Wikination
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
in: National Archives

National Archives/Chambers/15 Fifteen

< National Archives‎ | Chambers
Edit

First Chamber[]

2013 Congress[]

Welcome again, MOTCs, to the 2013 Congress! First on our agenda is forming a government, followed by an election of the Speaker of the Congress. Afterward, we should aim to create a tax code, pass more laws relating to the economy, and possibly reform the states.

It appears that Ilava has won the informal vote to become Prime Minister, so I would like to invite him to propose a government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:43, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Speaker. Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 09:22, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

He just said the Speaker still had to be elected. :P 77topaz (talk) 09:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well, he was speaker before the elections, and he technically remains speaker until the elections are done. Therefore he is still speaker :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:26, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So, Oos, can you propose your government? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:02, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Have we decided on the list? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:05, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you can still propose one. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we need the ministry of Family, Youth and Elderly :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:09, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay :P But I'd also like Education --> Education and Research and Agriculture --> Food, Agriculture, (and Fisheries?). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:12, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, including the fishery part :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:18, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So. . . are you going to propose one? ;) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:52, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, later today :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:01, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a proposal here yet. :P 77topaz (talk) 02:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, forgot it and there was noone in my time zone to remind me of it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:40, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal[]

Looks nice overall, but I don't like the "Comestibles" part of the new name for Agriculture much. In addition, Kunarian didn't sign up for the Education post at the sign-up forum, and I made User:TimeMaster/Education, so I would really like to have that post. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:54, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

See: [1]. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:16, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
Woop, there's even more discussion :| So, the problematic points are:
  • Health: Is Eisei suitable as his views on health care seem to differ from the general views.
  • Education: Is Krosby willing to include Religious and Special-needs education?
  • Speaker: I think Semyon should get this. He doesn't have anything right now while he is one of our top politicians. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:19, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
I'm neutral on religious education (I will not actively support or oppose it, but will obey Congress) and pro on special-needs education. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:22, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd really rather have health. And i'd say Time should be in education, as he has shown a lot of interest. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:35, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think Semyon should be Speaker, but I definitely want to keep health as I wouldn't get any other position, because my other choice was defense, but Kunarian only signed up for defense, and he has more political power than me. As far as I'm concerned, put Semyon in Speaker and that would be good. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:56, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

With Health I support QZ for his respect for the process of government, I feel that some others may simply use the position just to push their ideas through rather than look at the options and let the governors (preferably) or government decide on what happens. I feel that an impulsive Minister in this position could cause problems due to them viewing the position as one of power rather than responsibility, and for that reason I'd hope we could choose someone not in the big camps and who would therefore be more impartial and from my point of view QZ fits that. I fear Horton would end up deciding that because he had been allocated the position that it is his position to choose the health policy. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 23:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I toowant to have the Health position. I have good ideas and will be cooperative with the others to create the programs. Granero (talk) 23:57, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

This has turned into a "I want" "I want to create" scenario. Just propose this, it seems fine to me most people don't do squat with there position anyway :I Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:24, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We could possibly have some deputy ministers. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:14, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

It seems pointless, in a government with no opposition who cares if there's a deputy, to question or hold accountable when most Primary ministers do nothing or minimal work anyway :/ Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Granero, you aren't too active though... This decreases your likeliness of getting the ministry, and you don't have any unique views on the health care system from what I know. I want health because I actually have knowledge on the subject (in lots of these other ministries I don't), and I have unique view points. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather it just stay as "Ministry of Agriculture". Fishries, which seek to make a real living are ethier praticing Aquaculture or mass fishing (nets and such) are still considerd "...is the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi, and other life forms for food, fiber, biofuel and other products used to sustain human life." Which would still be straight forward with just saying 'Agriculture.' Now if its for simply game, that would go under Tourism & Sport or Enviormental ministries. -Sunkist- (talk) 03:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I'm gonna propose. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:52, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

001. Notice[]

I, acting for and on behalf of HRH Dimitri I, as Speaker of the Congress, hereby declare this congressional term open. From now until the inauguration of its successor government, according to the Constitution, the Second Ilava Government shall be the supreme executive body in the Kingdom of Lovia. --Semyon 17:20, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, arguably not, but it's not my fault the constitution is so ambiguous. :P --Semyon 17:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Supreme executive body. Anyway, I'm going to archive the negotiations. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:29, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Good thing that was what I said, then. :P --Semyon 17:35, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
:P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:50, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

002. Voting Reform[]

I propose that the current system of voting in Federal Elections, with one major vote, one minor vote, and one support vote, be replaced with a system of five equally-ranked votes. Thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:08, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm... Doesn't that increase the number of seats given to inactive users? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:05, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Would this system allow giving more than one vote to a single user? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, Oos, but we could also put a protection against inactive users running. And you wouldn't be able to give more than one vote to one candidate. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I'm very much contra that (they are citizens too). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
It's not what I'm proposing. Besides, it would still reduce their ability to slam down the major votes on famous old people who are the only people they know. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:47, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Contra Contra I think this would spread votes too much actually. I would have on vote for me, one for Nathan, and then three between CCPL, Semyon, CNP. More than likely Nathan wouldn't have any seats, and I would have 1 maybe 2. People will just vote within their party if their party is big, and if their party is small they won't get very many seats. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, that's kind of the point. To refuse self voting, so if your support comes from only two people, you will receive few seats, but if from many, you will receive more. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

New users wouldn't get into Congress though, and I don't think it would represent the votes as accurately. It would force people to vote for people that they don't like very much or only semi-support.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 19:42, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think the system works ok actually. A lot of people were panicking (including me? no... :P) about 'rotation' but in the end the results we got were broadly acceptable. I think we just have to be pragmatic and accept that if we want to keep the OOC users voting for IC politicians thing (which I hope we do) that it has some inherent flaws, which result in some users receiving seats out of proportion to their contribution to the site. --Semyon 22:13, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think that the same flaw that semyon mentioned about out of proportion seats would appear in the new system as well. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Contra Contra the current system ain't broke. It's the best defense against inactives, even though it alows some inactives in.  Don't become a nickclegg liberal trying to reform everything :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:14, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit surprised about how no one supports this even though 2/3 of people in chat a month ago did. :/ Also, Marcus, this would be the "best defense against inactives", as they can't just slam down major votes on the only people they know (the effect is diluted), and can't self-vote and get into Congress if no-one else supports them. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:16, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but with five equal votes people like Oos and Hoffman who maybe work for there seats and are active will become marginalised against people from the LMP or MCP, who are barely active. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

003. Weapons and Hunting Act[]

I'm bringing this back! Woohoo! Hopefully we can get this passed through. I've made a little bit of revision, and if anyone has any suggestions just drop them below. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:59, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

  1. Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to own sheathed knives over 6 inches in length, guns under 12 inches in length (including knife guns), and ballistic knives.
    1. All owners must be 24 years of age.
    2. Ballistic knives and sheath knives are not considered fire arms.
  2. Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age, but all firearms used by anyone under the age of 18 must be legally registered to their legal parents and/or guardians.
    1. Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns of .50-calliber or fewer, rifles of .50-caliber or fewer, shotguns of 10-gauge and greater, cross bows, hunting bows, and spears are allowed.
      1. All automatic weapons are illegal, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
  3. Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, buy, and own.
  4. Bayonets are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy.
  5. Bullets containing poison, napalm, toxins, and explosives are illegal to manufacture, trade, buy, sell, and own, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
    1. In the case of an official government, military, militia, or police, soft chemical explosives are still illegal.
  6. Hunters are legally bound to register with the Ministry of Defense annually to renew their hunting license. Once licenses are renewed, said hunters are legally aloud to hunt for the year.
    1. Hunters may only hunt a total of 24 times a year.
      1. Hunters must register with the Ministry of Defense at least 36 hours in advance in order to go hunting.
  7. All hunters are required to wear a bright orange hat. If the color of the hat is challenged to not be bright orange, a court case may be held to determine this.
    1. The fine for this will be 200 Lovian dollars. If they hat is orange, but deemed not bright orange, the fine will be 90 Lovian dollars.
  8. Newly manufactured items that have a similar look or use to firearms are required to have orange tips to signify that they are not legally firearms.
    1. This includes but is not limited to water guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, BB guns, and model guns.
  9. The following sections of Article 3 of the Criminal Law Book are repealed:
    1. Section 1.2.2.2 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted."
    2. Section 1.2.2.6 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed."
    3. Section 1.2.6 "Hunters are legally bound to register with the Minister of Defense, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month."

I'll be very honest with you the orginal law was written by a centrist liberal but was very appealing to me, and as a peace activist I really want to see no change to the law. I find it to be near perfect. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:20, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

What about the loopholes? Bayonets and switchblades were legal, and fake guns look just like real ones? Don't those pose as legitimate problems to you? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:34, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

it was  a "firearms" act not weaponry act. If you want bayonets and switchblades to be regulated (which I support) go for it. But the fake guns yeah just add a provision to the existing act. We do disagree on this issue you being conservative and me more on the left. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:17, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I got this changed to Weapons and Hunting Act

Still doesn't change my objection :P Wait is this to replace the current act or add to it...? Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:01, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

This is in addition to the old act, with the exceptions to the three parts that I suggested be repealed, but the parts that I repealed were replaced by other things in the act. Like 1.2.2.6 of the original is replaced by 2.1 of the new one. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:17, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age." I have to disagree with this. 16 or 18 I'd say. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:32, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

The mental maturity of children who are 12-18 isn't much different actually. It wouldn't be that much of a difference in the end. The hunting accidents aren't caused by 12 year olds (in America 10). The law also specifies that they must hunt with their parents and with their parents gun, and their parents have to be 24 to own the guns, so there are precautions in there. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 16:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Though the mental maturity might not be so much different according to you, the mental being is still way more easily influencable, and therefore I'd prefer to have as little exposure to guns until a legal age. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:17, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what about all the people who enjoy hunting as a hobby? They won't be able to hunt until they are 18. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah well, smoking is my hobby too and I officially couldn't get cigarettes until I was 16 è :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:31, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

But smoking is bad for your health especially at a young age; whereas, allowing 12 year olds to hunt with their parents who are over 18, both of which have hunting licenses, isn't going to hurt anyone. If you were to smoke when you were 12, your health would be drastically affected. Hunting at 12 isn't hurting the hunter or other people. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:27, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

That's ignoring hunting accidents. :P 77topaz (talk) 21:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Topaz, if you read what I said earlier, you would know that hunting accidents are rarely ever caused by youths. Hunting accidents are caused by people being ignorant and stupid. Just to top it off though, on average, about 100 people die in hunting accidents per year in the U.S. and there are about 800 total accidents. This is far less than injuries than in any common sport, and 1,500 people die while swimming per year on average. (Both of those are straight of the DNR.) The whole argument of safety on this is ludicrous. The majority of Lovian community doesn't understand this because the majority of the community doesn't hunt, and/or fails to do any research on hunting statistics. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:48, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite[]

As a concerned Lovian, I propose to change our Marriage Act in subtle ways to make it more open-minded. Lovians - progressives and conservatives alike - are open-minded people, who care deeply about liberty, but also equality, justice, and harmonious living. I found that the Marriage Act was well-written, but did not account for a few things, and had a few very old-fashioned and liberty-restricting elements.

The rewrite I propose is not a radical overhaul. My own politics are those of radical overhaul, but with this proposal, I just want to bring minor, beneficial change to Lovia. I hope it shows I am serious about politics, and that I care about coalitions, alliances, and goodwill in politics.

The original text can be found in the Federal Law.

Proposed version Marriage Act[]

  1. Marriage is an understanding between two adult people, referred to as parties, who voluntarily agree to take up certain rights and duties.
    1. The spouses have the duty to live in harmony with each other, offering each other respect, affection, consolation, and care and treating each other in fairness.
    2. The spouses have the duty to communicate with each other and make informal agreements concerning both the personal and professional including work, the household, sex, parenting, and finances, and to verbally resolve any conflicts. Considering the possibility that the spouses cannot come to an agreement on their own terms, it is the duty of both spouses to counsel for advice from a third party.
    3. The spouses have the right to retain their autonomy within their marriage including the right to choose and perform the profession of their liking, the right to keep personal finances, and the right to individually see and meet people.
    4. The spouses share the responsibility to take care of their children or others in their custody as well as of their possessions and properties.
      1. Both spouses share the liability to all expenses made for the benefit of the spouses’ child or children, which can be proven to be essential to the well being of the child.
      2. While the spouses have the right to make any informal or formal arrangement as to whom pays what, the law can enforce the shared liability of expenses of the above-described type in the case that conflict arises and the existing arrangement is fundamentally unfair to either or both spouses.
    5. Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with vitals.
  2. Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met:
    1. Each of the parties is at least 18 years old, or 16 given that the parents or custodians of the less than 18-year-old party fully consent with the marriage;
    2. Each of the parties agrees with the marriage on a voluntary basis;
    3. None of the parties is already in a standing marriage under Lovian law or under similar law in the country where the marriage was carried out;
    4. The parties are not genetically related in the first or second degree ruling out marriages between parents and children, brothers and/or sisters, aunts and/or uncles, and nephews and/or nieces, and cousins.
  3. The solemnization of a marriage is carried out in public before a representative of the law.
    1. A representative of the law is the Governor of the State in which the marriage is solemnized, a person appointed by that Governor, or any person who is in public service in the federal or state government.
    2. No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met, unless he or she conscientiously objects to the solemnization, in which case he or she shall report his objections to a Deputy Governor or another representative of the law who must then contact the parties to arrange for solemnization to take place under his or her supervision. The government is legally bound to solemnize any marriage that conforms to the demands set forth by the law.
    3. The parties sign a marriage contract at the public solemnization agreeing to the conditions laid out by the law. The representative of the law acts as a witness and validates the contract by signing it as well.
  4. A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases:
    1. If the marriage is proven to not have been legally solemnized;
    2. If one of the spouses obtains a cancellation of the marriage contract;
      1. A spouse can cancel a marriage through a lawsuit if he or she proves that the other spouse has neglected his or her duties as a spouse;
        1. In this case, the neglecting spouse can be sanctioned to provide financial support to the neglected spouse.
        2. In this case, the judge must decide upon an arrangement concerning raising the spouses’ child or children, taking into account the opinions and wishes of both spouses as well as of the children concerned.
          1. Unless one of the spouses is considered an immediate threat to the health and security of a child, every person has the right to have regular contact and communication with his or her child.
          2. Every arrangement decided upon by a judge must take into account the health, security, and happiness of the child and the spouses’ ability to provide for those.
    3. If both spouses agree upon the termination of their marriage, effectively cancelling the marriage contract in the presence of a representative of the law.
    4. Upon the death of one of the spouses, or both, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.
    5. One year after one of the spouses has been reported as missing and has not been found, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.

Proposed changes[]

In the proposed version, some of the terminology has been changed, either to increase uniformity and clarity, or to reflect a more open-minded spirit. No mention is made of homosexuality, though: our law already allows for same-sex marriage.

The duties and rights of married people change, so that they are no longer obliged to actually live together (it is possible to be married harmoniously and live in separate places) and are no longer legally obliged to be sexually faithful to each other. Instead, extra emphasis is put on the emotional duties of married couples. Also expanded is the section on how to resolve marriage conflicts, including those with children.

The age at which marriage can be solemnized is lowered to 16, given the parents' consent.

The solemnization is simplified. A couple in want of a marriage only needs a representative of the law, more broadly defined now: the governor, someone appointed by him/her, or anyone else representing Lovian government. The "announcement" period is no longer needed.

The law explicitly states that "No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met". At the urging of Ooswesthoesbes, a provision is included to allow for conscientious objection by the representative of the law. A simple but efficient procedure is included to arrange for such cases.

Termination of the marriage contract by a single party, through a lawsuit, is rewritten. Provisions are included on what the judge can decide, financially and in the matter of children. The stress is on making harmonious arrangements and looking after the child's interests. A divorce should not be a war, and the child should never be its victim.

