seats and leave. Simple. Instead of stating why you want a seat, you give me some useless words that prove nothing. Unless you can prove your activeness I'd rather follow TMV/Dr. Magnus/YgoD's path where you agree to give your seat if you are inactive. --J T (is not my name) 15:47, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

GUYS! This is not the Lovian way of doing things... Two years ago, people were still welcomed when they returned instead of banned. I'm actually very disappointed in the screaming and shouting people here. Ben has been one of the best governors Lovia's ever had. He glued together a broken country after the Hurbanova Crisis back in 2008. And yes, he may have been inactive for the past two years, but still he is a good politician and that's exactly what we need now. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 10:05, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who gets voted in is in Congress. Period. It's that simple. No rocket science. I doubt Ben will get enough support for him to take many seats. What we could do, however, is discuss with him what to do when he does leave. Then maybe he could allow someone else to vote for him. I offered the same solution after La Blaca got killed and I left. In case I myself leave again (pretty likely at this point) I'll allow someone else to control my characters and vote with them.

The glorious First Consul of Rome 10:08, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous. If you don't like Ben, don't vote for him, 'tis simple. --Semyon 13:32, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

049. Decreasing size of Congress[]

I was wondering what anyone would think about downsizing Congress a little. Looking at other countries of a similar size and economic development, their parliament size tends to be between 15 and 30 (e.g. Monaco - 24, Liechenstein - 25, Faeroes - 33, Gibraltar - 17). Given that 100 is by contrast quite large, what would anyone think, now we've tried out the new election method, of reducing it to 25 or so? --Semyon 19:03, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, 100 is simply easier, and if we lower it, then we start to get to the point where 1 seat is a huge difference in the case of a one vote difference where one candidate has to give up a seat. (.8 vs .9). If that happens then one person would have a lot less voting power for just one vote. I would rather increase the population a bit. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:05, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

A population increase is good. In Brunant Newhaven would qualify as a large village and Noble City a town. And in Libertas (or Mäöres, can't remember which) their population figures are much higher. HORTON11: • 19:17, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Semyon in a way but also disagree. First I think population should be raised to like 67000, just to match all the benefits and awesome things Lovia has to offer. So for now I say keep it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:32, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

We've been going about Congress like this for a while now. Changing things now would be kinda stupid and unjustified. Also, its better this way because more people in congress means more representation for the people. It might not be the most common way of maintaining a congress, but it's certainly the Lovian way. --— Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 22:10, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is a header about population increase above at this page. Downsizing is not something I support. We agreed on the 100 and now we got to live with it. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 23:18, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Not so much that we have to live with it, but that we want it. Semyon often posts things that probably won't get enough support, just some ideas. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:37, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

You said it. OK, but I definitely want to boost the population instead. --Semyon 18:46, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I believe the current size of the congress is fine the way it is. I see no reason to change it. And, as said, the 100 seats are much easier to work with. The glorious First Consul of Rome 18:50, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

050. UNLOR Act[]

Article 12:

All militaries and militias are illegal.
1. All coastal police are also illegal.
2. All militaries and militias must be immediately dissolved.
The United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force will become the official Defense Military of Lovia.
1. In case the United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force, or UNLOR, cannot operate, foreign aid will be immediately requested.
2. If no aid comes, any militia who will work for the rightful Lovian government will become the rightful, temporary militia of Lovia.
If the United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force is not willing to defend Lovia at any cost, the Lovian government is required to seek another militia or military who is willing to help. Afterwards a new bill must be made confirming the legality of the militia and this bill shall automatically overturn itself.
Any other militaries who are willing to help; in good deed, shall be honored a position to help UNLOR.

AUTHOR: BILL AN

Discussion[]

Please discuss. --J T (is not my name) 23:55, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Just outright i'm against Lovia having any military but isn't the start kinda contradicting, "we will have no military" "UNLOR is our military" i mean you might want to fix that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:08, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer the current bill that Kunarian is working on--just a basic National Guard to do what UNLOR had done. I don't think it's necessary to outright ban the military, so I agree with Marcus. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:10, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Why let outside powers dominate us and occupy our soil. Might as well be an nation under military rule. 82.18.198.107 00:11, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Plus what Marcus and TimeMaster said. 82.18.198.107 00:12, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

A national guard with limited powers like TM said. I agree with him. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:13, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Or we could hire mercenaries to be our military. (just kidding) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:17, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Merc's are damn expensive. I should know :D 82.18.198.107 00:21, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Totally contra. Also a small armed force like KUnarian (or even Pikapi) proposes would be good. HORTON11:

•

20:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Article Six Changes[]

Original: Article 6 – Amending the Federal Law

A motion to amend the Federal Law can be:
- A proposal for a new article in the Federal Law;
- A proposal to amend a section of the Federal Law;
- A proposal to remove a section of the Federal Law.
The required steps to propose a motion to the Federal Law in Congress:
1. All Lovian citizens may write and propose motions to the Federal Law.
2. Motions are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber.
3. All Members of the Congress are expected 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.
4. If the proposing Member of the Congress expects that the majority of Congress is in favor of the motion, he or she may move it to the Second Chamber.
5. All Members of the Congress are expected to vote on the motion in the Second Chamber.
  1. There are three valid voting options: pro (in favor of the motion), contra (in opposition to the motion) and abstention (the wish not to vote).
  2. A normal majority is required to pass a motion. A normal majority is described as more than fifty percent of the valid votes.
  3. All Members of the Congress have two weeks’ time to cast their vote in the Second Chamber. Voting may be closed earlier if the required majority is reached. The proposer may also choose to lengthen the voting period.
6. When the motion is accepted by Congress, it must be implemented. The Secretary of Justice, the Prime Minister and the ruling monarch are enprivileged to enshrine passed motions in the law, although all Members of the Congress may do it, if done correctly.
7. When the motion is not accepted, either because the majority opposed it or because no majority was found in favor of the motion, it shall be removed from the Second Chamber. Any citizen and Member of the Congress has the right to propose an altered version for reconsideration in the First Chamber.
A motion that is not intended to be enshrined in the Federal Law, but that does need Congressial approval, is proposed and voted in the same way.
For each motion that has been moved to the Second Chamber by Congress, and that is in due time either approved, rejected or proven unable to gain the required support, Congress must keep a record, starting February 1st of the year 2011, which will be known as the Congressional Journal.

Changed (new) law[]

Article 6 – Amending the Federal Law

A motion to amend the Federal Law can be:
- A proposal for a new article in the Federal Law;
- A proposal to amend a section of the Federal Law;
- A proposal to remove a section of the Federal Law.
The required steps to propose a motion to the Federal Law in Congress:
1. All Lovian citizens may write and propose motions to the Federal Law.
2. Motions are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber.
3. All Members of the Congress are expected 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.
4. If the proposing Member of the Congress expects that the majority of Congress is in favor of the motion, he or she may move it to the Second Chamber.
5. All Members of the Congress are expected to vote on the motion in the Second Chamber.
  1. There are three valid voting options: pro (in favor of the motion), contra (in opposition to the motion).
  2. A normal majority is required to pass a motion. A normal majority is described as more than fifty percent of the valid votes.
  3. All Members of the Congress have two weeks’ time to cast their vote in the Second Chamber. Voting may be closed earlier if the required majority is reached. The proposer may also choose to lengthen the voting period.
6. When the motion is accepted by Congress, it must be implemented. The Secretary of Justice, the Prime Minister and the ruling monarch are enprivileged to enshrine passed motions in the law, although all Members of the Congress may do it, if done correctly.
7. When the motion is not accepted, either because the majority opposed it or because no majority was found in favor of the motion, it shall be removed from the Second Chamber. Any citizen and Member of the Congress has the right to propose an altered version for reconsideration in the First Chamber.
A motion that is not intended to be enshrined in the Federal Law, but that does need Congressial approval, is proposed and voted in the same way.

What I changed/Discussion[]

I eliminated the Congressional Journal, it could have worked, but didn't work. Secondly I took away the right to abstain in a vote because with no clarification it really is a dumb way to say no. Either You say Pro, Contra or don't vote at all which is the real abstain. This needs 75% approval. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:27, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

No, it only needs 67% approval. All amendments only need 67%. But anyway, the Congressional Journal may not be active but ideally it should be, so there is no point in removing it--maybe it will be active. And I like the abstain option, because it's a nice way of saying contra. So complete and full Contra. Sorry. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

then vote contra -_-. C'mon be realistic. The congressional journal is inactive, if your want to look at the results of a vote look at the history and such. The Abstain does nothing but confusion on each vote and we need to settle it, just say contra or pro. I don't think alot of other countries allow even a abstain vote, you just don't vote. For example (I love Britian) Britain, there are two chambers you go into, Yes or no. There is no Abstain! SO let's settle this, and make Lovia more focused on Politics and passing laws, Not Wars and things that take up time. Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:00, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

There's no harm in the congressional journal. I should probably go update it now. And it is actually EXTREMELY easy to determine between pro, abstain and contra: Count the pros. 50 or 67 pro, depending on the type, it passes. It's that simple. Abstain and Contra are both not in favor, so there is no confusion. Abstain doesn't remove your votes from the total or anything. I also think Britain (look at the spelling) has some problems, like royal assent. If the queen will ALWAYS give assent, then what's the point of it? Back on topic, most countries do have an abstain vote: don't vote. In Lovia, you could just not vote, but if you want to make sure everyone knows you aren't inactive, then you can vote abstain. I see no problem at all with the journal or the abstain vote. So still Contra. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:18, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

You better update it all the way to now, but you've really just made my point. You went off topic with royal assent, IDK where you got that. But Like you said Abstain and Contra are the same thing. So why not just have Contra. And again you proved my point by saying "You have an abstain vote:don't vote" I agree those should be the three options. Pro, Contra, Don't vote. Which would make sense. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I got royal assent because you said you loved Britain, so I wanted to point out some flaws. Abstain and Contra are both not for something, so technically they are the same thing. But really, Abstain is a nicer way of saying Contra, and I like that. It doesn't mean oppose, it doesn't mean support, it means "meh". And if I decide I don't want to vote, I like casting votes anyway, and there is no harm at all in an abstain option. It's just better than having two options. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:29, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TM. No reason for abolishing abstention. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:32, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I like the queen

but anyway, I think if you want a nice option why not make it

Pro is now "THIS IS AN AWESOME PROPOSAL"
Contra is now "THIS IS SHIT"
Abstain is now "Good try! But I can not vote for this sorry :D"

Sounds good? I mean seriously we need to simplify this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

That's basically what it's like. Abstain could also be neutral, you think that there's no reason for the law, or fix something and then I'll go pro. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:40, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

So let's have Contra and Abstain in one category. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:43, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

No... Abstain is much nicer than contra. I like the option. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:48, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

051. Elections Referendum[]

Article 8[]

Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government

Federal Elections:
1. Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
2. The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during Federal Elections:
  1. During a period of three weeks, only active Lovian citizens, who have made 25 edits in mainspace in the last 10 days, that are in mainspace, can, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
  2. During a period of three weeks, only active Lovian citizens, who have made 10 edits in mainspace in the last 20 days, can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
    1. Every qualified citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
    3. Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
    4. If more than 100 candidates are running, only the top 100 in number of votes will receive seats in Congress.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
  4. All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
    1. The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
      1. The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
4. New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries:
1. The Prime Minister is the declared leader of a coalition of political parties that consist of more than 50% of the seats in Congress.
  1. If a coalition agreement is not reached by Inauguration Day, all non-vital executive government activities are shut down until an agreement is reached.
2. The Prime Minister will chose which Members of the Congress will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
3. Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by the Prime Minister and approved by Congress.
4. When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.
5. If the Prime Minister or a Federal Secretary resigns, the government coalition must select a successor, which then has to be approved by Congress.
State Elections:
1. Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
  1. It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
2. The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during State Elections:
  1. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
  2. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
    1. Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
  4. The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
    2. The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
  5. The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
    2. Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.
Fraud is defined as anyone encouraging someone to vote unfairly, through talkpages and agreements. Exchange of votes are not allowed as well.
1. All votes based on fraud will be invalidated and the citizen will not be able to vote anymore.

--J T (is not my name) 17:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention. And anyway, if we get this voted through it will still not be legitimate for the current elections. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 17:11, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Then bye from Lovia I go. --J T (is not my name) 17:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Okay??? And I will abstain as well. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:13, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care for that empty threat. But yeah i must to say contra. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:21, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

052. Drug Banishment Act[]

It will be henceforth illegal to buy, sell, distribute, trade, barter, or use any form of tobacco or illegal drug.
1. List of illegal drugs:
  1. Cannabis/Marijuana, also known as "pot" and "weed".
  2. Cocaine
  3. Heroin
  4. Opium
  5. Methamphetamine
  6. Temazepam
  7. Qat
  8. Tobacco
2. Medical marijuana is legal, but the tax rate is 66.66%.
If one is found to have used/consumed Tobacco or illegal Drugs, they are to be convicted of a misdemeanor.

--J T (is not my name) 00:55, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Too vague and small, sorry. Needs a ton of work. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:23, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Seems that there are a lot of vague laws flying out recently, Jeffwang, take a little bit of time to write an act, I could get round this by "saying what is an illeagal drug?" then smoke pot. And how would you tax marijuana? I could easily say that it was never specified what to tax then walk away with tax-free marijuana plus with every law about crime, there has to be a written way to deal with it. Kunarian 01:33, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I do not support the illegalization of tobacco. We already have a way too strict Tobacco act for that. Illegalization of the rest I do support. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 04:18, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I say no selling of alcohol on Sunday, or any other drug on that day. -Sunkist- 11:30, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I say the government shouldn't tell people what they can and can't buy on Sundays. Sunday laws serve no purpose--just buy the item the previous day. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:50, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sunday laws make sense in regions where conservative Christians have a majority. Not in regions where they haven't. I'd say no selling of drugs (excl. tobacco and alcohol) on any day... --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:15, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

True, frankly, I don't support the illeagalisation of tobacco and alcohol and feel that harsh punishment needs to be put in place for those dealing in illeagal drugs. I feel that drugs are given too much positive publicity by the media, and that we as the government need to make sure that dangerous drugs are dealt with. 86.24.15.23 17:38, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Second Chamber[]

Lovian Dollar[]

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

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro HORTON11 22:00, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:53, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:23, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Pro --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:36, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Pro We will need a monetary policy issued by a National Bank to back up our currency. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:25, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
Pro I am all in favour of our own currency. As for the designs, I like them very much. The Master's Voice 15:01, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
...

Contra[]

...
...

Abstain[]

Abstention --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 09:32, May 6, 2011 (UTC) I like the entire idea, I only find that the designs are not really a unit. Especially the five dollar, which has a way more archaic look than the others with those lines.
The designs are not yet official. They are just proposals HORTON11 14:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to decide on that later, nothing'll block my support :) --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:36, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

If you check the Lovian Dollar page, you will see my latest proposals which are more consistent in style. HORTON11 18:17, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
...
...
...

This proposal is accepted! 55% majority, and voting expired. Horton, instate the currency if you haven't already. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

073. Recognition of the existing localities[]

Just a check, it's been a year, and there has been a census. No First Chamber needed, so I'm just taking it here. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:12, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I hereby propose the following:

Congress recognizes all the following localities as cities, under the Lovian law:

Newhaven and Noble City

Congress recognizes all the following localities as towns, under the Lovian law:

Hurbanova and Sofasi

Congress recognizes all the following localities as villages, under the Lovian law:

Adoha, Kinley, Novosevensk, Portland and Train Village

Congress recognizes all the following localities as hamlets, under the Lovian law:

Beaverwick, Clave Rock and East Hills

Congress recognizes all the following localities as neighborhoods, under the Lovian law:

Abby Springs, Downtown Adoha, Amish Kinley, Artista, Bayfield, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Downtown Noble City, Drake Town, Ferguson Beach Village, Hightech Valley, Downtown Hurbanova, Hurket-on-Kings, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Downtown Kinley, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Malipa, The Mall, Mandarin Village, Millstreet, New Town, Downtown Newhaven, Newport, Nicholasville, Old Harbor, Old Port, Pines, Downtown Sofasi, Trading Quarter, Downtown Train Village and Transcity

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:12, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
Pro --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 17:14, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:43, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:54, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Nathaniel Scribner 07:53, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro The Master's Voice 12:25, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
...

Contra[]

...
...

Abstain[]

...
...

This proposal is accepted!}} No one is going to vote contra, and already a majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:08, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[]

Revision to 004. Sports and National Team Act[]

Lovian boules is recognized as the national sport of Lovia.
1. Congress hereby commits itself to protect the sport and its culture as national heritage.
A national sports team is a team that performs a single sport at a high level and represents Lovia during international contests, championships and friendly games.
1. Congress can grant a sports team this title and duty by a normal majority.
2. The ownership of a national sports team remains with its original proprietor.
3. Congress will provide in a part of the expenses of this team to guarantee regular practice and performance.
4. Congress may revoke this grant by a normal majority when the team does not represent Lovia correctly, with dignity and without wrongful conduct.
5. Congress bars players who abuse narcotics, or any other substance that illegally improves a player's game, or have abused narcotics in the past twelve months from participating in a national sports team.
  1. Drugs that are prescribed by a fully qualified doctor of medicine may be used.
    1. At all times, other doctors of medicine may question the prescription and file for re-examination. If two other fully qualified medical professionals find the prescription unnecessary or harmful and therefore illegal, the sportsperson may no longer use the prescribed drugs.
Non-governmental governing bodies in Lovian sports may bar players from playing:
1. On reasonable suspicion of drug abuse;
2. On ethical grounds, that is when a player acts not appropriately and without dignity, or when he or she has violated the law.
Minors, that is people who have not yet reached the age of eighteen, must be a member of a sports player's union to protect them from wrongful conduct.
Minors and adults are both restricted from sports if the temperatures outside are harmful to health.
1. Minors may not participate in physical training or games when the outside temperature is below -20 degrees Celsius (-4°F) or above 32 degrees Celsius (90°F).
2. Adults may not participate in physical training or games when the outside temperature is below -25 degrees Celsius (-13°F) or above 38 degrees Celsius (100°F).