Thank you for your consideration. Punarbhava (talk) 17:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well done on taking the time to write such a long article. Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 19:52, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the law is fairly well written. There are some punctuation errors and typos that need to be fixed. There are a few things that I think should be changed though. I think that marriage before 18 isn't responsible. Marriage is very serious, and getting married at 16 would be very stressful and 16 year olds could be hasty and marry someone too early. Even if their parents agree it could still be irresponsible. Also, this law doesn't outlaw marriage between cousins. Even marriage between cousins causes deformation and health diseases in children VERY quickly. Even cases with 2nd cousins has been known to commonly cause deformation and health diseases. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:00, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I will specifically add cousins to the list. Punarbhava (talk) 06:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
I do believe, however, that some 16 year olds are mature enough to engage in a serious, lasting relationship. If anything, Lovia has shown that young people can achieve great things. (Is it not the king and the political elite who were only teenagers when they begun this nation?) With the provision of the parents' full consent, I think we can build in a safety. I do not believe the right to marry will be used by many minors when this law takes effect. But if it does, it will be by mature, consenting young (near-)adults, with their parents' consent, and with the legal protection of the law. Punarbhava (talk) 06:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Barring people over 18 from marrying people under 18 might avoid some problems. 77topaz (talk) 06:59, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it will. Marriages with people that have great age differences would just occur when the other party reaches 18, and the smaller age differences (16 & 18, 17 & 19, 17 & 18) would not be able to marry. In addition, I really don't consider 18 to be a much more mature stage of development than 16. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:39, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the points TM has made. Being an adult does not just happen the day the planet has made exactly 18 turns around the sun since you left the uterus. 18, just as 16, is an arbitrary age. Of course, legally, we need some sort of benchmark. 18 is a good one, I believe, but it won't hurt to make it more gradual. So those who are exceptionally mature, and are in a stable relationship that enjoys the approval of the parents, can enjoy the legal status other (possibly less or more mature) couples have. Punarbhava (talk) 14:36, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
You have to draw a line somewhere though. I could use exactly the same arguments to say - well, some fourteen year-olds are mature enough to get married, so we'll let them if they're exceptionally mature for their age. Also, the fact that parents approve doesn't indicate anything about the 'maturity' of the couple or the 'stability' of the relationship. Personally I think it better to have a single and simple distinction: those above 18 can marry, those below can't. @TM: I find 18 year-olds to be significantly more mature than 16 year-olds, though that's very possibly due to expectations of society rather than a natural thing. --Semyon 12:27, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Sure, we should draw a line. We have drawn a line. It's at 18. We would, however, include a provision that would allow for some exceptions. Why? Because some people really want to get married. And I understand that. I know what love is like and I know that sometimes, you just don't want to wait one or two more years. And why should they? If they consider themselves ready for marriage, who are we to say no? What's the harm, anyway? In fact, the new law would actually push the marrying parties towards greater cooperation, harmony, communication, etc.
The parents' approval is just to make sure there is no abuse. We don't want 16 year old girls or boys marrying someone abusive under any circumstances. Punarbhava (talk) 13:20, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
The issue I have is that you draw the line at 18, but then say 'No, we'll let people who really want to and are 'mature' to get married if they're younger' when the criterion that your using to decide whether people love each other enough or are mature enough is whether their parents agree - something which isn't related at all. --Semyon 21:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
That's a valid point. There is no way to test maturity, except the willingness of the parties to commit. The law does provide various safeties to give weight to the commitment: age, duties, parental approval, etc. That's about as much any law can do. Punarbhava (talk) 21:40, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, even though I believe 16 to be too young, it is an improvement of the older law, which didn't specify any age (a 5-year old could marry a 14-year old if they'd have permission of the parents and a legal advisor; not likely, but theoretically possible). The announcement thing - yeah.. I think it is necessary though. You can't expect the Government to be ready for any marriage any time. Now you could just kick in the door and claim your marriage. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

The new version eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy. You do have a good point. This is how I see it. Since Lovia has no actual administration - marriages are solemnized by an individual who represents the government - it is self-evident that the two parties must contact a representative themselves (as is the case in every country) and can only see their marriage solemnized as soon as a government official is available. If the person contacted is not online, or temporarily very busy, they'll have to wait a bit. If the representative is present, finds that the conditions are being met, and does not object, then it's done. Simple as that. Considering activity can be very fleeting on a wiki, direct accomplishment is the best way to deal with these things. Punarbhava (talk) 16:42, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be moved to the Second Chamber. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:47, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Oos! I now confide this bill to you, as I have no voting rights yet Smile. (By the way, could you arrange for my citizenship? For some reason, I have not been registered yet.) Punarbhava (talk) 07:54, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
I added you to this list. Consider yourself citizen now :)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do that until Saturday. So, if nobody else will move it, it'd have to wait. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Could I do it? Punarbhava (talk) 09:53, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
I like it, but do we really need to mention each spouse's must duties in the marriage? People should be allowed to decide for themselves. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
And they are. If they want no duties, and don't care about the protection they offer (which is their good right), then legal marriage is nothing for them. If they do, that's what this law is for. Punarbhava (talk) 14:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Well then doesn't this make arranged marriages illegal? HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:25, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
How do you mean? I don't see how this relates. Punarbhava (talk) 15:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Arranged marriages being illegal is not necessarily bad. :P 77topaz (talk) 19:18, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Arranged marriages are not the subject of this act. It should be clear, however, that marriage (as defined by this law, but also by the previous version) comes with duties and rights, and commitments. Emotional, financial... Preventing arranged marriages, if Lovia considers that a priority, should be done by raising public awareness. Maybe a media campaign? Smile Punarbhava (talk) 21:40, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Is this in addition to the old marriage act or replacing it? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Replacement. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:13, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
I think at this point theres some nitpicking going on, what was set out was to define marraige as two praticipants, clearing the vauge law. I think we've added more in and should get it to the second chamber soon. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:04, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Has spelling and grammar been checked by a native now? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:11, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this bill. I think someone should take this to the Second Chamber, although I can't as I am not a citizen yet, or an MOTC Frijoles333 (talk) 06:55, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

005. 2013 Jobs and Highway[]

Lovianhighway plan

New highway plan

I think we all know government can improve the lifes of citizens, help buisnesses grow and create growth in our economy. We were sent here to improve the opportunity to sucess and I would like to start this year with a jobs bill that will help the hard hit areas of Train Village and promote growth in Charleston.

Let's look at the areas this will affect:

  • Western Sylvania: 4.89 million dollars will be poured into the areas to repair roads connect and to create the new highway, create 350 jobs and allow companies in Charleston and Train Village to connect their services and have a chance to faster transportation. Two lanes going both ways will be able to create new opportunites to the future and with courtesy to nature, will go around scenic routes and leave nature alone.

But I also included new construction for the north:

  • Seven: Highway 6 is a great highway connecting the two most populated islands of Seven. Still in this act I add in another 1.42 million dollars of funding to create an extra connection to east kinley and another branch going into Amish kinley. The construction shows we have a commitment to all citizens of Lovia and wanting to improve travel speeds at any cost.

How will this be paid?

  • With taxes and a budget coming up hopefully, with this being pre-approved it will be covered to promote transporation and labour across the coutnry.
  • Noble City Area: Until 2015 we will add in two tolls in the outer area and inner area. The toll will be 0.75 lovian dollars and will allow access through the the other tolls for the rest of the day. So if you need to go to work through even two of the tolls, both ways it will only cost .75 for the entire day. By 2016 I plan that we lower the toll to .50 and keep it there.

Any ideas/comments? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:05, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I would like to protest! Invest heavily in constructing new highways? Even more cars, more pollution... Please NO. Think about alternatives: clean and fast railways, investing in better public transit. Punarbhava (talk) 18:14, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be good to reduce car travel and promote train travel. Also, Marcus, I think you meant tolls, not polls. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:17, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I think the activist is right and I agree with him but as a small i'd say still developing nation can we afford it? We already have railways to help the urban downtown areas, and areas elsewhere but this is to connect two far ranging cities, a highway is needed. I think if we implemented a high speed rail, more of nature would be destroyed even as we go around the bulk of sylvania's beauty. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:22, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

  1. I think that investing in more eco friendly and economically beneficial transport such as railways or docks is a better way to go.
    1. and when it comes to connecting distant areas I'd say that most areas are already pretty connected.
    2. and on railways, we wouldn't be destroying any beauty because new railways would be built alongside existing roads, leaving any damage done to a minimum.
  2. To be honest this just seems to be a bit of unneeded Keynesian ideas (using government funds to spend, spend, spend to appease people) leaking into our transport policy and I feel that we need to scale back and ask ourselves what else could we use this money for:
    1. the almost 5 million for western sylvania could be used to build a proper railway to charleston from train village, we might even have cash left over.
    2. the money going into seven could be used to make simply a smaller road as I do understand that car travel from one island to the other would be useful, I do not think we need a highway of the size you are talking about though.
    3. these tolls that you plan to establish, I have to say I will stand firmly against, firstly because the fact is that they are just a fiddly tax that could easily be included in income tax, secondly because of the hinderence that it would cause to people commuting not only will it take money out of their wallets but also time out of their day when I'm sure they'd rather just have to pay a little more income tax. Just do that, a little more income tax, that's the way to do it, not installing time wasting and annoying tolls.

my take on it. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 19:04, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

We can just expand the railway from Clave Rock to Charleston, no need to build a completely new one. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:27, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

But see its mutual that we need some transportation, Charleston is secluded! You say expand it, that costs money and planing, you just can minorly connect two cities so far away. I think it would be cheaper and more accesible for the people to have a highway but if we want high-speed rail which i'm for, we can do that. I'm for western Sylvanian development, and for helping those in train village. So okay we're going with high speed rail, is anyone actually for that or will that be shot down too, I have the feeling it will. On the issue of Seven, Its clear we need jobs across Lovia and  make it accesable for citizens there to have faster transportation, we can't build high speed rail there, so we need a highway. On the toll, I think it's hard to say when we have no taxes, the taxes he tried to pass had limited revenue with a 38% rate at the top and 28% at the bottom, that we need some source of revenue, to fund the government to fund any of these projects. This is responsible, and isn't a large 2 or 3 dollar toll, but .75 cents a day. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:56, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I think inserting another railway is fine, connecting to Train Village and then going through to Noble City. Also to just address Horton on why it should not be Clave Rock but Train Village: 1. it would be easier to build along the plains to Train Village than through the mountains to Clave Rock, 2. Clave Rock is about to 'green up', I hardly think a second train line would help that process 3. Going to Train Village allows us to also make another line to Noble City, which is useful for Trade (Noble City is our big trading city) and would help build jobs in Train Village.
On the matter of Seven, yes they should be connected but the amount of people on the islands does not require a motorway, also it's unlikely that it'll be used commercially as I'm sure ferries are the big thing there. Also jobs are not made just by building highways and railways, they facilitate it, but a bigger way to facilitate jobs is to come up with a proper business start-up and support model but that's a matter for another proposal which I hope to be heading. The point is, building this to simply facilitate jobs does not validate it as a practical policy that this government should adopt.
On tolls: you'd need to establish a law for those tolls too technically. So I'd prefer if we just put our efforts into getting a standard tax code set up and taking things from income. And on top of that I don't care how low it is, it's still an annoyance and unnecessary once we have a tax code set up.

That is my reply in full. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure people in Amish Kinley would even want a highway connection to their village. :P 77topaz (talk) 20:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. --John Amman 20:46, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Never fear, the CNP are on the side of Amish Kinley in ensuring their lifestyle (as well as the environment of Lovia) is as undisturbed by the development of lovia as possible. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Oy vey. Then scrap the Amish Kinley route. So, in all we should scrap everything, okay then. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:06, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

2013 Lovian Transportation Route[]

Newloviantransportationact2013

My last attempt in this. I can already see this will become wasted time anyway.

For starters I will hope to create the Western Sylvanian Railroad a high speed rail connnecting the bays and urban areas of Charleston to the economic hit areas of Train Village in hopes of new jobs their. 410 jobs will be made and will cost 5.1 million dollars. In the north of Train Village we see that it's railroad and highways will lead to highspeed rail and able for faster travel across the island. The cost of a ticket is 3.00 one way, 5.00 two rides. A monthly pass 140$.

I'm still hoping for a toll to be introduced on the most traveled highways, this is needed to fund projects elsewhere. Possibly on highway 1 or 2.

In seven I scrapped the Kinley route to lead the town into NK, but kept the eastern kinley route for faster travel now costing 1.29 million dollars and creating another 50 jobs. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:26, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Also, Sylvania Highway 1 exists, connecting Charleston to the rest of Sylvania. Even if a new highway was built, it would probably be an extension of Highway 7. A new railroad might be nice, but Kunarian has been opposed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, not really anymore. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:39, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

On the railway: I'd support it if it went from Charleston to Train Village to Noble City. Also no high speed, that's kind of pointless and too expensive for Lovia only the most advanced and largest nations have them and no setting ticket prices yet, I'd prefer we get a plan set up before we do details.

No tolls, they're mainly annoying and we can fund our projects through more direct and less hassling tax, leave tolls for private roads not for public ones.

On Seven I can support a standard road connecting the settlements but a motorway at a stretch and depending on others opinions.

Finally all these job numbers seem rather ominous, I'd like to see your sources. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:39, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

All we'd need to do for the railway is to expand the Trans Sylvanian Railway. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 21:49, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to create a new railway, for reasons stated in the last section. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:53, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we all go on chat and talk about this (and maybe about SCP too)? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:55, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten my opinion in here yet...but I think that if we are going to build trains, let's have them be fast. I'm thinking maglev bullet trains. For highways, if we build more, is anyone up for an autobahn? With autobahns and bullet trains, we could get places in no time. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:45, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

006. SLP-LP-CNP proposal for Transportation Bill 2013[]

Well after discussion and planing three major political party leader Hoffmann, Krosby and Villanova, we've came together and proposed this new plan.

  1. On the issue of Sylvanian railways we've came up with this proposal. First we already have a Train Village to Noble City Railway, we'll repair some lines, but add another line next to it which will also go from NC-TV then to Charleston. This can create 525 short term jobs, and 80 long term jobs. This will cost 30.01 million dollars.
  2. Connecting roads from eastern kinley to the highway their and the bridge. This will help Seven's hard hit economy and create 90 short term jobs, and cost 1.1 million dollars.

Here's a gallery of what these new projects will look like. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:58, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Hi, since this is being spearheaded by me and other colleagues, and this covers my ministry, I will have a question time on Transportation, this act, and Unemployment, among other things that relate to this act on Sunday, 24th, at noon - maybe 2 or 3. PLEASE COME!!! ASK QUESTIONS!!! BE ACTIVE AND INFORMED!!! I hope we can get this passed by the end of next week (March 1st-2nd). And the question time tomorrow will allow for scrutiny into any problems or question you have have and enlighten you so we can get this passed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:07, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Coldn't you just continue the railroad that's alerady there, because it's more expensive to do it from scratch.MMunson (talk) 23:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

We need more transportation and it being faster, more accessible and for people and transport of goods. It will cost more but what it can do is allow one of them to be primarliy used for goods and free up the other one for people and leasure travel. There is also more jobs involved, that can allow more money into the economy and combat Train Village's unemployment problems. (I'm adding this to Question Time tomorrow) Also if you have any questions, they can be answered tomorrow for over three hours in Question time. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:50, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

We agreed that TV-Charleston would be an extension of NC-TV. . . —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:09, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

But it would have one more lane now right? Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:16, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I said, again all please come to QT tommorrow. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:19, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Three things:

  • The costs will be more like 35 million.
  • The railroads on the maps should perhaps be drawn in a more steady line (there is nothing in the way of making them straighter except for the natural hills).
  • Other than that, sounds good :)

--OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:05, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Oos on the costs point, we need to consider both the people we are hiring (their pay) and the amount of money we need to spend on bits and bobs to build the actual thing. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 20:21, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
True its good we're discussing this...I wouldn't know exactly how each labour would be compensated but it would be something like 15.00 an hour, more? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:29, February 24, 2013 (UTC)


Nice. I need to change my sig, it still says CNP Smile Limba  Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 09:59, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

@Oos, are you sure. This is a regular railroad on a small island. I'd say even still, 29 million. The roads in kinley, how much. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:24, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that my autobahn and maglev bullet trains are out of the question due to pricing? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:37, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you should take in account that - unlike America - Lovia does not have its own iron supplies. Everything must be imported. Therefore I take a look at the Dutch prices and a piece of railroad in Limburg, which was a single lane and about 30 km long, had a cost of about 20 million. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:47, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

But shipping to Lovia shouldn't be all that hard because it's close to California. There will be transaction fees though... --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:37, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

@Maglev- that's right. High-speed trains are unreasonable and unnecessary, given the size of Lovia. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 21:43, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

So what are we doing here what would be nessacary? Labour, Parts, Trains? How much would each be worth. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:38, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Reboot[]

I propose we get this approved and done, this upgrade to our railways is an essential improvement that will promote a stronger economy and will allow for more environmentally friendly transit by promoting train transport over car transport.