Changes: Section 6 is deleted and Section 5 is modified to be more temperature friendly. Also added guidelines for adults in Section 5.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Good someone looks after the sports too. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:21, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
Pro --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 08:41, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Sure, why not
Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:48, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
Pro HORTON11 01:56, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Nathaniel Scribner 02:00, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

...
...

Abstain[]

...
...

This proposal is accepted! Finally. Thanks for the vote, Horton. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:01, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

075. Amending Article 8.2[]

8.2. Federal Secretaries

The Prime Minister will chose which Members of the Congress will become Secretaries of a certain Department at the beginning of his term. His proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. When they have lost their trust in the questioned person, they can vote a motion of distrust against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign and a replacement has to be appointed by Congress.
When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of distrust. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.
When the Prime Minister and his government resign, Congress can appoint a new government by normal majority. If no new government is appointed within two weeks, Congress is dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.

Goals as specified in the First Chamber. This is a Constitutional amendment, meaning it needs a special majority to get approved.

Voting suspended. Bill withdrawn.[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:27, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Pro --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 07:18, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:13, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Pro HORTON11 12:42, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:49, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra This takes all power from the Governors and they're states' rights. Federal government shoulden't tangle with the states and the removal of their local elected officals. Nathaniel Scribner 08:59, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Two remarks: (1) It is not the federal government which gets to do this but the Congress (2) Congress can already 'tangle' with the governors according to the current Constitution, I didn't change that part. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:48, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
States' rights need to be reduced even further than they are now. Lovia is just too small for states' rights to exist. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:37, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
That is not the discussion of this amendment. Its sole purpose is to fix government transition issues. (Though I do agree that the States are only good for making maps look nice) Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:58, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
...

Abstain[]

Abstention This is going null and void if the 2011 State Reform. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:56, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Abstention Agreed as I said in the comment underneath, let's wait until state reform. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:07, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[]

I Ask as PM all congressmen to stop proposing bills and all that, this will be the last one before the changes i'm working on.I 'm working on a State Reform which would seriuosly alter the consitution. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:38, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

I say voting suspended. The bill is withdrawn. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:38, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

077. 2011 State Reform[]

Article 1 A - Lovian National State

Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
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.
Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.
In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.

The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
1. The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogeniture. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins.
1. All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.
The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. They are a member of the royal family, but they do not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
The person first in line to the throne is known as the heir apparent, and becomes monarch after the previous monarch has abdicated or deceased.
1. The heir apparent to the throne will sign the Constitution upon their coronation.
2. The heir apparent assumes the throne after he has presented himself to Congress on invitation of a normal majority in Congress. After this, the heir is officially declared Monarch of Lovia.
The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finance, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
1. The maximum amount of financial support that can be given is 4000 Lovian dollars per month.
With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.
The ruling monarch's functions in the government are solely ceremonial. If the ruling monarch wishes to become a member of Congress, then they must run for office in the same way a normal citizen would.

Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government

Federal Elections:
1. Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
2. The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during Federal Elections:
  1. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
  2. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
    1. Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
    3. Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
    4. If more than 100 candidates are running, only the top 100 in number of votes will receive seats in Congress.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
  4. All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
    1. The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
      1. The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
4. New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries:
1. The Prime Minister is the declared leader of a coalition of political parties that consist of more than 50% of the seats in Congress.
  1. If a coalition agreement is not reached by Inauguration Day, all non-vital executive government activities are shut down until an agreement is reached.
2. The Prime Minister will chose which Members of the Congress will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
3. Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by the Prime Minister and approved by Congress.
4. When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.
5. If the Prime Minister or a Federal Secretary resigns, the government coalition must select a successor, which then has to be approved by Congress.
State Elections:
1. Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
  1. It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
2. The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during State Elections:
  1. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
  2. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
    1. Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
  4. The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
    2. The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
  5. The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
    2. Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.

(+yuri's fair trial act all in one)

tl;dr: government and opposition coalitions now introduced, pm is leader of the government coalition, king is no longer member by right, line of succession reform, 100 member congress and percentage of votes=percentage of seats.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:22, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Pro The Master's Voice 12:24, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:35, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Pro HORTON11 12:40, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Pro though I can find myself in OWTB's remark. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Nathaniel Scribner 15:24, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:25, May 27, 2011 (UTC) (automatic seat)
What's with the automatic seat, if I may ask? The Master's Voice 12:34, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
The King's seat is abolished in this change. For a stable government this is necessary and a national king can't run for congress for reasons I can't explain in English. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:39, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
With the king's powers so reduced there is no reason that they can't run for Congress. Why not use a translator? It will probably get the meaning across. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:42, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's neccesary, per se, to keep that seat... We can do without an unactive King who never does anything anymore. Besides that, it's awfully outdated. From now on the King will play a merely ceremonial role in this country. The Master's Voice 12:43, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
The reason simply explained: King should be above the nation, if the King runs for Congress, the nation is above the King, as the nation decides whether the King gets a seat or not. So, the King can't run for Congress, as he'll then lose his only function: to be for the nation, as in this case the nation is for the King. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:47, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
The King is no longer there for the nation. He left, and so did most of his buddies. Lovia has to move on and so has he... he may even be replaced in the near future, because a symbol of our nation should at the very least show himself, however that's a whole different discussion. There is no point in preserving the automatic seat for someone who obviously stopped caring... The Master's Voice 12:50, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
The King lost his seat, which is a great thing. I don't think he should run in elections though, that is not what Kings do. The King is a symbol of the nation, which stands above all political chatter. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:52, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

He should be able to run in elections if he wants, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Being King is as much a curse as it is a blessing: you can not say or do as much as others, you are ought to be neutral and fulfill your duty. I don't think Kings should seat in a parliament anyway. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:55, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I can't support this change. I used to be anti-automatic seat, but Dimitri told me why it was necessary (control in Congress by a (call it pseudo-)neutral member is necessary to keep the state from dictature, compare this to the Eerste and Tweede Kamer principle in the Netherlands). So, I'll only support this under the condition that a new safety factor is introduced. Obviously, this is not the case right now, so I simply can't be in favour of this change. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:56, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

The King never managed to be fully neutral and was entangled in quite a few issues himself. The Master's Voice 12:58, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "pseudo-neutral". --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 12:59, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, then what do you want added? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:58, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
@UWTB: That is the price you pay for true democracy. People can choose as they want, no (semi-)neutral figure to 'guide' a little. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:00, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Atm, our community is too small for a system based on two chambers. What we need is a very closed law system which does not leave any space for interpretation (so, very difficult). Another thing is that all new laws should be checked by an impartial judge. If the last thing could be arranged I could be changing my vote. @Yuri: that's why true democracy sucks and constantly brings dictators and wars. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 13:01, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
Constitutional Court anyone? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:02, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
@OOS- we do have a 1st and second chamber, but not in the Dutch sense. HORTON11 13:04, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
A bicameral system is not proven to be better or worse than a mono-cameral one. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:06, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think we can decide for ourselves if a law is constitutional. The constitution really only protects rights and sets procedures and standards. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:13, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I would follow OWTB entirely if this was like Belgium or the Netherlands, but Lovia remains an online community and the more (direct) democracy the better. If a Congress representing 80% of the active users makes a decision I believe that to be okay. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 13:18, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

...

Abstain[]

...
...

This proposal is accepted! Awesome, now we need to enforce. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:15, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Did you also include Yuri's fair trial act to the constitution? Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:31, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:47, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

080. National Congressperson Order[]

This is to keep track of us, and our created congressmen and there votes, and who votes for them i'll ad the law to FedLaw, (Not sure which book though).

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:31, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Pro HORTON11 19:38, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Pro --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 19:48, May 29, 2011 (UTC) we don't need laws for this, if it's just a list, it's fine this way
Then what are we going to put in the Federal Law? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:06, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Nothing, just create the list. As a Waldener would have said: a solution to a non-existent problem is a problem itself or something like that :P Take a look at the Congressional Journal, didn't work. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 20:08, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Alright then. xD —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:11, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Can we abolish the congressional journal? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:20, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:11, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Pro (although I still consider "congressperson" to be a ridiculous word) The Master's Voice 21:15, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
We could make "congressor" of it :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 21:19, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Pro (Just for the good order) Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:19, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

...
...
...

Abstain[]

Abstention We need to draft a law for this. I'll make one. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:47, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
...
...

This proposal is accepted! With a 55% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:35, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comments[]

081. NCO add-on[]

Every party (coalition or caucus) has the right to put foward a Party Leader.
1. Party Leaders are elected by the members of a certain party.
2. Party Leaders are to be the first, in tradition, to address congressional bills and address party leaders, but this is not mandatory.
3. These members shall be addressed in the following:
  1. If their coalition has the majority of the seats they should be addressed with their Party or Coalition name first and there position in Congress (either Majority or Minority).
The entire Congress shall then elect a Speaker of the Congress, or head of the congress, has the power to:
1. Call congressional hearings on impeachment or other important Lovian activites.
2. all a special congressional session to order.
3. Ceremonially open and close congress at the beginning and ending of a congressional term.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:22, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Pro —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:23, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Pro --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 08:55, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Pro Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:41, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Pro HORTON11 14:48, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
...

Contra[]

...
...
...

Abstain[]

Abstention - As part of the NCO Act? I'm not sure that makes sense. It doesn't really have anything to do with the NCO. Otherwise, good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:38, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- It sorta does. It has to do with order in congress and there positions. So it does have to do with this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:41, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
  - Ok. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:23, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
...
...

Comments[]

This proposal is accepted! Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:13, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

000. Composition of Villanova II Government[]

Prime Minister - Marcus Villanova
Department of Culture, Heritage and Education - Oos Wes Ilava
Department of Energy and Environment - Justin Abrahams
Department of Finance - Percival E. Galahad (controlled by TimeMaster)
Department of Foreign Affairs - Yuri Medvedev
Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade - Nathaniel Scribner
Department of Justice - John Amman (controlled by OWTB)
Department of Tourism and Leisure - Thomas Bale (controlled by Marcus)
Department of Transportation - Semyon Breyev
Department of Welfare - Judy Almore (controlled by Horton)

I did change William Krosby to Percival Galahad, as I'm running for Speaker of the Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:05, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

TimeMaster: Pro 13 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:05, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (LDP - LAP - MCP)
OWTB: Pro 15 Votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 19:10, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL - LMP - PNO - RMP - RTP)
Horton11 Pro 11 Votes —HORTON11 20:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (SDP, Labor, CDU)
Crystalbeastdeck09 Pro 14 Votes -- Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:57, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (CPL.nm, GP, NPO, WFP, PCP)
Regaliorum Pro 19 Votes - Regaliorum 08:35, July 15, 2011 (UTC) (CPL.nm)

Contra[]

Contra I'm still against this composition. Me and six congressmen (UNS \ CNP). The Master's Voice 06:14, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
...

Abstain[]

...

This proposal is accepted! Thanks to every one with already only four people voting pro! But in any case there's a 50% majority! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:02, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

001. Appointment of the Speaker of the Congress[]

I hereby propose myself, William Krosby, as the Speaker of the Congress for the 2011 Second Congress (50% majority required). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

TimeMaster: Pro 13 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (LDP - LAP - MCP)
Crystalbeastdeck09: Pro 14 Votes -- Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:03, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (CPL.nm, GP, NPO, WFP, PCP)
Regaliorum Pro 19 Votes - Regaliorum 08:37, July 15, 2011 (UTC) (CPL.nm)
Nathaniel Scribner 11:19, July 15, 2011 (UTC) Pro 7 Votes.

Contra[]

OWTB: Contra 1 Vote --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 08:35, July 15, 2011 (UTC) (RTP)
La Blaca & his six congressmen Contra The Master's Voice 09:34, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[]

OWTB: Abstention 14 Votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 08:36, July 15, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL - LMP - PNO - RMP) - I do not believe we're in need of a Speaker of the Congress.

Then change the law. It is required. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:45, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I know, but it's not something which concerns me, so I'll just remain neutral. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:32, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

...

This proposal is accepted! By a 53% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:45, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

008. Recognition of Charleston[]

If this is passed, the hamlet of Charleston, will become official, and be incorporated as a hamlet under Noble City. Once it reaches 200 population it will become a village.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 13 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:06, August 14, 2011 (UTC) (LDP - LAP - MCP)
Pro 14 Votes -- Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:02, August 15, 2011 (UTC) (CPL.nm, GP, NPO, WFP, PCP)
Pro 11 votes - HORTON11 06:19, August 15, 2011 (UTC) (SDP, Labour, CDU)
Pro 19 Votes. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:26, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

...

Abstain[]

...

This proposal is accepted! by a 57% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Comments[]

Why under Noble City? It's way closer to Train Village... ---OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 21:10, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Because Train Village is not a town, it's a village, and does not qualify to have hamlets under its name. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:47, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

And Clave Rock? Obviously, our executive branch of the government doesn't do anything. If you create useless laws, at least execute them. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 09:12, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Train Village is a town, and anyways Noble City is too far away. Could Charleston not be made an independent hamlet? HORTON11 10:16, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

omg. . . Clave Rock is a hamlet, and Train Village is NOT a town (it's a village), Horton, as of the 2011 Census. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:45, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

009. Abortion Regulations Act[]

Abortus Provocatus, defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
1. Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
2. Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
3. Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
4. Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy
Abortus Provocatus after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
1. Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
2. Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
3. Executed no sooner than three days after the first consultation.
4. The health of the mother is considered to be severely at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated.
Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
1. To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
2. To bring several other facilities for unwanted children to the patient's mind.
3. To ensure themselves of the patient's full will to carry out the abortion.
If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences may follow:
1. The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
2. The executing physician will be fined $10000 plus the cost of the operation.
3. The mother will be fined $10000.

This will be in the Social Law Book.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 11 Votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:42, September 18, 2011 (UTC) (LDP & LAP)
Pro 2 votes. (Porcines and Grant) --Semyon 19:43, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 19 votes. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:41, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 2 votes (SDP) HORTON11 20:18, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra 1 Vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:42, September 18, 2011 (UTC) (MCP)
Contra 3 votes. (CCPL and Breyev) --Semyon 19:43, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 6 votes (La Blaca & UNS) --The Master's Voice 20:54, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 15 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 19:37, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 9 votes HORTON11 20:18, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 7 votes Nathaniel Scribner 05:20, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[]

Abstention 1 Vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:42, September 18, 2011 (UTC) (MCP)
Abstention 2 votes. (7) --Semyon 19:43, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Back to First Chamber Marcus seems to be going inactive, even if he wasn't, he could not tilt it to a 50% majority. It seems we are still interested in passing an abortion regulation law, so we should discuss it further. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:45, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comments[]

This is actually not ultra-progressive, and seems like a good compromise to me. Congrats! --Semyon 19:43, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but only two votes? :( How about you switch the two and the five so there can be more pros? :D —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:21, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Meh, well... it seems obvious that this bill will pass however I vote, and I want to maintain Breyev's and the CCPL's conservative credentials. :) --Semyon 16:25, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Way to progressive to my taste, this new bill on abortions... As I've said before; unless there is a clear health-risk for the mother-to-be or the unborn child or in case of rape or incest, abortion should never be allowed regardless of which trimester the pregnancy is in. While the technical term may be "forcefully terminating a pregnancy", I prefer calling the beast by it's name: murder. The Master's Voice 16:51, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

This would not really be murder, as the child is still dependent on the mother. But I still believe that there should be a valid reason for terminating its life: "just because" is not enough. Instead of allowing this a mother who does not want the child can give it to an adoption agency. There are many couples unable to have kids who would love to be able to adopt. HORTON11 20:14, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

So you want no rules instead of light rules? Sometimes I don't understand this. Vote for this, and once you can get a majority of people who will vote for a more strict proposal, make it more strict... —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:43, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, without this law abortion is allowed regardless of who performs it or what stage of the pregnancy the mother is on. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:10, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

I agree this law is the second-best option, but I, personally, cannot fully support such a progressive law. What worries me more, however, is that women will abort their pregnancies anyway, law or no law. They always have and they always will. Last thing we want to happen is back-ally abortions that lead to women becoming sterile or dying of infections. The Master's Voice 08:17, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

That would be caused by a stricter, not weaker, abortion law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:04, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

016. UNLOR (urgent!)[]

Here's a simple peace of legislation that must bring peace back to Lovia:

Congress declares that it wishes Lovia to come under the protection of a United Nations peacekeeping force, named the UN Lovian Order Restoration (UNLOR) Force.
UNLOR is to be given a mandate in order to;
1. Protect Lovian citizens from the ongoing minority and police violence.
2. Stop the violence, plundering and terror that is caused by the rioters and police.
UNLOR would be established and operated under all current UN legislation.
UNLOR would be disband when Lovian Congress is back in control.
When UNLOR gets disband, Congress is to install a Commission to investigate the riots and the ties it has with government officials.

Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:35, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 19 votes, Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:37, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 13 votes, —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:46, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 11 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:27, October 7, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL)
Pro 10 votes- (SDP and Labor) HORTON11 14:37, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
...

Contra[]

Contra (6 votes) - No foreign interverence, only as last resort. The Master's Voice 08:55, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 3 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:27, October 7, 2011 (UTC) (LMP/RMP: minority issue, RTP: foreign intervention)
Contra 1 Vote (LCP) HORTON11 14:33, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
...

Abstain[]

Abstention 1 vote --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 14:27, October 7, 2011 (UTC) (PNO: irrelevant to Oceana)
...
...

This proposal is accepted! by a 53% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:06, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

013. Modification to Settlement Act[]

Article 1 - Settlement Act
1. All Lovian settlements are classified into five denominational groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
2. A hamlet is a very small settlement within a state.
  1. A hamlet must:
    1. Have a population below five hundred. If larger, the hamlet will become a village.
    2. Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commercial lots.
    3. Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
      1. If a hamlet becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its hamlet status and become a neighborhood.
    4. Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
3. A village is a mid-sized settlement within a state.
  1. A village must:
    1. Have a population of at least five hundred and no more than fifteen hundred inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town. If smaller, the village becomes a hamlet.
    2. Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
      1. If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
4. A town is a large settlement within a state.
  1. A town must:
    1. Have a population above fifteen hundred. If below, the town becomes a village.
    2. Contain one to four neighborhoods of any type.
      1. Congress can turn a town consisting of four neighborhoods into a city, granting it a fifth neighborhood, by Congressional majority.
5. A city is a very large settlement within a state.
  1. A city must:
    1. Have a population of at least three thousand.
    2. Consist of a group of neighborhoods; at least five.
      1. It is legally required that at least four of the five neighborhoods are fully finished and that it is possible for its inhabitants to lead a safe and regular life.
6. A neighborhood is a subdivision of a settlement.
7. A hamlet or village may become part of a town or city, however, the hamlet or village it will lose its hamlet or village status and become a neighborhood.
8. All Lovian neighborhoods are managed by the state of the town or city of which they are affiliated with.
9. All Lovian hamlets, villages, towns, and cities are managed by the state of which they are part of.
10. All Lovian hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor and the Congress have the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets.
  1. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule the decisions of the Governor.

—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:04, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 13 votes, —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:04, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 10 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:41, October 9, 2011 (UTC) (WFP, SPP, PCP, GPL)

Contra[]

Contra 3 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:41, October 9, 2011 (UTC) (NPO)
Contra 15 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 13:07, October 9, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP)
If East Hills is that important then just make it a neighborhood of Hurbanova. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:17, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Can't, 'cause then Hurb will have to become a city and East Hills will loose its partial independence. It is not the only thing I dislike of this act. The entire village thing etc. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 13:19, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
I dislike the entire hamlets being connected to cities thing. I mean, really. Settlements are not part of other cities. They are part of regions, which are states. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:23, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Well, what difference would it make then to disconnect them? There is only a political level on the states and not on the towns. I personally see a hamlet as a group of houses located far away from a town, thus keeping some independence, while staying dependent on the town for more general stuff (shops/work/etc). A neighborhood, to me, is a hamlet which is grow to the town, thus loosing all bits of independence. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 13:36, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 6 votes. I made an attempt to find a compromise between the two viewpoints, but apparently we don't do compromise in Lovia. --Nikolai Koshkov, a.k.a Semyon 15:19, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
It was a feeble attempt. Maybe I could restructure the law so that an affiliated hamlet is... a hamlet... and an unaffiliated hamlet is a village, but I don't really like that. Just make it a neighborhood. The main problem here, though, is that Charleston and Clave Rock are affiliated with Noble City, despite being 80 and 50 miles away, respectively. Kind of weird, since Train Village doesn't fit the criteria anymore (and it also fits the name... Train Village was a town before the first version of the law passed). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:02, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
The old system was the best. No villages, hamlets affiliated. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 04:58, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
Contra (6 votes) The Master's Voice 15:23, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[]

Abstention 19 Votes; I don't see why this bill is needed. The entire discussion seems to be about personal preferences on organization rather than actual benefits/harms for society/users. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 05:15, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
To fix the problem of Charleston and Clave Rock being affiliated with Noble City. I think that affiliation is fairly useless. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:59, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
That is not a need, it is just something you find problematic. And for what reason that is I honestly can't see. What is it that you (or anyone else) 'lose(s)' by keeping them attached to NC? Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:50, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
We discussed it earlier and concluded it was a bit weird. However, it does not actually matter. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:01, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is declined. By a 23% minority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:04, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

021. Repeal Federal Planning Bureau Act[]

Article 4 - Federal Planning Bureau Act

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

This didn't do anything and we didn't even get the first one set up. It's also not very helpful to Lovia. Thereby, it should be repealed.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 13 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:24, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 15 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 04:40, October 14, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP)
Pro 19 votes, Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:01, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 11 votes HORTON11 11:01, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 6 votes -- The Master's Voice 11:41, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
...

Contra[]

...

Abstain[]

...

This proposal is accepted! By a 64% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:52, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

019. Social Security Act[]

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

Social Security! It's on Marcus's list, and this is a great bill. Vote, please. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:16, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 12 Votes, —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:16, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 13 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 13:29, October 14, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, RMP)
Pro 11 votes HORTON11 13:46, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 19 votes, with joy Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 16:58, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 13 votes, Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:42, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
...

Contra[]

Contra --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 13:30, October 14, 2011 (UTC) (PNO, RTP)
...

Abstain[]

Abstention 1 Vote, I think it may be slightly incomplete. (LDP) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:16, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I too felt it was incomplete, but it can be worked (an amendment). Also it didn't seem (to me) worth it to scrap such a fine piece of legislation. HORTON11 21:33, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the one vote is representing that piece of me. IC the character would have some think that OOC I don't disagree with. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:52, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is accepted! By a 68% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:29, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

022. Secretary of Foreign Affairs[]

If this passes, William Krosby will take the post of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, which has been vacant since the departure of Yuri from that post. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 11 Votes, —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, October 14, 2011 (UTC) (LDP, LAP)
Pro 13 votes, Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:57, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 6 votes, Aged youngman 13:19, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

...

Abstain[]

Abstention 2 Votes, —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, October 14, 2011 (UTC) (MCP)
Abstention 15 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 05:12, October 15, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP) This post was useful, but nobody ever really did something. The embassy of Lovia in Mäöres still has not been finished after four years... I kind of lost hope in this post.
Abstention 19 votes. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 07:18, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Is congress still working with the revolution going on and all that? Aged youngman 13:20, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

We passed a resolution for an UNLOR, but otherwise that rebellion doesn't have much to do with Congress, instead it's just the rioters Semyon and Master's Voice, versus the Police and UNLOR (led by Yuri). Thanks for voting also, but you need to also add the amount of votes you have in Congress -- you have 6 (I've fixed it for you). Edit: Congress is working fine. :) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:21, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is declined. I guess you can't replace someone if the government doesn't have a majority. Oh well. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:03, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Not that we would 'miss' anyone for the short time coming. Secretaries usually don't do a lot. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:20, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

023. Eleventh Amendment[]

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
1. The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
  2. All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia. Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
  3. All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
2. The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania, and one Autonomous City: Noble City.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, and to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the Autonomous City, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
    1. The term ‘Autonomous City’ and ‘mayor’ are synonymous with ‘state’ and ‘Governor’ respectively, and the same laws apply to both.
3. On the local level, states are further subdivided, on a geographical and cultural basis.
  1. In urban areas, the subdivisions are known as neighborhoods and hamlets.
    1. Neighborhoods are grouped together into towns or cities.
  2. In rural areas, the subdivisions are known as districts.
  3. Districts, neighborhoods and hamlets are governed by state authorities or the officials that they appoint.