The construction of the "Headlands Cross State Line"

  • Costs - $70,500,000
    • Labour - 1 average worker @ ~$60,000 - ~500 workers - $30,000,000
    • Resources - 1km of rail @ ~$500,000 - ~81km of rail - $40,500,000
  • Benefits
    • The line will facilitate economic growth in both Charleston and Train Village
    • The line will facilitate internal trade as well as external trade, giving Lovia a more fluid economy
    • The line will be useful also in providing quick transport of supplies and services in cases of emergency
    • The line will also be useful in lessening car traffic and will provide safer and cleaner train transport for the masses

I suggest we move this to the second chamber as soon as humanly possible after critique. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 13:12, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Here! But what about costs afterwards, meaning long term jobs as in train workers, conductors and line repairment , etc. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:15, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually against this one for 2 reasons. 1) As Marcus just said, you're over budget due to paying for maintenance, and they may run into problems and require extra money, or the workers could demand more pay, etc. 2) I think that some of your money should be put towards other things as well like fixing roads or fixing rundown railroads. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:45, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh don't miss-quote me, i proposed this and want it. I am 100% for this and think its definitley needed for lovia's well being. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:48, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think this should not be done via Congress. It is an state internal affair, which should be discussed between the Minister of Transportation, Governor of Sylvania, and other locally involved. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:40, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

007. Update NSO[]

I propose to update the NSO. If there are no objections, I will make a proposal. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:54, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Contra Contra Revised already this year or late last year. Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 15:56, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Only East Hills needs to be a town. It is but not on that page of the NSO. Wabba The I (talk) 16:03, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:10, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

@Happy: you don't make sense right now. You just updated the page on Plains so it would be a town. In the NSO, it is still a hamlet... Hamlets are now the places in the rural districts with less than 500 inhabitants. Even Beaverwick is a village now. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:51, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: the Settlement Act was updated, but the NSO wasn't? :P 77topaz (talk) 08:08, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, nothing was updated. Only the federal law. And that was exactly the reason I don't support unnecessary changes which affect a lot of pages: nobody's gonna update them... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:15, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're the PM and admin. :P Anyway, in that case, this should have been done already, but since it hasn't yet, it should be done soon, so Pro Pro. 77topaz (talk) 08:17, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the responsibility of the proposer to look after it :P It should be done indeed. However, I need list of hamlets (small populated places within the districts. So far, only Oceana and Sylvania have lists that I am aware of). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:18, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

The censuses could be useful. 77topaz (talk) 08:25, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

How? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:57, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

008. - Constitutional Change - Voting Rights[]

Hi fellow congresspersons, I've been trying to pass economic changes with the train connecting train village to Charleston and new roads in seven but I hope all congressmen in their own right will please consider that and pass it. But I move to maybe a technicality and important right that each citizen should have, this should be added to the elections and formation of government section of the constitution.

Now this law an certain sections obviously do not apply to actual users but since were trying to be real nation here:

  1. Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.
    1. The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote.
      1. Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
  2. A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.
  3. No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.
    1. Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
      1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
    2. The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order.
    3. Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
      1. Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
        1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Please give some feedback, what should be added, deleted, changed (Idk about the last "electioneering" thing, although i think it's needed for a safe environment for campaigning) Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:28, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think 16 and above for the voting age, and 100 feet away from the voting center. The fine should be higher, and should be MUCH higher for second offenses. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:34, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

First Point - usually conservative dont want to extend the franchise to 16 so I compromised to 17. But I'll move it to 16 :P. 100 feet away, second offense fine being 1k. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:32, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Two things: 16 should be 18 and in Lovia, we use the metric system, no feet, we want meters. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:15, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Oos, it should be 18. Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 07:11, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

@liberals - I knew the franchise being extended would be a problem. I said 17 as a compromise, personally i would want 16, conservatives 18. So lets compromise to 17. Changed to 30 meters which is 98.42 feet, in meters its a round even number. Anymore suggestions? I'm moving this to the second chamber by saturday! Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:03, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Round 750 to 1000 and increase 1750 to 5000. Also, I think the voting age should be 16 (there are many 20-year-olds not ready for voting and many 16-year-olds who are), but I won't block the proposal on it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:04, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

@On fines - Ill increase them slightly. On the issue of voting age, it's a huge argument across the World and many countries. And i'd like maybe for people to actually voice an opinion on this before it goes to the second chamber. I support votes at 16, while conservatives say 18. I'll compromise and say 17, are conservatives for that. In reality (not to toot my horn) but as I proposed it, and we'd approve it it'd be a huge step forward in history for youth rights, right? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:11, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going with raising it to 24. That would work fairly well. Most people are ready by then. (Not really, that would never get passed, but if it could that would be pretty awesome.) I think that 17 is better than no voting age, so I'll vote pro if it goes to second chamber. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:43, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need one more fix: there should be a line in place that people can be excluded from voting by court order (f.e. severe prisonership, mentally not fit etc.) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:09, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say that we need an age at least and I think that 18 is the best way to go to begin with. Then those who think it should be higher/lower can attempt to change it. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 13:45, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:50, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

I can't even with those who think it should even be higher than 18, just because you don't want to take part in a democracy or you think you're too stupid to vote doesn't mean a excited citizen wanting to excercise his/her right to vote shouldn't.  I'm thinking that 17 is where it should be kept there's some poor poor judgement on your part, to those who think those who are young don't have the tools, or thought process to be able to vote. I know i'll look forward to casting (IRL) my first ballot, I know some of you felt the same way. Some 16 and 17 are more prepared than any 18 year old, and some 18 year old than 17 and 16. But in the same right we don't force everyone to vote, we shouldn't deny a more mature group of people the same right of "too vote, or not to vote". I can already hear the slippery slope arguments of "Why not allow a 15 year old, or  4 year old" but we all know first off that a 4 year old can't make that situation but in all honesty maybe a 15 year old can but we do have to have a standard of a mature young adult age like 16 or 17 in which our citizens can join the franchise and become an active citizen. Again i'll push for votes at 17. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:38, March 12, 2013 (UTC) 

Marcus, I don't doubt that there are many people who are younger than 18 that are ready to vote, it's that I think that there are a lot of people who aren't ready to vote but will vote anyway. It's better to wait until nearly everyone is mature enough to vote and then allow them than to have a whole ton of votes from people who aren't ready. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:31, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

But what is mature? Your mature enough to enlist in the army, marry and go off to college or get a job, be taxed on that money but not be able to say how you would like that money to be taxed and where for it to go. Again like I said, votes at 17! Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:37, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

This argument is entirely true and could work in a American sense, but here in Lovia we have a diffrent story. Almost all of our entire youth will go to college, and most likely with government assistance, almost none of them will get out of High School and enter Lovia's deadly, I mean DEADLY military. Leave it at 18. -Sunkist- (talk) 23:19, March 12, 2013 (UTC) 
I love the blantant disregard of the facts put foward and instead saying that we are a poor, crumbling nation who relies on a non-existant military, which is very interesting. Most americans also come out with debt since it's such a capitalistic nation so again I don't know where that point went. Again i'm looking at these points from a conservative point of view on this issue and none of them pass the smell test. Until someone has a credible argument against this, I say votes at 17! Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:30, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Who said we are a poor, crumbling nation who relies on a non-existant army? Bantant disregard of facts? Is it not true that most of the Lovian youth goes to college after High School?  -Sunkist- (talk) 02:14, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't something to block the law on. . . I prefer a lower age, but 18 is fine. 17 is also a prime number, which makes it look awkward when used for age limits. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:59, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

18 is better. Like I said up the page. Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 07:17, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say there's more support for 18. Taking our regulations on tobacco and alcohol in mind, I would not add yet another age. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:40, March 13, 2013 (UTC)  :Yes it's a good idea to match all our points of maturity together. Also on Marcuses points:

  • Army - Lovia doesn't have one, although the federal police could be considered your equivalent in this argument. In the federal police you are a cadet and cannot become a corporal (front line police) until you are 21 at least.
  • Marry - only at 18 are you able to marry without needing your parents permission.
  • Colledge - to be honest this isn't really a good argument, colledge is part of education and children are educated from a very yound age so being in education isn't really a good argument for me.
  • Job - a valid point that however it's not really too relative considering you can actually be working way before the legal age, and can get 'paid' in a way, I prefer the argument of having to pay taxes for working at that job.
  • Tax - we haven't got taxes and we can put them in to be taxed at 18, therefore the age of 18 is truly the age of maturity in lovia, then they are taxed at 18 for their earnings and can decide where those taxes go with their vote.
Votes at 16 or 17 don't work as well in a Lovia considering the above situation I've just described. I suggest that we go with 18 being the age of maturity in lovia and keep this consistent in any future laws we decide to pass. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 10:00, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
I don't see age as the issue, it's whether or not the voter is informed. I think we should make the voting age 17, and we could introduce a Lovian politics course (or something like that) in high school, to teach students on the system and help them make informed voting choices. (unsigned)
@sunskit - you were the one who put forward this sort of militaristic Lovia and a sort of sad nation, we are not. @kun -  We are progressive we can work in that direction, you're right we dont have taxes but, the master of the tax law, I'd say we need laws about taxing and education to allow young adults who want to leave and work at 16 should, but then denying these young adults that right is wrong and this must be a first step in that direction for correcting that wrong. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:08, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
"I mean DEADLY military." Sorry, I didn't know North-easterners didn't comprehend sarcasm. My dearest apologies. -Sunkist- (talk) 23:55, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to insult such a large group of people over something this small. :P 77topaz (talk) 00:08, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
You get use to the infantile attacks, when someone can't honestly defend there position correctly. And I see no humor in war or "DEADLY" military, so excuse me if somehow midwesterners, which I doubt, find that hilarious. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:16, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Its simply sarcasm to state the matter your 'enlist into the army' has no weight in this conversation due to the fact that Lovia's Army is HIGHLY unlikely to go to war due to our neturality status. Are you trying to say that I find humor in entering a accutally deadly military or war, if so, I'd demand an apology on your behalf due to false accusations. In the United States, men entering at the age of 17 should be able to vote, due to the fact that the US Military is dangerous and deadly, while in Lovia the arguement does not hold up. -Sunkist- (talk) 19:38, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
We don't even have an actual military which is so amazing that you don't even know basic things about lovia. NO YOU DO, You Said "Dealy War" was a sarcasam and then insuled an entire fucking part of America. You've proven your a horrible statesmen and have no actual useful comments to make. Saying that a fictional army, is deadly and that we are a bad nation in which most students will have debts, like every other student in the world, or die in a military which appeared to be a joke, and had sarcasam behind it. Next time, come to the chamber with sometime constructive like kunarian. Even if he doesn't agree with me, which is like 90% of the time, he doesn't just go make something up but actually replies with something backed up with some fact. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
"We don't even have an actual military.." YES I KNOW, thats the reason WHY I SAID "...almost none of them will get out of High School and enter Lovia's deadly, I mean DEADLY military." Becuase you said for one of your reason of maturity that "Your mature to enlist in the army...". I'm not stupid, I know that we only maintain the FCSB, the LSS and the Federal Police. I never even mention the words "...Deadly War..." together in my statement, I did say "..enters Lovias Deadly, I mean DEADLY military." Which you know, is NOT insulting due to the fact its not deadly nor is it even a real organisation, THATS WERE THE SARCASM COMES FROM. You have done libel to me in this Chamber, and I do demand an apology. 
WHEN I SAID "This argument is entirely true and could work in a American sense" becuase America does have a deadly army, and If I said diffrently, I would insult my cousin, my father my fathers father and his father.
-Sunkist- (talk) 00:34, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
Beacause you join the military, die but never go into a war? The Original statement said was about a deadly military, but what would that military do to make it die. Thats why the orginial statement made zero sense. But then why say it at all you obviously find something either a joke, or need for humor in that its the politics of it or the war side. I won't even apologize for a matter not even needed, with unconstructive comments and that creates side arguments insulting an entire side of a country because of the lack of seriousness. But again in a case were we debate voting age and age of adulthood but none seen. Yes we all have someone that has fought in the military, my grandfather in WWII, but you bringing that up is not even apart of the argument.  Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:49, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
You must be joking me. Can some one please help me to help Mr. Villanova understand. Calling the Lovian military deadly, is like saying "The American south is extremely liberal and supports same-sex marriage" Its not true, its sarcasm, not to be a joke but to make an "..usually conveyed through irony or understatement." It relates to the age of adulthood, becuase you brought up the voting age in Lovia with military service, WHEN THERE IS NO MILITARY IN LOVIA. -Sunkist- (talk) 01:02, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
There's the Special Forces. And, most of the world, including nearby countries like the USA, do have enlistment ages for militaries. 77topaz (talk) 01:44, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
The Special Forces are no longer active in Lovia, I believe Lukas dismantled them. -Sunkist- (talk) 01:51, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
You would be correct sir. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 09:42, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
But prehaps there is a compromise in this. I'll say it doesn't make you more qualified to vote in state elections than federal but what if we did 17 for state elections, and 18 for federal. Everyone gets something Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:21, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
What about States can set their own voting age limits for the state elections? not only would that be more interesting but then you could go 16 completely if you were governor of somewhere, stay at 18 or go to 24 if you felt that upwards was the way to go. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:11, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
As a states right advocate I like that :) I added in states may lower the age to 17 or 16 for statewide elections, but not raise it above 18. I'm moving this to the second chamber Saturday again :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:13, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
I added Citizens can be excluded from voting rights if deemed unfit under Supreme Court order. We don't want psychos voting. Is the English good? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:20, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is, quite. :P 77topaz (talk) 07:37, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Could you fix it? :P I want to say: Burgers kunnen uitgezonderd worden van stemrecht indien ongeschikt verklaard middels een Hooggerechtshofuitspraak. :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:43, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
I think a more grammatically correct way would be The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by (way of) a Supreme Court order. 77topaz (talk) 08:05, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I added it :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:09, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
We are going to allow Supreme Judges to take peoples voting rights away? Lets not do that, that could have some serious political implications on the system if a supreme judge decided to revoke all of CCPL's or Labour's Congressmen from voting. -Sunkist- (talk) 19:42, March 14, 2013 (UTC) 
I hope you realise this is about voting for elections, not voting in Congress? And such an order would not be able to be made just at whim. 77topaz (talk) 20:49, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Constitution's are somtimes made ambigious, like that of the US Constitution and can be used as such to justify peoples actions. As a Justice, I COULD take into account that a Congressmen is a voting citizen, and 'voting rights' could be say such as both electorial and congressional, and could remove BOTH. Never does the article say its just for the cause for election rights, but simply 'voting rights' which in the Second Chamber, you 'vote' to enact laws, thus being part of your 'voting rights' -Sunkist- (talk) 00:40, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

What section of the Constitution will this be added to? Article 2, Article 8, or another? If Article 2, Article 8 will need to be amended from "any citizen" to "any citizen eligible for voting". —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:21, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

In the heeading it said in the last part of it's act. So is there general support of this (75%) so? :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I saw that, and changed it to "Not sure if Article 8 is the best section for this. I propose Article 2. If we put it in Article 2, Article 8 will need to be amended from "any citizen" to "any citizen eligible for voting," but you undid that for some reason. So please ignore that respond to the statement that I posted:

Not sure if Article 8 is the best section for this. I propose Article 2. If we put it in Article 2, Article 8 will need to be amended from "any citizen" to "any citizen eligible for voting." —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:43, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Wait wut happened xD Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:08, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the military thing was relevant at all even in a sarcastic sense... We don't have a military. Anyway, my argument for older than 17 is that the percentage of 17 year olds who are ready to vote is lower than the percentage of 21 or 24 year olds who are ready to vote. After the age of 24 though, the percentage of people ready to vote barely goes up at all if any. This is because 24 is the high end of the average age that people's minds mature, so virtually everyone is able to make as rational decisions as they're going to be for the rest of their lives at that point. That is why I want higher than 17, but like I said, I'd vote pro anyway. 17 is better than no age limit. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:48, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would like to know if anyone else would agree. I don't want to tyranny of the majority here and see though, if anyone else agrees. Personally, as you know I don't. So what does everyone else think? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:37, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I think 18 would be the best compromise. Most of us agree with 18: you prefer 16, QZ prefers 24. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:31, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the age is, I think that marriage, voting rights, age of consent, age at which you can get a drivers license should be set as the same Frijoles333 (talk) 12:37, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

009. State Laws[]

I want to bring back the state laws. But: before I'm gonna waste a lot of time, I want to know whether we can get a 66%+ majority for this. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:08, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

You always have known I'm a VERY strong advocate of devolution and stronger states! All six votes would be in support of State Laws, Governors and Councils!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:00, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

What would the laws say? I'm pro devolution, but in general I want less government usually...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:54, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well devolution does not equal less government, it does not also equal more government. What it does mean is that people get a stronger decision on how big the government governing them should be, because while they have just the same influence over the central government as before, their vote for the devolved government is worth much more and can decide much more greatly on the path they wish to take.
Although as I've found, devolution does simplify things, the most devolved levels of government are normally the most efficient and so in a way voting for devolution does reduce government to a degree as centralised jobs are transformed into devolved jobs and due to better efficiency normally less jobs are needed for the same task. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:36, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah In lovia though its very weird, it proves the horseshoe theory of political science. Its supported by Socialists and Conservatives yet in the middle no support.... Basically it would take some power away from the greatly powerful centralized government and give them to governor's to enact laws through "State Law Books" and then would give power to "State Councils" to change and amend these laws. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:27, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

But you see quarantine, more government isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you take the American mentality of a necessary evil, yes small govenrment seems good. But with an open European mentality we can balance out a larger government to better serve people's needs. And i'd support the reintroduction of state laws, cause we should allow a greater degree of autonomy to states. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:25, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Horton on the issue of the scope of government and what new state laws could allow. It could allow more more productive and adpative laws to the needs of that state's citizens. I would like to see Governors, State Laws, and State Councils all having an equal say and working to have power at the state level and promoting growth and social change at a more accessible, smaller level. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:03, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I fully support such a move. State laws are vital and important especially when our states are so diverse. Having the same exact laws for Seven as for Sylvania makes no sense and trying to pass a Seven based law through government makes no sense either as MotCs who were voted for by people not from seven will vote on it. We need to have a flexible government in such a modern day and age. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:36, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad too see the support for this, call me crazy but I think I remember there was a possible coalition about this. I don't actually remember if that ever worked out :P. I fully agree with reienstatement of the State Laws if: We Put in elections for state councils to replace elections for Governors and States having "mini-congresses" with the Governor being from the majority party. Impowering democracy as well as devolution. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:30, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm against big government is that I see no need for it really. I think that people need to rely on themselves and their community more than the government, so I feel that some parts of the government are unnecessary and that they simply cost money that could be more well spent. Anyway, I'll vote pro probably. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 00:31, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Any support here still? Lets not have this left alone and forgotten! Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:46, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

The balance: 28% pro, 34% probably pro. We still need 5%! :P Anyway, next week I've got more time, so then I might start writing. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:15, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

To the Speakers corner maybe? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:30, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Its not something much to be swayed. But I think once they see the senior politicans like Oos, Hoffman, Krosby and I (from 4 different right-left specturms) itll get approved. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:44, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Time is against devolution though. I think Punarbhava is the farthest left on here, and I'm the farthest right. Either way, Time and Oos are fairly close on the right-left scale. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:47, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I think Time and me are pretty much the same when it comes to the economical stand. In practically all other aspects, we are opposites :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:03, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're opposites on the Green to non-green scale. Idk if anyone on here is opposites on that scale. There are very few truly non-green people, and I don't think we have any on here, and we have some pretty green people. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 12:25, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I want to have support for this xD @Oos - Anyway to get this proposed? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:14, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

@QZ: Non-greens are rare in Lovia, maybe because it makes no sense to be anti-green :P @Marcus: Sure, I'll write a proposal this week. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:39, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

First proposal[]

[2]. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:26, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Any remarks? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:33, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

My Take:

  • I'm not really for or against state courts, so okay Pro for that. But still very good, love the devolution.
  • State Law: So Pro for this! You say motions are proposed and voted in the same chamber? So it wouldn't be like this system, would be a bit weird, no?
  • I don't get article 6.7 "A motion that is not intended to be enshrined in the State Law, but that does need State Council approval, is proposed and voted in the same way.", Please clarify.
  • I dont get how your are elected into the state council it's a bit vauge. Why don't we just do it in the parliamentary way we do it in congress, the council, or majority party appointing a Governor and Deputy Governor.
  • Instead of 3 votes per state?
  • Is there a outline of the powers of the state council?
  • Can these state councils create "State Ministries" to oversee statewide things (Ex in Oceana "Minority Affairs", in Clymene "Healthcare") Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:54, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

This just seems to make things more comlex. We don't have enough people or time for active state councils or ministries. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:58, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

No the point is, when you have two or three people running for a state each with an invested interest, and they recieve votes they deserve even a minor share of the responsibility. I mean technically under the plan we have know a governor with a stroke of the pen can just do whatever within limit. Now their will be opposition in some form, and debate and votes on bills proposed by other members with care of the state or the governor. I just think this bill needs some tweaks, but in the thought of it, it's very good. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:09, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

I just think it would be more efficient with people interested in contributing to a state politically should work directly with the governor. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:15, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

But for a party that stands near the liberal spectrum, it's very undemocratic to say "You did okay but no say in the process, Bye bye!!!", your version would be hope the governor actually listens to citizens and thinks that they would change the process, but through actual democracy is how it should be changed, and that is what is being proposed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:18, March 26, 2013 (UTC),

Ideally that is what should be going on, but 1.We don't have enough users to have active councils in all states, 2. If we can barely get a good amount of users to vote in congress, I don't think involvement in these councils would amount to the same. 3. It makes for a bunch of unnecessary bureaucracy that can be put aside in favor of a smaller and more direct thing with the governor. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:31, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Reply @Marcus:

  • State Law: there is no direct need for two separate chambers, as in most cases, the State Council will exist of two or three users only.
  • 6.7: this is f.e. a vote whether a railroad is to be constructed, or renaming a street. It should not be in the State Law, but it still needs a vote.
  • @how you are elected: It is exactly that way.
  • @3 votes: Mmm... Didn't really think about that. Shall we simply keep one vote per state then?
  • @powers: see article 5
  • @ministries: see article 5.1.7

Reply @Horton:

  • We need State Councils if we want to reenact the State Laws. Just one person deciding on all of the state law is very undemocractic. If you have three people running in one state, you would already have a way more democratic system. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:41, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

One vote or at the most two. True, I mean In my personal opinion i would like users to run in two states so sectionalism isn't created and more interest in other state's matters. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:47, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could add that a user may run in two different states, but may only hold one (Deputy) Governor position. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:52, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
We would have to see if others are interested in this. If this were to happen, I'd think most people would want to be in Sylvania, but much less in Seven or Kings. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:02, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
Well, so far, we have managed to keep at least two candidates per state (with Seven as minor obstacle). That's all we need, for the rest the system will be fairly equal, except for that probably more will get done. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:09, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
Well I think serving in two states would solve that. Maybe I would run in Seven, or you Oos. But we have primary state concerns like Clymene or Oceana so we choose those above helping those other also important states. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:11, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, enabling running in two states would already make the problem disappear. F.e. Marcus could run in Seven to represent the non-Christians, and I culd run in Kings to represent the non-atheists :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:16, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
True! Plus I think if we only ran in one state you'd see each party only in one or two states, which wouldn't correctly represent the people of Lovia. Would you know change your act to two votes and two states? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:27, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether two votes would be a good idea. Keep it either at one or make it an odd number :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:28, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
What about the two states xD that seems rather important? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:31, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, one vote per state, right? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:10, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm feeling like three votes per state would be better :P In Communist Lovia: Everybody wins!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:34, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
Three votes per state? :P Well, if it's possible to give more than one vote to a single candidate, I'm not against it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:21, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
omg xD haha, did you add those new changes though? I'd really like to see this passed! Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:39, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
I will, however, on second look, I think it is not clear what exactly the State Laws are meant for, so I'll first dive into that. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:01, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it jsut be like a federal law, but at a state level? I would love to see ths reform past so states can actually be something more than a place in Lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:28, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

(reset) I think we should just have one vote due to the lack of people who would vote and simplicity. Although if Seven had one centrist on the council we would have a pretty accurate representation. How would state courts be elected? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 05:04, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I think this has taken a bit wrong, we need a strong drive for it. I'm against state courts for the reason you've said. I think it's unessacary government, we already have one (barley used) court which is now more democratic and effective. So I think with some minor tweaks the idea of a parliamentary state council for each state would bee fine. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:29, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried that state councils will become inactive very quickly, and then the governor won't be able to do anything at all. That's basically what I meant, when I said earlier that a state reform would probably just create bureaucracy. --Semyon 21:47, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I get that notion but in all honesty, with respect to seven (which i'd like to get involved) you are the state's primary citizen. So in that case you'd control at most times 50%+ seats and able to pass most to all bills. What the councils, IRL and wikian function is that in no country in the world, would a region as defined as a state be controled by One person with all that oversight and power. They're would have to be some legislative authority and state cabinets there. I think on that note the need for democracy and devolution outwieghs the still relevent argument that this is a form of bureacracy, which I do just not see though. Back to the point on inactivity I think we'd need some requirement but to allow some more senior and active users to be active in 2 state councils, while new users, maybe not as active to be in 1. That way activity is up in more areas and any harm done by inactivity is kept disproportionate to the activity raised by those more senior and even new active users. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:02, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

So who is for this! Head over to the Second Chamber and vote Pro! For a new change to Lovia and a new way to handle politics! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:10, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Is there something that limits the state councils' powers so things akin to Lovianization do not happen again? 77topaz (talk) 19:16, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Because basically we're taking the small powers of governor and transfering them to a democratic council. Basically under the old system it was one man making all the decisions. Were just making sure there is a level of auntomony in Lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:20, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

By "auntomony", do you mean "autonomy" or something else? :P 77topaz (talk) 19:59, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but hopefully you still vote pro for this new system :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:55, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

@77topaz: Yes, supreme court and Congress can always still interfere with state politics. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:28, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

010. Honorary Citizenship[]

I don't even mean this to be a political ploy, or for anyone to overthink this, but as a real life and figurative motion of accomplishment and to appricate his life in such an amazing way, I want to purpose the following to be added to the Citizen registry.

  • Beacuse of his life long struggle for equality, by promotion understanding between those deemed different, by being a beacon of excellence as a human being, and progressing civil rights foward when most needed, Lovia bestows Honary Citizenship to the Former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela.

He is in his dying stages of his amazing life and would like for this Congress and Federal body to recognize this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:13, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Mandela is a great leader and we should do this. We could also consider awarding honorary citizenship to other figures as well as from other wikinations. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:22, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think the idea of honorary citizenship is a good one, and Mandela would be a great first person to give it to Frijoles333 (talk) 21:48, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i'm not keeping this within the first chamber for long id like it to pass quickly to show our support. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:11, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Great! As Horton said we could also bestow this honour on other people as well, perhaps other people who have fought for equality or civil rights Frijoles333 (talk) 12:34, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about Honorary Citizenship, but we should definitely bestow him some sort of honour (medal or something) that is unique instead of citizenship, which I think is an odd honour. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:07, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Well we only have like the OWP and some recognition from Blackburn University but neither of those would be very valuable. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

We could do like a joint Lovian-Brunanter awarding. We could give him our White Pine and the Order of the Dragon. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:56, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

I've got nothing against Mendela, but he ain't got nothing to do with Lovia. Why would he even need citizen rights? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:12, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Symbol of our graditude towards him for his life long work. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:26, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

There are other and better ways to do this than to bestow citizenship. Which in many ways is quite empty considering how easy it is to become one. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:00, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
An honorary citizenship is geberally something very special and rare, and of great honor. In the US only 7 people have been awarded it and 5 in Canada. This represents much more than just citizenship, it's including the person into our society for what he or she have achieved in their lifetime. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:05, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:57, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

011. Head of State Reform[]

Alright, as it looks now, we've got a relatively large group of citizens unhappy with our current Head of State. We got three options basically:

  • Keep the situation as it is (King Dimitri I)
  • Allow another dynasty to take over the throne (most likely King Ygo August I)
  • We become a republic (President Ilava)

So, what is the general feeling here :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:31, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but option 2 is a bit stupid. :P We're not in the middle ages è. I'm fine with either 1 or 3, but think there should be separate elections for President. --Semyon 18:37, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
But I want to become Heretow :'( --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:55, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

For me 1 and 3 are the best options. How about a referendum for the unhappy citizens Frijoles333 (talk) 18:58, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

The second option, of course, is fine too. It is simply a matter of opinion for Semyon to dislike it. As is his right as a citizen of Lovia. But his opinion that option two is "stupid" does not make it's stupidity an established fact. Doesn't work that way. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 19:02, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what my opinion is, it's still stupidity. :P No modern monarchy has to deal with the threat of being deposed by a private citizen. Imagine the scene playing out in London or Amsterdam. It's just absurd... --Semyon 20:06, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
Amsterdam and London have more Police Officers then in whole of Lovia, probably. Lovia's a pretty tiny nation. A lot of people tend to forget that. As for my plot? It was doomed to fail from the beginning. Which is why I am practically surrendering at this point, and will leave the rest to the politicians. How's that for some realism? The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 20:10, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
It's not practically surrendering to demand a pardon and Dimitri to step down as conditions. I still don't see any realism, sorry. --Semyon 20:17, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
He can, of course, decline. Arrest me. Put me on trial. But until he either accepts, or declines, hostilities have ceazed. The only thing that has changed, now, is that the Palace has no door, it is empty and surrounded by police officers, the King is housed in another location and the matter of a Monarchy vs a Republic has come to the politicians' attention. And I will likely end up being tried for high treason. I have no illusions about Kunarian accepting my terms. None whatsoever. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 20:26, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

LONG LIVE HERETOW OOS! Pierlot McCrooke 19:34, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Option 1 for stability. We have an austere king who does not spend lavishly and lives (relatively) modestly in a small palace, with the rest of the royal family having no special status. I like it the current way. I do support amnesty for the Donias, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:21, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

I will not live lavishly anymore and adapt to a different standard of living when called upon by the people to be their King. If the majority, however, does not wish to see me on the throne, then I will not be on it and my family will continue to live in Castle Donia high up in the Emerald Mountains. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 21:24, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
  1. Referendum choices: The existing monarchy (if chosen: nothing changes)
  2. A new monarchy (if chosen: we hold the election? or appoint a new monarchy from congress)
  3. A republic (if chosen: can elected a president, make the Prime Minister both roles like south africa, and define it's powers) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:51, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
I think you're a tad controversial. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

012. Referendum Act[]

Due to the controversy and (silent) revolt against the Monarchy I propose the following:

To add an "Approved Referendums" book inside the Federal Law and the following referendum

  1. All registered citizens, age 18 and over, may vote in the following referendum:
  2. The referendum will take place to be semi-binding to what the citizens of Lovia would prefer as their head of state.
    1. Each eligible citizen will have three choices to vote for:
      1. To keep the current Noble family in the power of the throne.
      2. To have another family, or dynasty, to become the royal family, in which if chosen, another referendum will be held to chose that family.
      3. To remove all form of Monarchy from the Lovian state and allow Congress to write laws in the Constitution and create a new head of state.
    2. Each citizen will have one vote, and will have the choice of the three options or the choice to not vote at all.
    3. The choice that receives 50% of the vote or more will be the option to be acted upon by Congress and the Federal Government, making appropriate changes.
      1. If no choice is able to receive 50% of the vote after the first voting time, the two most popular choices will be asked again at a later date to officially settle the issue.
      2. The first round of voting will take place in Forum:Referendum from May 20th and closing on May 30th.
      3. If a second round of voting is needed, it too will take place in Forum:Referendum from June 3rd to June 13th.
    4. (for non-wikian purposes/real life purposes) Voter turnout, the total amount of correctly casted ballots, must be at least 30% of the total franchise.
    5. The question on the referendum ballot will be asked as follows:
      1. What would you prefer to be the official Head of State of Lovia?
        1. The current royal family (Noble) to stay as the Monarchy
        2. Another bloodline (to be determined through a referendum later) to become the Monarchy of Lovia
        3. To remove all forms of Monarchy in Lovia and allow Congress to create a new Head of State.