Voting[]

Pro[]

Pro (7 votes) --Semyon 18:39, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
Pro (4 votes) Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:31, November 7, 2011 (UTC) (NPO,PCP)
Pro (19 votes) Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:26, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Pro (6 votees) Aged youngman 08:06, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Pro (11 votes) HORTON11 15:30, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra (7 Votes) - Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:31, November 7, 2011 (UTC) (SPP,GP)

Abstain[]

Abstention (12 votes) The district part is still pointless. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:52, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think the districts are key to both new activity and solving the grievances of some rebels. After all they call for the integration of new information in the existing structure. So maybe not serving a direct purpose, but certainly useful. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 06:28, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it solves any of the grievances of the rebels, and since we are all kind of busy no one would be willing to add them. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:03, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Abstention (3 Votes) Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:31, November 7, 2011 (UTC) (WFP)
Abstention (15 votes) --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 15:41, November 8, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP)

This proposal is declined. Not enough votes--only 47 pro. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:08, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

024. Eleventh (or Twelfth) Amendment[]

The Amendment[]

Article 13 – The Lovian Defense Force

The Lovian Defense Force is the official military of the Kingdom of Lovia.
1. The Lovian Defense Force must remain the nation's only militarized forces.
2. The presence of a national military does not, in any way, oppose the Firearms Act of the Criminal Law Book.
  1. Any Lovian militia operating within Lovia, regardless of its alliance, is considered unlawful, except when deemed acceptable by a majority vote from Congress.
  2. Weapons such as firearms may be distributed to those serving the Lovian Defense Force, which are for official use only, in battle, and/or when authorized. Weapons distributed amongst soldiers are exclusively federal property, as are any weapons in the military arsenal.
3. The Lovian Defense Force is not responsible to the Federal Police.
  1. The Federal Police are expected to cooperate and function with the Lovian Defense Force during times of war.
The Lovian Defense Force consists of two uniformed services, the Lovian Army and the Lovian Navy.
1. The Special Forces of Lovia is dissolved and incorporated into the Lovian Army.
2. The Lovian Coastal Police is dissolved and reformed as the Lovian Navy.
  1. Much of the Lovian Coastal Police's unit structure is retained.
Lovian High Command (HIGHCOM) is the authority of the Lovian Defense Force.
1. All branches of the Lovian Defense Force are responsible to Lovian High Command, whom's purpose is to command each branches.
2. High Command is composed of four individuals, the Prime Minister, the General of the Army, the Fleet Admiral of the Navy, and the Chief of Intelligence who each represent their respective branch.
  1. The General of the Army is the Chief of Land-based Operations, and the Fleet Admiral of the Navy is the Chief of Naval Operations.
  2. Only the Prime Minister may choose to engage the nation in war along with a 67% special majority vote from Congress.
    1. The Prime Minister may not declare a war involved with foreign military/militia organizations unless a 60% general majority vote from Congress and both the General of the Army and the Fleet Admiral of the Navy agree with the Prime Minister.
The Bureau of Intelligence (BI) is formed as the nation's military intelligence agency. The Bureau of Intelligence is responsible to Lovian High Command.
1. It will compromise whatever security systems the former Lovian Coastal Police and the Special Forces of Lovia.
2. The command composes of the Chief of Intelligence of Lovia.
  1. The Chief of Intelligence will be elected by Congress, and must then be approved of directly by the Prime Minister.
  2. The terms are for a lifetime or the resignation of the Chief.

Conditions[]

The previous Chief of the Lovian Coastal Police, Christopher Costello, is appointed as Fleet Admiral of the Navy.
1. Christopher Costello, the visionary of the Lovian Defense Force, may further build and contribute to the military. This includes writing articles that are not limited to the Lovian Navy.
  1. The rank structure shown here, proposed by Christopher Costello, is adopted by the Lovian Defense Force.
  2. Christopher retires as the Assistant Commissioner of the Federal Police, and is reinstated to the Navy.
The previous leader of the Special Forces of Lovia, Anatoli Bershov, is appointed as a general of the Lovian Army.
Bill An is appointed as the Chief of Intelligence, by approval of popular sovereignty. (negotiable)

*These bonus conditions stated above require an okay from the Prime Minister, Marcus Villanova. ~~Pretty please!~~

Contributors[]

Primary author: Christopher Costello - Lovian citizen and MOTC

Secondary author: Bill An - Lovian citizen, CEO of Goyou

Tertiary author: William Krosby - Lovian citizen and MOTC

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro (1 vote) - I've proposed this a while back and feel that it is now ready for an official submission. For those who had missed my argument in the First Chamber, I firmly believe that it is time for us to take the next step, as a nation. The conditions that I had stated above only "officially" give me the ability to further expand upon our Defense Force if it is voted in. I don't recommend that the conditions be transfered to the Constitution, I just wanted to get that out into the open. Cheers, and happy voting! --LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss)} 00:24, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
Pro in the generalities - I don't oppose a small force of around 200 men. I do however feel the details need refining, for example the rank structure, which suggests a force of many thousands. Given that even North Korea only has 0.05 soldiers per capita, I'd say this is extreme. Back to the First Chamber IMHO. --Semyon 13:58, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra 12 Votes, I still would prefer a strong police system instead and I also don't like the names. And I am against lifetime terms. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:59, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
Contra 13 Votes, What TM said. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:17, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
Contra --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 10:17, November 20, 2011 (UTC) 15:41, November 8, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP) Clear example of megalomania: Lovia is way too small for keeping up a military. It's a waste of money...
Contra 19 Votes. Quality over quantity, I say, an efficient police force will do. And we can always count on American imperialism to defend our interests. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:55, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is declined. Not enough votes. Only 8 pro. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:08, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[]

039. Labor Law Act[]

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

This will replace the current Laborers Act if passed. It will protect workers but not hurt companies too much. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 12 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 1 Votes -- LCPCOP Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi - Discuss - What's up)} 03:11, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 15 votes --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 04:49, December 21, 2011 (UTC) (CCPL, LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP)
Pro 11 votes - HORTON11: • 17:23, December 21, 2011 (UTC) (but please shange USD to L$)
- It looks like that has been fixed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:17, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 7 votes, tho I replaced some of my earlier changes that TM deleted in the First Chamber. Nothing serious, just some grammar stuff, as you can see from the page history. --Semyon 17:44, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I reverted your edit because you seemed to have copied half the page and pasted it again, and then the other half and pasted it somewhere else, and it doubled the page size so I just reverted it. I didn't know it deleted the paid/payed thing, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:31, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
  - Yeah, it was my fault, I just wanted to replace the stuff I'd done. :) --Semyon 14:00, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Pro 14 votes (Passes) Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:16, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra 1 vote, it needs tweaks so that businesses are not so damaged. Plus 14 dollars an hour is far too much, if a lovian worker was to work full hours (8) for just 300 days a year then they would earn 33600 L$ a year! sounds good but not so good when you hear how much a small business would have to earn just to pay 20 workers 672000 L$! how damaging will that be to small businesses? severely. and could it cuase inflation? definately. We are forgoing too much just because of the notion of it favouring the worker, there will be little chance of pay rises and small businesses unable to keep up this deal will shut down, causing unemployment. This act as I have just realise spells death for small businesses, unemployment for many and actually will harm Lovian workers more than benefit them, all because of the establishment of minimum wage. We must find an alternative not rush this through. Kunarian 03:13, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that future Congress can revise this and the current labour is bad. Also keep mind that 14 dollars would only be 12.5 dollars in USD, so that's not as much as you think. And since when are small businesses minimum wage companies? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:18, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
  - True, I never thought it shouldn't go through but that it should be altered. Plus small businesses aren't minimum wage companies but the creation of this quite high minimum wage would damage their sustainability. That is my point, in my argument above I simply listed the worst case scenario. Besides we need to work out tax soon, its vital to working out how much money the government can actually spend. Kunarian 23:15, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
  - Plus I think there are better ways to pay workers than to force businesses into a minimum wage area. Kunarian 23:25, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
    - The minimum wage isn't too high, only about 12.5 US dollars, and again since small businesses aren't minimum wage companies it shouldn't be anything more than a minor problem for them. You can barely live on 8 US dollars (in the US, that is. Lovia probably has a higher cost of living). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Abstain[]

...

This proposal is accepted! By a 60% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

046. Judicial Reform (Amendment 11)[]

Article 1[]

Article 1 A - Lovian National State

Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
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.
Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.
In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.

The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
1. The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogeniture. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins.
1. All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.
The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. They are a member of the royal family, but they do not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
The person first in line to the throne is known as the heir apparent, and becomes monarch after the previous monarch has abdicated or deceased.
1. The heir apparent to the throne will sign the Constitution upon their coronation.
2. The heir apparent assumes the throne after they have presented themself to Congress on invitation of a normal majority in Congress. After this, the heir is officially declared Monarch of Lovia.
The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finance, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
1. The maximum amount of financial support that can be given is 4000 Lovian dollars per month.
With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.
The ruling monarch's functions in the government are ceremonial.
1. The ruling monarch should preside over Congress, in partnership with the Speaker of the Congress.
2. The ruling monarch does not have a vote in Congress, but is free to discuss and make opinions on the laws and activities of Congress.

Changes: Added two lines at the bottom.

Article 4[]

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
1. The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
    1. The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries are Members of the Congress; however, the heads of government institutions and civil services do not need to be Members of the Congress.
  2. All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are either democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia or who are Member by Right (the ruling monarch). Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
  3. All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
2. The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
  2. The local level, consisting of cities and towns, and the sublocal level, consisting of neighborhoods and hamlets, are governed by the state authorities.

Changes: Added a fourth level line that says the PM and secretaries are MOTCs.

Article 5[]

Nothing changes, though there is a bit about court cases between states. I think a jury is not needed for those.

Article 8[]

Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government

Federal Elections:
1. Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
2. The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during Federal Elections:
  1. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
  2. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
    1. Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
    3. Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
    4. All citizens must receive at least three points to receive any seats in Congress.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
  4. All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
    1. The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
      1. The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
4. New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries:
1. A coalition of political parties and/or Members of the Congress that control more than 50% of the seats of Congress should form between the end of elections and Inauguration Day.
  1. If a coalition agreement is not reached by Inauguration Day, all non-vital executive government activities are shut down until an agreement is reached.
2. The coalition should create a proposal of which Members of the Congress should become the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries. This proposal must be approved by a normal majority in Congress.
3. A Member of the Congress should be elected by a normal majority of Congress to become the Speaker of the Congress, who presides over Congress in conjunction with the ruling monarch.
4. Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
5. When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
6. If the Prime Minister or a Federal Secretary resigns, a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
7. The Prime Minister may schedule new federal elections at any time. If he or she decides to do so, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
State Elections:
1. Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
  1. It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
2. The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during State Elections:
  1. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
  2. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
    1. Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
  4. The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
    2. The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
  5. The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
    2. Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.

Changes: Added and revised some stuff about the part titled "The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries", and reinstated a 3-vote legal requirement, to make sure that inactive people won't get elected.

Article 9[]

Article 9 – Supreme Court Trials

The Supreme Court is an independent institution and the nation's only and supreme judicial organ, consisting of a Supreme Court Judge and a panel of four citizens, together creating a jury, that change every case.
A lawsuit is a civil or public action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy, from the defendant who is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint.
A lawsuit can be opened by a plaintiff or a public plaintiff.
1. Any person in Lovia may be a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
2. A public plaintiff is a representative of the federal government or any institution of it or any other level of administration in Lovia.
  1. The federal attorney is the public plaintiff representing the federal government, the entire population or any other administrative institution of the federal level in court. He or she is appointed by the Secretary of Justice.
A defendant is the party accused by the plaintiff.
1. A public defendant has the same status as a public plaintiff.
Both parties may opt to be represented in court by a lawyer.
Every lawsuit before the Supreme Court must proceed in this manner and order:
1. The plaintiff opens the lawsuit.
  1. The plaintiff makes an accusation and names the defendant in the lawsuit.
  2. The plaintiff may make a demand. This can be a period of imprisonment, a fine or/and any other punishment not contradicting the laws of Lovia.
2. Four random citizens, not including the plaintiff, defendant, or Supreme Court Judge, are selected to serve with the Judge as a jury.
3. The Supreme Court Judge must investigate the accusation. He or she may find the accusation not suited for Supreme Court; that is when the accusations made are in no way a violation of the law.
4. The Supreme Court must notify the defendant that he or she is accused in court.
5. The Supreme Court Judge must read out the case, including accusations and demands.
6. The plaintiff's party must speak before court in order to convince the Supreme Court Judge and the jury of the truthfulness of the made claims. He or she may bring forward witnesses, that can be asked questions directly relating to the accusations, and/or evidence material. He or she may ask the defendant's party questions directly relating to the accusations.
7. The defendant's party may speak before court. The defendant or his or her lawyer may plea guilty to the accusations, or unguilty. He or she may also try to convince the Supreme Court Judge and the jury of extenuating circumstances. The defendant is free to bring forward witnesses and evidence, both directly relating to the accusations or to the extenuating circumstances.
8. The Supreme Court Judge and the jury must consider both pleas thorougly and by interpreting the laws of Lovia.
9. The plaintiff's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account.
10. The defendant's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account, but only if the plaintiff's party has made use of their second round.
11. The Supreme Court Judge and the jury must consider the entirity of the lawsuit. The Judge and the jury must, within two week's time since the last plea, come to a conclusion, supported by at least three out of five of the combined members of the jury and judge, voting together. They may conclude:
  1. That the defendant is guilty of the accusations, or of a part of the accusations;
  2. That the defendant is not guilty of any accusations.
12. If the defendant is found to be guilty, the Supreme Court Judge and jury may choose to sentence the defendant, by means of:
  1. A period of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary;
  2. A fine;
  3. Any other sentence, including penal labor or contributions to Lovian society.
13. All sentences issued by the Supreme Court:
  1. Must be in agreement with the laws of Lovia;
  2. Must be in proportion to the violation;
  3. Must respect the personal integrity of the individual; therefore death penalty, corporal punishment and inhumane forms of humiliation are prohibited.
The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.
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.
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.
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.
A new panel of four citizens must be reselected for each court case. If the same four citizens are randomly selected for the next case, another panel should be randomly chosen.
1. If a citizen does not want to become part of the jury, another randomly selected citizen may take their place.
2. To be chosen, a citizen must have made at least one edit in the past month before the selection notice, and not have made any action like that of a vandal in the past three months.
3. A citizen must respond to their selection notice, with either an acceptable or refusal, within a week.
  1. If the citizen fails to respond, another randomly selected citizen will take their place, who must also follow the same rules.

Changes: Added the jury amendment.

Alright, no one seems interested in discussing this further, so I'll bring it to a vote. One more thing, the part in the NCO act about the Speaker will be removed, because it will now be in the Constitution.

Update: I have added a section about the PM being able to dissolve Congress. It's just like the no confidence vote. Please rescind your vote if you don't want that. Currently, the PM is able to do that but more indirectly. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:10, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 12 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:58, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 16 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 20:34, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 4 Votes - Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:50, January 1, 2012 (UTC) (LP)
Pro 7 Votes - The glorious First Consul of Rome 10:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Pro--— Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 18:05, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Pro oh almost missed this! Kunarian 18:36, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 11 votes (Labor and LCP)
Pro Nathaniel Scribner 17:59, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra 9 votes - Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:50, January 1, 2012 (UTC) (NPO,PCP,LP)

Why? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't like courts. Plain and simple nothing to do with the bill. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:12, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. This bill's first purpose was to add the jury idea. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:14, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I don't like STRONG courts. Like the supreme court. The jury is a bad idea. No offence again but Strong courts have too much power. Now that I think of it more i'm even more against it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:18, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can't just not have courts. And also, the jury is good because it makes the supreme court less autocratic, because it doesn't have all power at one person. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:08, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think the jury is a great idea. It does not reduce court power, but it gives some of it to average citizens (power to the people). HORTON11:

•

16:31, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't like juries either, but man, this is politics: you give some and you'll get some :P --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:40, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Contra In my opinion, this law has not been well thought through. I notice immediately for instance, that there is a line saying: 'a jury is made up of four randomly chosen citizens' - which is obviously flawed, as most of our citizens are inactive. In any case, I dislike the idea that four potential nutcases could help to decide a case - a competent and neutral judge is far preferable. Finally, the way this law has been introduced is not ideal - it spent less than three days in the First Chamber, except it didn't, because there was only a link to the law - and TM did not make it clear the changes that he was making in such a involved and complex law. --Semyon 18:12, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to add the part about activity that I believe was suggested in the First Chamber. I'll add that, and we still won't have to revote. But anyway, the current system lets ONE person make EVERY judicial decision AND punishment. Not very democratic or fair, eh? Think about the Galahad. v. The Brigade trial. I also believe the chances that four nutcases (and which users are you referring to?) will get chosen and refuse to be neutral is rather slim. And you can't just let the Congress select them, that'd make everyone be of a similar ideology. Maybe Oos will unstrike and put per TM now. :D —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:42, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

We can pass the law now and make changes later. If not, we'll be modifying it for a long time and nothing will be achieved. HORTON11: • 18:40, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

@TM: I agree that the current system of a single judge is flawed, but at least a judge can be selected for his neutrality and good qualities. Random selection adds a certain amount of danger to the judicial process, which I don't like. Better IMO to have three judges and to make it a legal requirement that they be of different political backgrounds. Sure, what constitutes a 'different political background' is open to interpretation, but Congress can't very well ignore such a guideline completely. --Semyon 18:53, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