Please change any spelling errors, etc. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:10, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't be in this form, but not a bad idea. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:01, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Why are 011 and 012 separate, anyway? They're basically about the same thing. 77topaz (talk) 23:15, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Why not, The form doesn't matter. Just if it's popular and accpetable, I'll move it to the second chamber soon. --Marcus unsigned

It does matter, it has to be a proper proposal. This isn't really a law, so it should be in a different form. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:19, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't place specific referendums in our law, but the idea is good. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:20, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Uncle OWTB's version[]

To add an "Referendum Act" inside the Federal Law:

  1. All registered citizens, age 18 and over, may vote in a nation-wide referendum.
  2. The referendum taking place is to be semi-binding to what the citizens of Lovia and will contain at least two options.
    1. The choice that receives 50% of the vote or more will be the option to be acted upon by Congress and the Federal Government, making appropriate changes.
      1. For a referendum to become semi-binding, an option should receive at least 50% of the votes.
        1. If no option is able to receive 50% of the vote after the first voting time, the least popular option will be dropped at a later date to officially settle the issue. This may occur repeatedly until an option has reached the 50% barrier.
      2. The first round of voting will take place in Forum:Referendum and has a legal duration of at least one week, and two weeks at most.
      3. If a second round of voting is needed, it too will take place in Forum:Referendum and has a legal duration of at least one week, and two weeks at most.
    2. Voter turnout, the total amount of correctly casted ballots, must be at least 30% of the total franchise.
    3. A referendum can only be issued by the Lovian Congress, following a normal majority in favor.
    4. All referndums passed by congress will be added to a list of "Approved referendums" and the results to also be recorded.

Separetely, we will hold another vote in the 2nd Chamber (not to be implemented in our laws):

  1. Monarchy Reform Referendum 2013:
    1. The referendum will be held in line with the Referendum Act.
    2. Each eligible citizen will have three choices to vote for:
      1. To keep the current Noble family in the power of the throne.
      2. To have another family, or dynasty, to become the royal family, in which if chosen, another referendum will be held to chose that family.
      3. To remove all form of Monarchy from the Lovian state and allow Congress to write laws in the Constitution and create a new head of state.
    3. Each citizen will have one vote, and will have the choice of the three options or the choice not to vote at all.
      1. The first round of voting will take place in Forum:Referendum from May 20th and closing on May 30th.
      2. If a second round of voting is needed, it too will take place in Forum:Referendum from June 3rd to June 13th.
    4. The question on the referendum ballot will be asked as follows:
      1. What would you prefer to be the official Head of State of Lovia?
        1. The current royal family (Noble) to stay as the Monarchy
        2. Another bloodline (to be determined through a referendum later) to become the Monarchy of Lovia
        3. To remove all forms of Monarchy in Lovia and allow Congress to create a new Head of State.

--OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:32, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

The law still seems specific with "would prefer as their head of state" in 2. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:55, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Woop. Didn't spot that. Is it better this way? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:02, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should define semi-binding? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:38, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
A referendum must be binding, semi-binding would mean it is just a poll for the peoples opinion. Giving it no point. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:54, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but at least we'd have a clear official result of what the people wanted. Is anyone really against this, leggo!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:58, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'll define semi-binding later today. Making it directly binding is rather.. dangerous :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:14, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have comments on this? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:21, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

C'mon just move it, we need something passed and this is it. A simple 50% majority needed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 09:56, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

It should be posted in about 12 hours, I think. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oos please move this! Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:41, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

The Act has been moved. The separate vote for the Monarchy Referendum will follow after the Act has been accepted. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:46, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

013. Creation of The National Reserve[]

Alright, lately I've become quite interested in banking and how it works. So, I decided to make my own bank, Bennett Banking & Co., then so I decided to look at the current situation that Lovia's monetary system is in, who runs it? I first went to the Lovian dollar, I found out that our money is printed and controlled by a Central bank in Europe, I found that our Finance Minister is not very active when such a role is extremely important. I was thinking after I signed 'Pro' on the new connection to Charleston, how will the workers get their money, how will we distribute the money to the companies in which we buy the products to build such a structure? Where do we hold all of our money? What do we base our currency off of? Gold, silver, trust, the dassie? Did Lovia just ignore the global meltdown in 2008? While I know the Congress likes to hold a lot of power and what not, but when a economic crisis is on its way we should have a quick reaction preventing of either inflation or deflation, enforce stable prices and have some-type of safeguard for the Lovian economy. I propose the creation of the Lovian National Reserve, which would become the OFFICIAL bank of Lovia, you will not believe how many bank pages I went through to find that the National Bank of Lovia and the Aventis National Bank are one in the same, and act as our national bank. I would really like to head this project, with the help of Hoffman (mans a genius). Anyway, please throw at me your thoughts. 

---Sunkist- (talk) 06:36, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I am in the process of implementing a local currency to Sylvania called the Sylvan, it'd be resistant to inflation and would be printed and controlled here and would give oil to the wheels of the local economy, helping it grow. Personally I'd like the national bank (if we do actually bring something of the sort in) not to be involved in actual business but to be used for only printing money and for ensuring good trading rates with other currencies. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 07:51, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
Please do not make a state currency, why can't we just have a national currency? The Bank I'm proposing in not commercial, like you said would only be for printing money, ensuring good trade rates currencies and several other things. -Sunkist- (talk) 10:32, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
I am creating it for many reasons, firstly because the Lovian Dollar is pegged to the US Dollar and inflation is hurting the Sylvanian economy, secondly local currencies circulate much faster than national currencies and therefore provides greater economic benefit and also it is not intended to replace the Lovian Dollar, it is supposed to be used beside it.
And I'm glad that the Bank will not be commercial. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 15:00, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I think the Lovian dollar is currently fixed to the US dollar. 77topaz (talk) 07:43, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

It is, which has rampant inflation, which is just one reason why I'm creating the Sylvan. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 07:51, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Lovian dollas has been unpegged. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 12:38, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
We would have had to vote on it, which we haven't. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 15:00, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Would the Sylvan be the sole currency of Sylvania, or would it circulate alongside the dollar? Frijoles333 (talk) 15:55, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

It would circulate along side the Lovian Dollar. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:32, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Kunarian, since when has the US dollar had inflation? The inflation rate's average per year has been 3% at the very highest (I think it's more like 2%) over the past decade. And as far as I know, the US dollar has been doing alright against other currencies. Anyway, no Sylvan. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:52, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

You don't know the US dollar has had inflation? are you not aware of current problems in countries like the US and UK where their currencies are inflating faster than the national wage is rising? The US dollar is only holding up because it is the worlds reserve currency, something it shouldn't rely on forever. Also the US dollar is inflated by US government agencies for it's own purposes in the US, it does not consider Lovia. Also considering the continuation of the world depression we need a fluid and flowing currency, the US dollar is not doing that for America what makes you think it's pegged Lovian Dollar will work for Lovia?
The Sylvan is part of a solution to a problem that few people are even attempting to deal with and are instead shrugging their shoulders just going "tough luck John Smith". Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:04, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about with the US dollar. The average inflation rate for one year over the past 10 years is about 2%, a healthy inflation rate (it can't be about zero or negative because people will start saving instead of spending, hurting the economy). How is a second currency going to help the situation at all? In fact, it seems that you've decided a Sylvan is a Lovian dime. :/ Anyway, I don't know the inflation rate for the pound sterling but it doesn't seem dangerously high. Small inflation is good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:22, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
over just the last year it has been 2%, however before that it was 3.6-3.8%. Besides countries are actually inflating their currencies to lower the amount of real debt they have to pay. I don't think that inflating currencies to benefit those in power and to the detriment of common workers is the focus we want for our currency.
My argument is that we need greater control over our currency, for a variety of reasons. But what is key is that we need this now, we also need a more fluid economy, the Sylvan will allow this for Sylvania as regional currencies are proven to have greater circulation. Also the 1 Sylvan = a Lovian Dime is the starting exchange after that, the Sylvan will be protected from inflation and therefore so will the workers. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:55, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not doing this to cause problems, regional and local currencies exist all over the world, I'm doing this because with strong conviction I believe this will help people. It'll not complicate things and people who want to use it can, those who don't won't have to. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 22:23, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
I think while the subject it relateable, it is a bit off track. The subject was a centralized bank and how to go about that? The issue of state currency is debatable later. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:53, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
You're right this has gone off topic. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 22:55, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

May I say after consideration I'm holding fire on the Sylvan proposal as long as we can really work towards having control over our currency and having it work better as a currency than it currently does. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 11:44, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, great. It will be good to see us improve our national currency. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:02, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
- reset -

So Sunkist is writing up a law, I'm going to assist and offer advice, progress will be critiqued here. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 11:44, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest, replacing a federal reserve system with a centralized Central Bank? We do not have the size or population to merit having a network of banks, while having just a centralized one makes more sense. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:32, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Lovia obviously would have a at least a small network of banks, they are huge sectors of any economy and Lovia being an advanced country would most definitely have them. Also centralised are horrible things, they should be left far away, federal reserve is a better idea. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 15:14, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but that network is of private banks. We only need one central bank in Noble city, and then use these private branches for distribution. Most countries work this way, with only the US (as far as I know) having such an extensive network. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:47, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
And most countries bank systems are corrupt. We should aim to be better, not to be the same. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:33, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Centralized does not mean corrupt. Look at Canada; they have a centralized and well-regulated banking system which is often considered the best in the world, while the American system pales in comparison. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:36, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Canadas success is partly due to good management. And I never said centralisation meant corruption, what I am against is a central bank that interacts with the economy beyond sustaining the worth of the currency. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:48, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Well our central bank should also be involved in some regulations of private bank practises; we would be safer off following a model along Canada's lines. 17:05, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need banks to regulate banks, that in and of itself is a flawed idea, it's like saying we need to build a huge tinned food factory but it won't make tinned food it'll regulate other tinned food factories. We can regulate banks just like we regulate everything else. We would be safer off not allowing bankers to control part of our government. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:11, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Without some regulations we could have a situation like what the US banks did n 2007-08. BUT, we have few banks in Lovia, they are stable and overall are unlikely to overextend themselves. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:17, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
I agree we need regulations, but not banks regulating banks, instead the Government regulating banks. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:47, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, government oersight would work well. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:55, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
You're right banks should not be regulating other banks, this is not the case inside of Lovia. Inside of the United States, the Federal Reserve is ran in the interests of both private and public, which it allows private bank owners to become part of the Fed's (oddly). The National Reserves would not condone anything of the sorts, all of the actions of the National Reserves should be in the best interests of the Lovian people, and the oversight by the chairman (which should be a government official) should do monthly updates and congressional hearings. Its true in the US we have banks regulating banks, but here with the bill I'm writing is the government regulating the banks. ---Sunkist- (talk) 19:15, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind maintaining the status quo plus adding regulations -- I feel like a US style federal reserve is a tad too much for Lovia, unless you're thinking a different approach to it. Could you elaborate on your proposal, sunkist? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:02, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the US style federal reserve is something we don't want to go for. I'm still working on a proposal, but what I'm trying to aim for is a government  holding of the nations money, right now we don't have that much order in terms of our government holdings, who prints it and who gets it when and where. If we look at the US style federal reserve it has this board of (we all know it, its made up of former big bankers) men who lead the Fed's for both in the benefit of the private (typically) and publicly. Just think, some big banking company donates bucket loads of money too a presidential candidate, the President makes sure that their guy gets a seat on that board. Here we would have a system in which the Congress must select another member to take control. He or she shouldn't be an un-elected appointed honorary to protect one of the most important institutions of a nation, sadly thats how it works in America. Just one chairman, no back door deals to private banks, be there to support the people and support the government with finacial aid. Right now the status quo is in bad shape, we don't even support our own currency, we have another central bank print it for us, and by fixing this we have this institution be responsibile for printing our tender, Lovians printing Lovian money. We need somthing to control the banks from going crazy with loaning and having little reserves. -Sunkist- (talk) 02:24, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what you say, but on the last bit: most countries have their currency printed with specialized security printers like De La Rue, Canadian Bank note, Giesecke & Devrient etc. given that they have the technology to work with specialized paper, holograms, security threads. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:37, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I must ask that we are on the same page simply and clearly, we both want a Lovian National Reserve that will:

  • Print the Lovian Dollar
  • Manage exchange rates for the Lovian Dollar
  • Hold the money of the Lovian Government
  • Have no part in regulating Banks

And on top of that we both want:

  • An act on regulation of banks ensuring safety in the financial sector
  • Simplicity in this above all

Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:21, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I don' think an act would provide good administration. We have several different size of banks, some small, some large, private, public, we need QUICK availability of the National Reserves to be able to tweak regulations, such as reserve amounts and interest rates to counter a financial meltdown. I believe the Lovian National Reserve SHOULD have a part in regulating banks, but the banks should not hold a part in running the National Reserve (unlike the Fed's) .-Sunkist- (talk) 19:12, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
An act is how we administrate everything, it would outline how banks are allowed to behave, we cannot (by law) actually have a qausi-independent reserve setting regulations how and when they like it. Regulations must come from government however that doesn't mean that the National Reserve can't be involved in this regulation in some manner (though I would prefer if it wasn't). I am glad we are in agreement however on banks not being involved in running it. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 20:00, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
If we do make such an act, I think it should still give the National Reserves plenty of room to fix rates and have the ability to protect the Lovian economy at all cost. You keep saying "Regulations must come from government", I ensure you this is the government. I really have a problem with politicians whom oddly in Lovian own almost all of the Lovian finances, and are the richest in the country and have power in both business and politics. It needs to be qausi-independent to be safe from the horrors from the cabalists of Lovia. -Sunkist- (talk) 20:09, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
The National Reserve could probably fix rates (although could you explain in full what rates those are before I agree completely) and do things to help the Lovian economy (depending on what those are again) however I would prefer the governments bank to be seperate from the bank regulator. Also I understand your problems, Lukas is but a humble Lawyer (admittedly he married into the rather rich Kameron Family), the cabal cannot be allowed however how we fight it is the question. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 20:29, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd say these rates would be mostly to control how much banks need to have in their reserves to be able to loan. Open market operations, reserve requirement, we need a National funding rate, which would mean that the National Reserve would provide banks with funds which they would be required to pay back with interest. There is several other interests that I don't know of, but I'm learning, that should be used by the National Reserve. -Sunkist- (talk) 21:02, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

We could have the National Reserve Chairman have powers in emergencies. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:09, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

How would such an emergency mode be triggered? Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 20:29, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
Based on their judgement, and would be dismissed by Minister of Finance or Congress in the event of power abuse. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:14, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I also want to make the National Reserves immune from short term political gains, politicians want to always please the people for a short term effect (such as an election) and will screw over the economy. Any ideas about how the chairman should be selected, if hes a MOTC then what should he be doing the elections, what if he isn't reelected? ---Sunkist- (talk) 22:53, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