There will still be a powerful judge (with a vote in the jury) that will make sure the jury knows what is going on in the case and will vote for the option they think is right (both to themselves and the jury). If you make sure they have different political backgrounds, then it's hard to define different political backgrounds. Even though in my thesis (Politics of Lovia), I introduced a three-group system, judges may change their views or there may not be good judges in the other backgrounds. I think this is a great substitute for having to appoint separate judges. It will give SOME of the law interpretation to a jury but most of it will still remain with a federally appointed judge. On a side note: What if each state submitted a judge? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:00, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Also, Horton makes a good case. It's just like the abortion law: better this than no change at all! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:06, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't agree a jury is an improvement, and would actually far prefer your alternative of a state-submitted judge. Perhaps they could be picked by lot from the possible five. The proposal is fine, it's just I don't like the idea that there is not control at all over who the jury is. By the way, why all the bullet points? :) --Semyon 19:12, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Because bullet points make it look good. The state-submitted judges would be bad though, because governors are still (elected) dictators in this country. How would you improve the randomness of jury members? 2/3 vote to eject a jury member? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:18, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Dictators?! I consider governors to be the last office free of federal control. The local police and mayors have bee abolished (a shame really). HORTON11: • 19:26, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they get to do anything they want in a state, because there is no legislature. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:48, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Contra --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 06:42, January 6, 2012 (UTC) I've been thinking very well about this and I have to do what's best for the nation. A judge ain't gonna work... Because it's election time, we have more active contributors than average. We can be lucky if 5 people will stay. A judge therefore is almost equal size as the community and this could lead to banning people whom we don't like. Apart from that, court decisions should be made by people competent of doing so. Looking around on this wiki and I know hardly find 3 active users who are so...

Ok. I still disagree with your reasoning, but wth. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:58, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain[]

Abstention 16 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 20:34, January 1, 2012 (UTC) per Semyon

Please re-consider. I have fixed the fixable errors that Semyon reported. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:38, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

...

Comments[]

52 Pro. We just need fifteen more votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:04, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is declined. Unable to get enough support. Yuri, Dae-su, Semyon, and Oos add up to more than 34. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:56, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

046. The Other Parts of the Judicial Reform (take 2)[]

Article 1[]

Article 1 A - Lovian National State

Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
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.
Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.
In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.

The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
1. The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogeniture. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins.
1. All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.
The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. They are a member of the royal family, but they do not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
The person first in line to the throne is known as the heir apparent, and becomes monarch after the previous monarch has abdicated or deceased.
1. The heir apparent to the throne will sign the Constitution upon their coronation.
2. The heir apparent assumes the throne after they have presented themself to Congress on invitation of a normal majority in Congress. After this, the heir is officially declared Monarch of Lovia.
The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finance, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
1. The maximum amount of financial support that can be given is 4000 Lovian dollars per month.
With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.
The ruling monarch's functions in the government are ceremonial.
1. The ruling monarch should preside over Congress, in partnership with the Speaker of the Congress.
2. The ruling monarch does not have a vote in Congress, but is free to discuss and make opinions on the laws and activities of Congress.

Changes: Added two lines at the bottom.

Article 4[]

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
1. The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
    1. The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries are Members of the Congress; however, the heads of government institutions and civil services do not need to be Members of the Congress.
  2. All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are either democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia or who are Member by Right (the ruling monarch). Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
  3. All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
2. The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania.
  1. The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
  2. The local level, consisting of cities and towns, and the sublocal level, consisting of neighborhoods and hamlets, are governed by the state authorities.

Changes: Added a fourth level line that says the PM and secretaries are MOTCs.

Article 5[]

Nothing changes, though there is a bit about court cases between states. I think a jury is not needed for those.

Article 8[]

Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government

Federal Elections:
1. Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
2. The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during Federal Elections:
  1. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
  2. During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
    1. Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
    3. Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
    4. All citizens must receive at least three points to receive any seats in Congress.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
  4. All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
    1. The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
      1. The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
4. New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries:
1. A coalition of political parties and/or Members of the Congress that control more than 50% of the seats of Congress should form between the end of elections and Inauguration Day.
2. The coalition should create a proposal of which Members of the Congress should become the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries. This proposal must be approved by a normal majority in Congress.
  1. If no government proposal is approved, then the former government should continue its duties until a government proposal is approved by Congress.
3. A Member of the Congress should be elected by a normal majority of Congress to become the Speaker of the Congress, who presides over Congress in conjunction with the ruling monarch.
  1. The Speaker of the Congress has the power to appoint a special session of congress in the case that more than half of congressional members are inactive and elections are not being held.
4. Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
5. When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
6. If the Prime Minister or a Federal Secretary resigns, a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
7. The Prime Minister may schedule new federal elections at any time. If he or she decides to do so, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
State Elections:
1. Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
  1. It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
2. The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
3. Election procedure during State Elections:
  1. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
  2. During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
    1. Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
    2. Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
  3. The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
  4. The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
    2. The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
  5. The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
    1. The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
    2. Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.

Changes: Added and revised some stuff about the part titled "The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries", and reinstated a 3-vote legal requirement, to make sure that inactive people won't get elected.

Okay, this is the amendment again, but without the judicial reform. No one really objected to this, so I think that it should pass.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options

{{pro}} resulting in: Pro
{{contra}} gives: Contra
{{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Pro[]

Pro 12 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:16, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 16 votes. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 18:46, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 7 votes. --Semyon 19:39, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 13 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:44, January 6, 2012 (UTC) (LP,NCO)
Pro 1 Vote Kunarian 21:58, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Pro 1 Vote — Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 01:58, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Contra[]

Contra Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:45, January 6, 2012 (UTC) (PCP...Why? I really want the abolition of states all together but overall nice)

I didn't change anything about the states. I don't get why people are abstaining/voting contra for this. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:52, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Also relize I'm voting from my party's POV so yeah there'll be "yays" and "nays". I don't like states at such a small level. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:56, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I like the PCP and I don't want them to have to have a contra for no reason on their hands to make people like them less, so maybe you should make it a Labour MOTC? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:58, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you accept that people don't always do it your way Pierlot McCrooke 06:32, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you just add periods or question marks to your comments? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:52, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain[]

...

Comments[]

I would like to point out that the "deputy governor" policy stated above might cause problems. If two opposing candidates are running neck-to-neck in any elections, and one wins, they would never be able to settle disputes (because technically, both would have one). I can see how this might be good also, however... I need to think about this a little.--— Christopher Costello ^{(Pikapi • Chat • What's up)} 15:53, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything in the state elections section. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:17, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Chris, how come you voted for the previous bill but not this one? --Semyon 19:39, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't people voting? O_o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:26, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

This one still has to be voted by the old Congress. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 10:04, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm asking why people from the old Congress aren't voting. I guess we can just revote with the next Congress, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:51, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to make a judicial reform, why not make it so the PM is elected separately. HORTON11:

•

12:25, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

That would be a presidency, no. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:44, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and we don't need a president. So, let's keep it this way. --OuWTB ^sjrief-mich 16:47, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

National Archives/Chambers/12 Twelve

First Chamber[]

026. Air Lovia[]

027. The King?[]

028. Deployment & ending this another message from the PM[]

029. Preparing future trials[]

030. Clarification and passage of law[]

031. Some changes to the constitution[]

Proposed law[]

Article 4[]

Notes[]

Comments[]

032. Standard Knowledge Assessment[]

033. The 11th Amendment regarding a national military[]

024. Eleventh (or Twelfth) Amendment[]

The Amendment[]

Conditions[]

035. Lovian Citizenship and Immigration Act[]

Lovian Citizenship and Immigration Act[]

Contributors[]

036. Rewrite the Constitution[]

Constitutional Convention[]

037. National soccer team[]

038. Recess and Travel appointments[]

039. Labor Law Act[]

040. Census change[]

041. Special Forces of Lovia[]

042. OAS membership[]

043. Anti-Monopolization Act[]

Ridiculous[]

Monopoly? Anyone[]

044. Police Restoration Act[]

I. Police and Army[]

II. UNLOR[]

Discussion[]

045. Prime Minister Making it Manditory![]

046. Judicial Reform (Amendment to Constitution)[]

047. Air Lovia (purge)[]

048. Ban Ben Opat' from the 2012 Congress[]

049. Decreasing size of Congress[]

050. UNLOR Act[]

Discussion[]

Article Six Changes[]

Changed (new) law[]

What I changed/Discussion[]

051. Elections Referendum[]

Article 8[]

052. Drug Banishment Act[]

Second Chamber[]

Lovian Dollar[]

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

Abstain[]

073. Recognition of the existing localities[]

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

Abstain[]

Discussion[]

Revision to 004. Sports and National Team Act[]

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

Abstain[]

075. Amending Article 8.2[]

Voting suspended. Bill withdrawn.[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

Abstain[]

Discussion[]

077. 2011 State Reform[]

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

Abstain[]

080. National Congressperson Order[]

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]