National Reserves Act[]

  1. Creation of the Lovian National Reserves for the cause of:
    1. promotion of sustainable growth;
    2. employment of the common public;
    3. stable prices;
    4. preserving the worth of the currency promoted by the Lovian state;
  2. In its respectable power it will provide its services and power upon;
    1. Lovian banks which are part of the National Reserves system.
      1. All banks present inside of Lovia must apply to join the National Reserve. 
      2. Such banks will provide zero governance over the National Reserves, but may retain the ability to advise the National Reserves on issues concerning such matters of economic importance. 
      3. Such responsibility for the National Reserves will be to provide safe transactions between banks, ensuring a safe payment system inside of the Lovian state, maintaing that all Lovians money is treated safely and will review banks actions that may conflict with the economy and the common people.
      4. Maintain the ability of setting the discount rates; an interest rate which the National Reserve may set upon individual banks whom are part of a loaning agreement. 
      5. Maintain the ability of setting the reserve requirements; the amount of physical funds that depository institutions are required to hold in reserve against deposits in bank accounts. It determines how much money banks can create through loans and investments.
    2. The Lovian Government
      1. Ensure that a secure and legal tender is possible, possessing that the currency supported by the Lovian state is not corrupted.
        1. All Lovian coinage and legal tender must be produced inside of the Lovian state under the authority of the National Reserves. 
      2. Providing safe keeping of the Lovian governments holdings of collected taxes and state ownings in companies.
        1. Distribution of such holdings of the government to respectable areas requested by the Lovian Congress.  
      3. Creation of short-term and long-term interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates.
      4. Provide the Lovian Government with loans and bonds to supply itself with funding.
        1. In return such interests set by the Chairman will be repayed by the government. 
      5. Setting open market operations.
        1. Which gives the National Reserves the ability of buying or selling of government bonds on the open market. 
    3. The Lovian Economy & Corporations
      1. While providing such responsibilities in Article (2) under Section (1) of paragraphs (2) and (1) the Lovian National Reserve may investigate if such domestic or international companies or corporations are seekings to manipulate the Lovian economy, spend such money through means of illegal activities or seek to manipulate the National Reserve.
        1. If such activities are found in an investigation, the Lovian National Reserve may have the authority to punish such banks that provide loaning or services to said corporations.
        2. Punishments may also include the halt of that corporations assets and ownings in Lovia, seizure of such money being traded illegally or being manipulated. 
  3. Leadership & Duties
    1. Selection & removal of Chairman.
      1. In a majority vote of the Congress of Lovia will a candidate be selected.
      2. In a tree-fouths vote by the Lovian Congress may a Chairman be removed. 
    2. Chairman of the National Reserves will have a life term position, which will remove any threat of being ousted due to public opinion due to short term political interests and may do what is best for the state of Lovia's economy.
    3. In such authority, the National Reserves will be independent from any external or internal government office, such as an agency or ministry. 
    4. Qualifications for Chairman
      1. Must be a member of the Congress. 
      2. Must have been a citizen of Lovia for more then one month.
    5. The Chairman will retain the responsibilites of controlling the National Reserve and its powers, explained in (1) and (2).

Needs a few small revisions, but I'm going to sleep now. Looks good overall. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:55, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Well, lets get started. Any specific sections people have a problem with? -Sunkist- (talk) 16:05, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

1. Apparently all other national reserves in other countries are actually preserved land areas. It should probably be renamed (not sure what, apparently we don't want a national bank?) 2. Only some banks are part of its system? 3. Define discount rate more clearly: general interest rate, a window of what institutions can take from the national reserve, etc. 4. Don't understand 2.2.2. 5. Investigations aren't in the scope of a national bank, that's part of the Ministry of Defense (or Finance, but not the bank)'s job. 6. Chairman should be proposed by the Minister of Finance, approved by Congress, and fired by one half or possibly two thirds majority in Congress. 7. Why do they need to be a Member of Congress? And what if they're not re-elected next term? 8. Overall nice but needs revision. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:29, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

1. Well, National Reserves are sometimes seen as 'parks', but I've always heard them called 'nature reserves' I think we should keep the name, be different from all the other 'Federal Reserves' and 'Central Bank's'. 
2. Well, it would simply be a way to get banking companies to apply to become officially banks inside of Lovia, and I can keep a record, all the banks will most likely need to join if they want to function correctly. I'll write some where in there that the banks HAVE too join. 
3. Alright, a discount rate is where a private bank asks the National Reserve for money, its basically like the bank turns into a customer of the National Reserve and asks for a loan, then later on down the road the bank will provide interest back to the bank, which will help cut the debt or provide reserves for the NR. All Bank corporations are able to apply for discount rates. 
4. Well, I'm all about confidentiality, and I don't want any other part of the government whom are elected leaders have the ability to investigate, pull a company under rug just because of looking good in the publics eye. The National Reserve will have most of the nations most important documents, where money goes too from place to place, how much, and to whom. 
5. Again, I severely against allowing another Ministry have the ability to appoint candidates, some one just applies to run for such a position and the Congress just accepts them or doesn't. If the Minister of Finance only has the power to propose, then it allows for him to really control the bank, back door deals, all that bad stuff. 
7. Well, I didn't want to empower some banker whom has his hands way down in some big banks pockets, listening to their every word, and plus Politicians are exposed into the public way sooner then any private owner or dealer. If the person is not re-elected, they loose their MOTC seat, not the Chairmen seat, if he or she had to worry about keeping their Chairman seat they would 'run' or campaign about what they would do as the Chair or do things to impress the public, when it could hurt the overall economy. 

---Sunkist- (talk) 16:52, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Please, somebody give me some feedback on the bill, I want to hear the complaints and woes about the bill. Lets get raunchy. -Sunkist- (talk) 02:04, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
If the bill is not ready to be voted on, will some one please give me so feed back..-Sunkist- (talk) 21:07, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I really liked what I said earlier. Definitely needs to be appointed by MoF, 3/4 majority should be 1/2 (if he's not doing anything wrong it's probably not going to reach 1/2, we are very reasonable here). Name should be changed. Clauses should be added required banks to be regulated by this. Shouldn't need to be MOTC. And the scope of the reserve is too much. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:25, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

But I just provided the reasons why I'm against that. When the economy goes bad, people go after the people that are trying to help, thus I believe a 3/4 majority is needed. I'm telling you the reasons why these qualifications are so are in the BEST intrest of the Lovian people. -Sunkist- (talk) 01:49, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

We aren't idiots who would do that. I disagree and will vote against this if that isn't changed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:33, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

From what I see, people are EASILY motivated and moved around here on their core beliefs and how they react is unpredictable. I don't think the MoF should just appoint some one, it would interfere with the independence of the National Reserve. I am willing to change the qualifications. -Sunkist- (talk) 02:44, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

The MoF appointment is negotiable, but a 3/4 majority vote to put out of office is way too high. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:06, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, how about 2/3rd's? -Sunkist- (talk) 03:09, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, let's see what everyone else thinks. Also, the MOTC requirement should be removed, imo. Opinions on MoF nomination vs. nomination by any MOTC, anyone? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:22, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

We should really use a different name for our central bank. Our banknotes already say "Bank of Lovia", so wh not go with that? HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 12:55, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

014. Financial Outline Act[]

  1. The expenditures and revenue of the Government of Lovia are managed by a budget.
    1. Expenditures are the outflow of money from the Government, spent in order to maintain the programs and organs of government and support the nation of Lovia and its interests.
    2. Revenue is the inflow of money into the Government, collected in order to pay for expenditures.
      1. Revenue includes taxes and tariffs, outlined in the Taxation Act, and any income generated by a program or organ of the Government.
  2. On April 1 of each calendar year, a budget passed by Congress shall go into effect.
    1. Such a budget must be passed by a normal majority in Congress during the months of February or March of the same calendar year.
    2. After April 1 and before December 31 of the same calendar year, all citizens eligible for taxation should outline and pay their taxes to the Government.
      1. Citizens who do not complete this procedure may be prosecuted for tax evasion by the Ministry of Justice.
    3. Congress may modify the expenditures of the budget by a normal majority after April 1 to accommodate any unforeseen changes, but not the revenue.
    4. In the event that no budget is passed by Congress, the budget from the previous year should be extended proportionally for the amount of extra time it is being used until a new budget is passed by Congress.
      1. In this case, citizens should file and pay their taxes once the newer budget is passed. If they have already filed and pay their taxes for the old budget, a refund will be given once the citizen pays their taxes for the newer budget.
  3. A budget must include the following items:
    1. A setting of tax and tariff rates for each tax and tariff explained in the Taxation Act, which may or may not be variable depending on the income or profit of the paying entity.
    2. A setting of expenditures made by the government.
      1. Expenditures must meet the necessary costs for the upkeep of all government programs and organs and all other non-discretionary spending.
    3. An outline of income from non-tax or tariff sources.
  4. A budget made by the Government should have its revenue be equal to or greater than the total expenditures made by the Government.
    1. This provision may be ignored in times of national crisis.
    2. When the federal budget is facing a deficit, the state must borrow money on the financial market.
    3. When the federal budget has a surplus, it should be used to pay off the country's debt.
      1. Spending the surplus on new policy can only be done if the new policy is taken up in the budget, lowering the surplus.
      2. If there is no national debt, the surplus should either be converted to new policy or saved in a reserve fund.
  5. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for heading the creation and enforcement of a national budget.
    1. The Ministry should work alongside Congress, the other Ministries, and the rest of the Government to formulate a budget each year.
  6. The Government must not overfund or underfund any program or organ of the government within its budget.

Thoughts? This would accompany the Taxation Act. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:55, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

It looks okay so far, I'll have to think things over and see if any problems come up. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:09, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

This is good! You've obviously put a lot of work into writing it :) Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 17:12, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Great! Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:28, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

015. State(Wide) Reform[]

One line to be added to the end of the State Elections section within the constitution

  1. If the Governor or Deputy Governor remains inactive in their position by not editing in the last 40 days an election should be called immediately to replace one, or both positions.

Any suggestions, thoughts, ideas? Should be longer, or just right? Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:26, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Marcus, you need to learn there/their/they're. Anyway, I don't really support this, if someone's inactive, we can just run their state for them. I think the only real required thing they'd need to do is the census. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:38, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I can support this however there's a point to be made that you shouldn't elect someone who you think is going to be inactive. Really we should never have to run anyones state for them. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:43, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
@TM yeah yeah yeah, its fixed. But It's not true, I've advocated on this time and time again, yet nothing. People don't vote by 'activity' or 'progress' anymore it's first, does he/she meet my ideology, but it's not working! I'm fully pro devolution and I can see that it's not gonna get the libertarian-esque support. Yet, the same argument should be made for the federal level. Where such parties like the LMP and MCP are supported and elected by the Conservatives and support others who are in such parties like the PL and other fringes, yet never report to work. Should we not replace them too? At this point I can't even see this getting passed because they make up about 30% of congress and we need about 70% to pass it with everyone voting in favor.
@Kun - Read above...we still support them though. I can tell you the candidates I supported in the Federal elections are still active (Me, oos, Abrahams) yet some can't. Because the CDP, PL, LMP, MCP, and certain other pols don't actually report to work. And you know me, pro state rights so I'd never propose that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:05, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, half of CDP reports to work, at least as much as SCP does. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:25, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Yea but seirously the point is to replace inactive Pols, with active ones with aspirations. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:31, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with people running the state for the governor, when the whole point of being a Governor is to lead the state. I think that people shouldn't stand if they are just going to remain inactive for much of their term. How about inactive Governors are replaced by an active Deputy Governor, and the Deputy Governor is also not active, elections are called? Also, its not good for state devolution (which I fully support) if the State Governments ate inactive. Anyways, that's just what I think Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 13:50, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

If you're against inactives then I assume you support the idea of being able to vote once for a party like you can only vote once for a candidate. This simple regulation completely stops people from spamming candidates which vote only within their party and then go inactive quickly and never vote, that's what happened to this congress, loads of parties stood multiple candidates to try and vote only within their party. The only one party out of them all (credit to topaz for keeping things together) that stayed reasonably active was the Green Party, and even one of their members rarely shows their face and rarely votes. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 14:48, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

I think the current Deputy situation is good enough. We don't have a single untaken state. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:48, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

@Kun-But don't you realize that's what your doing? You'll create more and more single-person parties to get people to support each other? That isn't progress it's regressive, what happens in every election is these parties get elected like MCP, (the CDP is mostly inactive i dont care what people say) CDP, LMP, PL get elected not because of there great contribution to Lovia, because of there ideology. Your soultion only exacerbates that problem by creating more parties and more people not to show up an do there jobs. @oos - Yes but a seat in Clymene and Oceana was nothing being done. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:28, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

So you think it's progressive to create a political system where people are crammed into maybe 2 or 3 parties? and where peoples only real choice is between those 2 or 3? that is truly regressive and that is a system you have been part of and are now supporting.
Also don't lecture me on people getting elected not because of their great contribution to Lovia but because of their ideology, that is what my system would counter, it would force people to truly consider where their second and third votes should go rather than dump it on another party member. And need I remind you of the way YOUR PARTY ousted Oos (the single greatest Oceana contributor and probably the best active contributor) from Oceana simply to put someone in who was part of your party (Walden).
My solution also does the complete opposite of what you're saying, it makes candidate spamming pointless and makes it so that there will be a much greater percentage of active people showing up to their jobs because their seat share didn't get worn down by a load of inactives who just showed up so that their party could vote only within itself. You will see this when it becomes apparent that the Train Village council is far more active percentage wise than congress due to this voting system. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:00, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah and I didn't say that. Frankly a system that works is one in place + making laws to remove inactive politicians, not your plan to stop democracy in hopes it solves the problem. In your solution people would only make political parties to keep themelves in it and have no other users in it and then just support each other, we'd have 10-12 parties. Yup, and i'll keep you too that, considering all the votes are going to the CNP and IGP there won't be must dissagreemnt, try it on a larger scale when you have three times as many people and when the votes are largely more distributed to more inactive people (like from those smaller inactive parties) Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:47, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
This is off topic, I'm moving it to my talk page where this kind of thing belongs. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:50, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
 true, anyway is there general support for this? Seems simple can it be moved? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:01, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Is there support for this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:14, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe so. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Really? wow. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:29, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Honesty è. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:42, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

016. Half of Congress[]

I propose to alter Constitution Article 8.1.4 ([3]).

  • 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). > New federal elections must be held when more than one third of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).

For obvious reasons. I'm not sure whether we can fix this right now (cuz we might no longer have these 67% majorities), but at least this line - even in its current form - enables us to hold new elections if we really get frustrated and f.e. Kunarian, TM and me declare ourselves inactive (for one day :P) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I want to dissolve Congress. A couple people like Happy still pop on from time to time and might be convinced to vote (even though it seems like he's purposely ignoring me when I say three times on his talk page to vote in the Second Chamber D:<), giving us the 67%. Anyway, if you want, you can propose a manual motion of no confidence, and if it gets 50%, we will have new elections. I will continue to consider my vote. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:42, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it was more meant as a possibility in case we need it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:56, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'm going with 2/5ths inactive just to troll >:D --Quarantine Zone (talk) 15:21, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'd say when 40% of congress in active not half, 33% may be bit a much. Maybe 35%, ot is that too exact. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:54, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
Well, re-reading it: we are obliged to hold new elections, which might not be best after all :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:25, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
If we can hold elections now i'm all for it. I don't see why not, considering they'd technically be my last :p might as well go out with a bang! Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:36, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you're leaving Lovia?? HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:56, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, you're actually leaving? I thought you were just retiring from federal politics to focus on Clymene. Anyway, about the bill, we really should do something about inactive MOTCs so we can make more progress Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 18:01, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Noo by elections I meant (federal). I think we should just call an election now, vote in July and have that second congress stay until the rest of the year. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:06, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I agree Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 18:09, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of the congress is inactive. Half of my party isn't active...and Semyon hasn't been on in over a month. Happy wasn't active for most of May and hasn't been on in June. Congress could use some re-election. I'm settling at 40%. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 19:37, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't mid-term elections already be held if a vote for them is passed in Congress? So, what exactly does this amendment "add" that would make it (the amendment) useful/necessary? 77topaz (talk) 08:15, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Not that much :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:19, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
I think I'll propose that then. To be honest, we're at a level of activity where if we have elections now we'll have a good amount of users to be in for the rest of the year. Anyone else want to join me in that? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:18, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

017. Weapons and Safety Act[]

This is new act, not revision or addition to the current Firearms Act

  1. Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to conceal any fire arms from others while in public.
    1. All owners must be at least 24 years of age.
    2. Ballistic knives and sheath knives are not considered fire arms.
  2. All automatic weapons are illegal, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
  3. Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy, but legal to own for historical purposes.
  4. Bayonets are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy, but legal to own for historical purposes.
  5. Bullets containing poison, toxins, and explosives are illegal to manufacture, trade, buy, sell, and own, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
    1. In the case of an official government military, militia, or police, soft chemical explosives are legal.
      1. This includes chemicals similar to the following: Capsaicin (pepper spray), phenacyl chloride (mace), sleeping gas, tear gas, or chemicals in stun grenades.
        1. Sleeping gas is any chemical containing halothane vapour (Fluothane), methyl propyl ether (Neothyl), methoxyflurane (Penthrane), 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or fentanyl.
        2. Tear gas is any chemical containing chlorobenzalmalononitrile, dibenzoxazepine, nonivamide, bromoacetone, xylyl bromide, or synpropanethial-S-oxide.
        3. Stun grenades are any explosive containing pyrotechnic metal-oxidant mixes of magnesium or aluminum, ammonium perchlorate, or potassium perchlorate.
  6. Newly manufactured items that have a similar look or use to firearms are required to have orange tips to signify that they are not legally firearms.
    1. This includes but is not limited to water guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, BB guns, and model guns.
  7. Bows and crossbows are considered weapons fit for hunting.

As the majority of the controversy was focused on hunting in the last act, I have removed any hunting laws (with exception to the crossbows and bows) from this act. This is now considered a weapons and safety act. If you have any suggestions, once again, drop them below. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 16:07, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

It might not fit so well in the Firearms Act, which is solely about firearms and militias. So is this changing the name of that act to the "Weapons and Safety Act"? Also, I don't think the government should have automatic weapons, poisonous or explosive bullets (agree with soft chemical = tear gas, though). Lastly, switchblade knives should probably be legal to own for historical purposes (like with the bayonet rule). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:00, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

And fix section 1.1, it limits too many people (those not 24). HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:06, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TM on this one, except for the middle-most sentence. The government (army) should be able to have access to automatic weapons and explosive bullets. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:28, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, it could turn into a tyranny. :/ —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:14, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

@Time, it is an addition. Nothing would be removed, as stated at the beginning. The automatic weapons are needed in military. We wouldn't stand a chance against anyone without automatic weapons. Remember, at the moment all weapons are legal for military. For the switchblades, I can change that. @Horton, I'll change that to 21. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:45, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you must've misinterpreted my comment. I like the 24, but you should add "and over" or else anyone above that age couldn't have one. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 18:54, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
Got it fixed --Quarantine Zone (talk) 19:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
So nothing (the name of the entire act) would change, even though the title of this proposal is the Weapons and Hunting Act? Also, then the automatic weapons are fine. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:30, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
Time, your misreading this. It's the Weapons and Safety Act. This is an addition to the current laws. It will not repeal or replace anything. The only part relating to hunting is the last line. The Weapons and Hunting Act from earlier failed to pass, so I gave up for the time being. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 05:09, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
So lemme get this straight a conservative is proposing an add on to an act to further regulate weapons? Well I have never seen that! While I support it, I don't know much about weaponry/hunting. So in 5.1 what is a "soft chemical explosive", just if you can clarify. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:07, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Why are automatic knifes like ballistics allowed? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:10, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it's a separate law. It seemed like you said you were adding it to the firearms act. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:04, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Ballistic knives are legal for the same reasons as hand guns. They are able to be concealed and are helpful for defense. Currently none of this is regulated. Voting on it will only regulate weapons more. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 20:15, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
True, but i'd rather they not be Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:30, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
They're also recreational. Fun for target shooting! If we made ballistic knives illegal, it wouldn't really do much. Hardly anyone has them, and the people that do have them usually have other weapons for self defense as it is. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:02, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
I'll vote pro. don't worry :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:56, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

To the Second Chamber? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 00:03, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have CCPL-SLP-LP support. I bet the CNP will come along since it protects bows and stuff. MOVE IT :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:16, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, it might be better to just tack it on to the end of the Firearms Act and rename the entire thing the Weapons Act. Also, not sure the last line is entirely needed, it seems random and useless. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

018. Call for new elections[]

This is just an open debate, should we have new elections? Just wanting to know Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:34, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, even though I'll lose seats... Much of our Congress is inactive. It will more than likely only get less active. This means less bills getting passed. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:51, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Looking for other parties, possibly CCPL-CNPorSLP? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:22, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is much-needed. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 20:27, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about this. :/ —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Haaa the IGP is on board, IF They had any votes xD Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:15, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

The Congress still seems to be functional at the moment. :P 77topaz (talk) 22:46, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult indeed :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich` 10:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I only see more issues from this. We have a sufficient amount of active congresspeople, and another election is going to be a lot of work to organize. Furthermore, if we do hold them, we're likely to get inactive guys running who will just get elected and then disappear. It's happened before and this is not a solution to a fully active congress. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:26, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way we can call for a new state election early? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:38, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

019. Taxation Act 2012 2013[]

Article 12 - Taxation Act[]

  • Article 12.1 - Taxation Regulation
    1. In accordance with the Financial Outline Act, Congress should set tax levies in a federal budget in February or March for the budget of the fiscal year starting on April 1.
      1. A normal majority is required to set tax levy amounts.
      2. The tax levies may be reset to a different rate at any time in February or March.
      3. Congress may not change the levies after April 1.
    2. A proposal of set levies must fulfill one of the following aims:
      1. The aim of filling a budget that has been drawn up by the Ministry of Finance; or,
      2. The aim of filling a budget that has been drawn up by the Ministry of Finance and paying off debt accumulated by the government.
    3. States may set and change levies of different taxes on a State level. These taxes are additional on top of taxes set by Congress.
      1. Governors may set tax levies to raise money for use by the State governments, these taxes must be set with one of the following aims. The aim of funding State projects that are beneficial to the prosperity of the State or the aim of funding State projects that are beneficial to the prosperity of the State and paying off debt accumulated by the State government.
      2. Congress may overturn the levies set by the Governor by voting with a normal majority.
        1. Should Congress overturn levies set by the Governor, then the Governor may not set new levies for four weeks and current levies in the state are set to flat 0% rates.
    4. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for filing and collecting taxes.
      1. The Ministry of Finance must create documents that shall be used by government and individuals for filing taxes.
        1. These documents must be simple, easy to understand and must not be misleading, there must also be a way to trace who filed the taxes on the documents.
      2. The Ministry of Finance files taxes for all individuals or corporations unless otherwise stated.
        1. In cases where the Ministry files taxes so that an individual or corporation ends up paying more tax than due, they are given an exemption in the next tax year equivalent to the over taxation. In cases where the Ministry files taxes so that an individual or corporation ends up paying less tax than due, the Ministry may request but may not force the individual or corporation to pay the difference on top of taxes in the next tax year.
        2. In cases where an individual or corporation files their taxes so that they end up paying more tax than due, they may not request reparations or an exemption. In cases where an individual or corporation files taxes so that an individual or corporation ends up paying less tax than due, the Ministry may force the individual or corporation to pay the difference on top of taxes in the next tax year.
      3. The Ministry of Finance must create a department for collecting taxes.
        1. Those employed by the Ministry of Finance to this department are considered tax collectors.
        2. Tax collectors are responsible for filing taxes
        3. Tax collectors may collect taxes electronically with permission of the tax payer, they may also collect them from their bank account with the permission of the tax payer and they may also collect it in person from the tax payer with their permission.
        4. Tax collectors are the enforcers of taxation within Lovia. They are given the right to temporarily seize property of tax evaders, disallow individuals or individuals of corporations to leave the country, revoke a citizens passport, use force to detain tax evaders and arrest tax evaders.
        5. In all cases the Ministry of Defence must keep up to date with the actions of tax collectors and co-operate in enforcing their rights and must actively assist the Ministry of Finance in the detainment and arrest of tax evaders until they are brought before court.
    5. An illegality is committed if any of the following occur:
      1. A government official fails to correctly collect or file taxes due to negligence.
      2. An individual fails to correctly file taxes with the intent of reducing the amount of tax paid.
      3. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.
  • Article 12.2 - Income Tax
    1. Every individual of 18 years of age or older must pay Income Tax should they be eligible as defined by law to do so. To be eligible to pay Income Tax and an individual must do one of the following.
      1. Be earning income as defined below and must have resided within Lovia's national borders during the tax year.
      2. Be a Lovian citizen earning income as defined below and must be earning income from an individual or corporation which resides within Lovia's national borders.
        1. In this case only the income gained from the individual or corporation that resides within Lovia's national borders is eligible for tax.
    2. Income is the sum total of the following.
      1. Wage and salaries.
        1. Wages, salaries and tips recieved by an individual for performing a service for another individual or entity or from another individual or corporation they are employee of, minus any wages, salaries or tips that an individual has given to another individual for being an employee of the concerned individual.
      2. Pensions.
        1. Pensions or annuity payments recieved by an individual from another individual or corporation minus any pensions or annuity payments that an individual has given to another individual. Pensions and annuity payments are fixed payments over a specified or unspecified period of time.
      3. Capital gains.
        1. Capital gains received by an individual from another individual or corporation. Capital gains are the profits gained by buying and then selling property, shares or bonds.
      4. Lump sums.
        1. Lump sums received by an individual from another individual or corporation, minus any lump sums that an individual has given to another individual. Lump sums are single payments of money.
      5. Rental income.
        1. rental income recieved by an individual from another individual or corporation, minus any rent that an individual has given to another individual. Rental income is when a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another individual.
      6. Dividends.
        1. dividends recieved by an individual from a corporation. Dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members.
    3. Income Tax required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individuals income and levying a set percentage which goes to the Ministry of Finance.
      1. An exemption from this levy may be set, a next number of Lovian Dollars of income may have a set percentage levied and this may be done multiple times. All other income after these bands has a set percent levied.
    4. Income Tax must be paid every year on the 1st of March.
      1. Unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Income Tax for individuals however individuals residing within Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Income Tax.
      2. The Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual with the documentation to file their own taxes.
    5. An illegality is committed if any of the following occurs:
      1. An individual distributes income to others for the main purpose of reducing the amount of tax paid.
      2. An individual evades or otherwise fails to pay said taxes.
      3. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.
  • Article 12.3 - Property Tax
    1. Every individual or corporation who owns property or land as defined by law within Lovia must pay Property Tax should they be eligible as defined by law to do so. To be eligible to pay Property Tax an individual or corporation must do one of the following.
      1. Own property or land within Lovia's national borders.
    2. Property is the combination of land and an improvement that has been built upon said land.
      1. To avoid confusion property is measured in square metres by taking the distance between the furthest points along the width of the improvement and multiplying them by the distance between the furthest points along the length of the improvement.
      2. Property is considered land if the improvements width and length are each no larger than 2 meters in size.
    3. Land is land that has not had an improvement built upon it.
      1. To avoid confusion land is measured in square metres.
    4. Property Tax on property required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individual or corporations measured property and levying a set amount which goes to the Ministry of Finance depending on the amount of measured property owned.
      1. An exemption from this levy may be set. All other property has a set levy of Lovian cents per square metre set.
        1. Unless the property is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, National Monument Service or is Federal or State property in which case all other property has a different levy of Lovian cents per square metre set.
    5. Property Tax on land require to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individual or corporations measured land and levying a set amount which goes to the Ministry of Finance depending on the amount of measured property owned.
      1. An exemption from this levy may be set. All other land has a set levy of Lovian cents per square metre set.
        1. Unless the land is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, National Monument Service, is Federal or State property or is being used for agricultural purposes, in which case all other land has a different levy of Lovians cents per square metre set.
    6. Property Tax must be paid every year on the 1st of March.
      1. Unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Property Tax for individuals and corporations however individuals and corporations based in Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Property Tax.
      2. The Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual or corporation with the documentation to file their own taxes.
    7. An illegality is committed if any of the following occur:
      1. An individual or corporation evades or otherwise fails to pay said taxes.
      2. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards confiscation of property as punishment.
  • Article 12.4 - Imported Sales Tax
    1. Every individual or corporation which operates within Lovia's national borders must pay Imported Sales Tax should they be defined by law as eligible to do so. To be eligible to pay Imported Sales Tax an individual or corporation must do one of the following.
      1. Have brought goods from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders.
      2. Not be a citizen or be based outside Lovia's national borders.
    2. Individuals or corporations who have brought goods brought from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders must register the goods with customs officers.
    3. Imported Sales Tax is required to be paid on all goods when they are first sold within Lovia's national borders after having been harvested or manufactured outside of them and all services when they are paid for within Lovia's national borders.
    4. Worth is the amount of Lovian Dollars the good or service is sold for.
    5. Imported Sales Tax required to be paid is calculated by taking the worth of the imported goods when sold and levying a set percentage which goes to the Ministry of Finance.
      1. all worth has an exclusive percentage levy set.
    6. Imported Sales Tax must be paid every year on the 1st of March.
      1. Unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Imported Sales Tax for individuals however individuals or corporations residing within Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Imported Sales Tax.
      2. The Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual or corporation with the documentation to file their own taxes.
    7. An illegality is committed if any of the following occur:
      1. An individual or corporation evades or otherwise fails to pay said taxes.
      2. Failure to register all the goods that have been imported due to either intent or by negligence.
      3. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.

Discussion[]

My fellow Congressmembers, we as Lovians have a duty to ensure good governance, and how can we govern if we cannot fund our governance? we cannot. This bill makes provisions for the establishment of a national tax system and also allows for state taxes, both of which we desperately need. We can't run a government on tourism and sport revenues, if I came up to you and said let's fund a welfare system with the spare cash we'll get from a few football matches would you not call me crazy? So to further the already high confidence in this government, and to show that each and every one of us is committed to a responsible and financially apt government I ask you to vote in favour of this bill. thank you. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 11:53, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Very good :) Two things:
  1. Apart from the National Park Service etc, also Federal Property and State Property should not be taxed.
  2. The "improvement" thing is rather vague. Does this only include buildings (what about sheds?), or also gardens, sidewalks etc?
--OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:22, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
I'll make a modification so that it's clearly things like buildings not benches or fences. Improvement refers to something built upon land, normally a building. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 14:03, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
I think I've reasonably addressed concerns. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 15:37, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you did :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:22, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Made a few modifications to fit with the Financial Outline Act. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:34, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Has that even been passed? Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 14:03, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
If that hasn't been passed yet can you propose it, it'll have my full support. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 15:37, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been passed yet, I wanted it to pass at the same time as the Taxation Act. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:05, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Propose it then, it'll have my full support. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:21, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm scared a tad over 12.1.3.2 on Congress overpowering the state taxes, because in turn it sorta defends conservative taxation. If you have a Conservative economical government, and it wants lower taxes it can enact that section and set state taxes from 6 or 7 percent, down to zero, and then compromise with the Feds and put it down to 3 or 4 percent while the incentive for a Progressive government to implement it on conservative state governments is zero.
  • Shouldn't those who work at 17 also pay taxes, in America I believe it's even lower, technically since birth if you have taxable income, its taxed.
  • Can States do property taxes, Is that covered by 12.1.3.1?
  • Are corporations coming later?
  • Molto bene! Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:47, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • How in gods name does Congress having the ability to stop Governor's going outright insane with their taxes (too high OR too low) defend conservative taxation? We have a clause about governors building and renaming places being able to be stopped by Congress with a 50% vote, does that defend something that starts with conservative? no, it's a safety check to ensure that no Governor is irresponsible. This is a non-issue and you shouldn't let left and right cloud your judgement on this vital issue.
  • No taxation without representation, the highest voting age is 18, therefore you should not be taxed until then. This also cannot be exploited to lower tax paid because that is covered in the act as illegal.
  • Yes completely.
  • This does not include corporation tax as I am against it, as the taxes a corporation pays are handed down onto the customer and worker. This might not harm a middle class earner but the common workers will be affected greatly. Goods will be more expensive so the tax becomes one on peoples earnings even after income tax, pay rises will become harder to do and so the tax becomes an inhibitor to people being able to earn more and profit is reduced and so therefore is investment meaning that the entire Lovian economy is worse off, need I explain how that further affects the two previous and much much more. However feel free to propose it at a later date, for now however we need these essential taxes.
Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:06, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay then but i'd doubt an overseeing body (congress) would tell the states "your taxes are too low" then set them to zero (even lower) then to how that state set them higher, or would a battle break out between the states and feds?
  • Which is why I fought for greater representation :P
  • I will thanks. I disagree for various reasons, but will take the action at a later date. As a socialist it'll come as a surprise to let you know I sorta agree in a sense. Brazil's actions were similar to what I believe in. Lula enacted hard and very binding regulation, while lowering taxation on corporations so more money would stay in the private sector while it wouldn't be played with loosely. So while I still support large scale regulations, corporate taxes should be levied at like 0-18%. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:18, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • So would you allow states to set super low taxes? I wouldn't, all your ifs and buts are not what will happen and no battle will happen between the state and feds, simply let me remind you we already have similar legislation that works without any battle between the states and the feds and without any conservative/socialist/ideological abuse.
  • So that more people could be taxed? that's a bleak reason, I did it so that people who deserved the vote could get it.
  • It comes as no surprise that you want to over regulate businesses and levy further indirect taxes on the poorest, as always I will oppose them.
Please Marcus be more constructive, if you find a real problem, also suggest a way to solve it. Additionally do not block this vital legislation. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 17:31, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
No, I'll support it just clarifying things, asking if it could occur don't take it as an insult or jab. On the second point no not really, but you put out the montra of no taxation without representation, jokingly I said which is why I fought for greater representation. Again this would fall under Pikapi's statement in the Pub but whatever. On the final point i'll let ya believe what you want. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:08, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Don't take things personally I'm not taking it as a jab more of I'm worried about this, I want to get this passed. Because I'd like something to go under my belt, because it is vital legislation and because we have been trying to pass this since (clue's in the name) 2012. That's all. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:49, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
Yeh ill vote pro too, I remember last time (in protest) you voted nay, and I was the last one voting pro :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:52, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Shall we move this to the second chamber? Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 08:54, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

We shall :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:32, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

020. Monarchy Referendum[]

I support a fully binding referendum on the current state of our monarchy. This would be composed of two questions, the first being thus:

  • Do you think that Lovia should continue as a Monarchy or as a Republic?
    • Monarchy
    • Republic

And the second being thus:

  • Do you think that the current Monarchy should step down in favour of a new Monarch?
    • No
    • Yes, Prince Sebastian should take the throne
    • Yes, Another member of the Nobel family should take the throne
    • Yes, Another family should take the throne

Personally I will be supporting a Monarchy, on the basis of their contribution to our tourism and culture and that they have no power and are purely ceremonial. This is not a question to be taken lightly but I believe we must move the matter forwards. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 15:39, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the Republic or Monarchy question one seperate from who is to take the throne? I suggest making this a poll solely about who will take the throne after Dimitri's deperature, rather then about the future of the monarchy. I already found myself having to defend the purpose and sense of having a monarchy already in the discussion about the monarchy's future. Whereas I think the two discussions should be discussed and voted on seperately. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 15:44, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
@Kunarian, I'll be supporting no referendum, until, frankly I have no other way of saying this a IP check is done on Donia. He is admandtly against the current Monarchy and has openly said hes for himself being King. I'd be entriely for the first question, hands down, but that issue has to be setteled.  Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:15, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
An IP check should be done on everyone then, what would a separate IP check on Donia achieve? Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 16:17, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
What I think you should do, @Marcus, is read this essay. Read it entirely and read it fully. It's the scenario that will be officialized canon and will be carried out. Sebastian will be King. Not Ygo, not Bernd, nor any other member of my family. Sebastian, Dimitri's cousin, will take over. I, under my "the Master's Voice" account will take over the character of Sebastian. Ygo, as you can read yourself, was in an accident a while back. Might even kill him off altogether if you feel more comfortable with that. Now tell me kiddo, how this is in any way, shape or form an unreasonable or dangerous scenario? And tell me, too, how an IP check has anything to do with this, and why. I'm most curious. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 17:45, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
Well let me just say that I would support Sebastian as King of Lovia. If not I'd be fine with a republic (or perhaps, what about an elected king?). HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:50, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
@Marcus: An IP-check is not necessary. After all, if we get very dissatisfied with "Sebastian's" behaviour, we could simply revert everything and if needed block TMV (réálly dissatisfied). It isn't like we're gonna give Donia's account admin rights... In this case, wiki and country should be separated. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:06, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
@Kun/TMV - Call me paranoid but i've always supported at least annual IP checks  for everyone just to make sure everyone's clear. The issue would be that Bastard Royale, Donia (was there one or two accounts for him i forget) would come back and support a TMV monarchy. Just to make sure they aren't and that the ensuing referendum is fair. I think we've joked about it for too long without taking issue. TBH, I'd support a Republic (without a president, just a PM and Congress), over a monarchy. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:14, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I almost feel like this is an unnecessary coup d'etat. We already ARE a republic, the royal family and Dmitri's character have no inherent political power. They are nothing more than washed-up celebrities at this point. I'd say we get Dmitri's opinion on the issue, if we haven't already, and respect his wishes. It's not a pressing issue, so if Dmi's alright with it, I'm all in favor of settling it TMV's way to see everyone happy. Secondly, Wikia only does IP checks in situations where there is reasonable suspicion with a particular user, I've handled that many-a-times. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 18:16, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I mean then whats the point of this Monarchy, I can say this is a pick and choose issue like i'll go admantly support the British Monarchy, but ours is of no value. Kunarian mentioned that our Monarchy brings in tourism dollars, I don't know to be honest. I know the British one does, alot, but ours? I'm not trying to downplay our country, but tbh If im gonna see one palace its the one in London not Lovia. I think we should be the first question forward and support a republic. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:20, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Marcus aside from the republic\monarchy discussion (which I believe is a seperate discussion that, as I said, should be kept seperate from this other discussion), I believe you should take into account that the King will have no wordly power and exercize no rights beyond those of the ordinary citizens. Never will I partake in political matters during my kingship, to preserve and safeguard the monarchy's integrity and neutrality in all matters of importance. This task I will take seriously, but I will at the same time be a more colourful King then the fellow we had before. It will be a change for the better, but not a big one in as much that nothing changes politically. As for the IP-check: the referendum will be fair, there will be no vote from "Bastard Royale". If there is, then go ask for the matter to be investigated. But when the referendum ends, all votes are casts and Sebastian's unruly bastard cousin remains nowhere to be seen, why the hell then waste wikia's time with an investigation? The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 18:24, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
@Marcus: So what you're saying there is that because there's a palace in London, no one will come to see the palace in Lovia? nonsense! So what? that'd be like saying people won't go to Clymene to stay in their hotels because there are hotels in England, France, the USA, you name it! It's absolutely silly to suggest that our Monarchy, which is such a unique thing in this part of the world and the world in general, would be of no interest. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 18:38, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
It's nothing against you Donia, everyone loves your political passions and attitude it always livens things up. If you think it's political, it hasn't crossed my mind really, Just either stick with the current tradition or republic. I won't go with an investigation, frankly I can't. Just it's clear that a case of sockpuppetry has occurred and needs settling is all. No more no less, and no crazy witch hunts. Ferenc and Oos during the Lovian times polling mentioned it and it is a concern. But taking it as somehow you can assure me Bastard Royale won't vote in the near future, i'm okay.

@kunarian - Well i'd say there isn't another gross over dramatization of a statement again but there is. First off your statement was that our monarchy has significance according to tourism and by that relation economic matters, we pay to keep a monarchy here and you would say that people from around the world would come in and view ours and that would balance it out through stay at hotels or buying food, in general right? Okay well that works for the United Kingdom and probably Spain too, definitely, in fact i'd agree with you, on economic means it does bring in a lot. I can't say we are the United Kingdom though. Historically, economically, or cultural significance to the world we aren't even the same level. So I doubt whatever minor level of tourism comes in from viewing our Monarchy is worth it. We aren't the powerhouse in comparison to the other European countries. To be honest realistically, if you were to come to Lovia you'd go for the beaches, the beauty, and culture in Seven or Kings. If you were to see the Palace, it'd be just a pass by, if you were to see it after we abolish the monarchy, I don't think out tourism would just stop or slow down even a bit. The hotel analogy is funny, idk i'm not comparing our Monarchy to a hotel, you are and of course you wouldn't, its a flawed argument. I go to French hotel if I want to see what is in France, I go to a Lovian hotel if I want to see what is in Lovia. In correlation to a Monarchy though, and stating that one would use a Lovian hotel just to see the Monarchy is a huge stretch. I'd like to see a report, if there is, on the same situation but with Monaco, or Andorra. I mean again not to say we have no culture, we have alot, but the first thing on someone's mind coming to Lovia won't be "lemme check out the smaller palace than the one in London, which also has more historical and cultural significance on the world in whole." Its "Can I go swimming, then hiking on these government protected environmental trails, and then catch some russian music in Novo, and then back to Adoha for some clubbing?" Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:55, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

*Cough*Nit*cough*picking. You write a paragraph about why you'd prefer to vacation to London instead of Lovia and how the current monarchy brings in no money. Does it even really matter to you, or is it just to debate with Kunarian? If you are going to have an unpopular opinion, at least give us a valid reason why. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 19:09, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Marcus, speak for yourself, I'd go on holiday to Lovia and so would other people. Especially those in the west USA, again I stress that people don't go "Let's go to the most expensive, well known place in the world!" otherwise my hometown which is a market town which used to have a railway and has a famous person (only locally though) known to be born here (those three things sound like a lot of towns in many ways) would get zilch tourism, but you know what, we do get tourism and people do come and take pictures and rent hotel rooms and spend money. They didn't go hey you know London, that place that has so many more markets, so many more old unused railways and so many famous people, let's go there instead. Also do you even know how much we pay to the Royal family? We haven't even got them in the budget! Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 20:02, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

@Chris, i'm done I can't even deabte something, show evidence, proof, logic, and then be accused i'm doing it for the sake of debating wwhich is which Hoffmann actually does (i.e UL debates, deabtes about anything, seriously i'm done at this point) And then you even said it yourself "and how the current monarchy brings in no money", because for the money we would have to put up with a monarchy we wouldn't see our return. Of course Lovians who like to have a monarchy think our monarhcy is the best and everyone will see it but if someone was to go SPECIFICALLY under the premise that one would go specifically for monarchies sake, one would not choose Lovia. Maybe because your Lovian, and know it, but I can assure you logically they wouldn't. Again like I said, I can't even disagree logically without this coming back at me. "Unpopular opinion without a reason"? Are you serious, did you read it, it was logically based, and there was no reasponse. Also when was the last time your saw widespread support for a Monarchy on the left of the spectrum? I support it if it had been around for a few hundred years like the British and is actually an economic and cultrual powerhouse, but ours isn't. Its since as an old, archaic, conservative (socially) structure which only gives the undeserved privlage the riches of the nation and never having to truly work. @Kunarian - I'm going to start off again by logically saying that yes realistically because we never did have a budget there is no budget, but would they be in it? Don't act like thats the big "I gotcha there" buddy. Of course they would be in it, just like every other country in the world stop. If were talking about outwest, I doubt they'd come here, even though Hawaii is farther its in the US and wouldn't need to go through customs and maybe even have family there, who knows maybe the have family here idc. But like I said people would, and if your saying they're from the US would come here for beaches or seeing the russian or asian culture, monarchy secondary and not as a primary place. But what I'm trying to proof is that people would come here first for the Monarchy instead they would come for the again "tropical" landscape. It wouldn't have the same income like the British Monarchy, can that be admitted? I get that okay yes if the Lovian monarchy was as popular as the British Monarchy, then sure it would be great and yeah people in Oostermond and TV would be helped, but to be frank for a country our size, for a country of our popualtion, its extremely unlikely. Most likely again, under your notion of Lovian Monarchy at least being on or near par on tourism or revenue like the British, they'd all be staying in Noble City not to travel across state lines or make the daily trip across the seat from state to state, they'd obviously think ahead. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:37, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's not going to bring in as much as the British Monarchy, the British monarchy truly is THE monarchy, however ours will still garner good tourism. And the monarchy has been around since the beginning of Lovia and before! It has been important to our culture and economy and it is not a 'conservative structure that gives the undeserved privileged the riches of the nation and never having to truly work' because we don't give them any money, any money they make is off their own back and we will tax it from them just like everyone else UNLIKE the British monarchy (which get's these lovely little tax breaks and changes I doubt any of us little folk will ever see). So economically they are just like our other major families, just more famous and called Royalty. Also they have absolutely no political power anymore, we've eliminated that, they are simply a figurehead. If TMV takes over as the Monarch via Sebastian and exercises restraint towards his more controversial bones as I trust him to we will see a great new figurehead emerge for our nation and Lovia will be a little more interesting. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 07:01, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
While we will disagree one the need for a new monarchy or the need for one at all, just move the first question to the second chamber. Well i'm not saying the tousim dollars for just our Monarchy would be zero but it would probably be in the low millions, I mean you wouldn't come to a warm island paradise to see the Monarchy, if anything the people coming to see the Monarchy are people from Lovia. Well maybe its because we never had a budget but we would have had too pay for them from the begining, I mean food, security, everyday needs, jewels and other expensive things, parades, a palace, a second palace because a large majority of the first one burned down, workers for the king and the palace, the garden, the gallery, etc. I mean I just doubt they'd work off what would keep them too be Monarchy it's seriously hard to believe, I mean why not just be normal or a commoner then. Basically it would be like saying "You took in xxx last year go work it off.". I get that they are a figurehead and have no power, just then whats the point. I get the historical signifigance but for a small country, its getting outdated. I mean unless they were a huge economic engine, then i'd re-look at the issue. All I'm saying is, I'll be supporting the first question to be asked, and supporting a Republic. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:48, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
I disagree completely you clearly have no idea how tourism works, according to your logic no one would be interested in Lovia because there are other places with similar things, but it's probably because you're so vehemently against monarchy that you think what you do rather than because of any logical reasons. And look at the budget buddy, once again I'm proving you wrong, we do have one: User:TimeMaster/Finance, and there's no budgeted money for the monarch there nor in the law, we do not give them anything! and when was the last time we had a royal parade? never! exactly, they are a positive for our economy not a negative. Let's line this out:
  • We give no money to the Monarchy, it's a unique tourist attraction that adds to Lovia's tourist pull - Economic Benefit
  • The Monarchy has no power, they are a figurehead that is above politics and a unifying figure - Political benefit
  • The Monarchy have added to the culture and history of Lovia, taking them away would detract from it - Cultural Benefit
The Monarchy manages their own finances and owns corporations and pays their own way such as Walker Inc that helped build up Lovia's economy, out of respect for what the Monarchy has done for Lovia, why cast them aside? we need them more than they need us, if we were to remove them all that would happen is Lovia would cease to be a monarchy, we'd lose some tourism and therefore our economy would shrink slightly and everything pertaining to Monarchy would be removed. Not saying we couldn't come back from it but you're setting the wikia back year or more in terms of content too, we'd have to fill the cultural hole that would be left and pretending it is small is wearing blinkers. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 14:37, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Again you make insane over dramatizations, its what your good at. I never said anyone wouldn't go to somewhere with similar things, yeah I remember the whole Hotel argument, it doesn't fly. You go somewhere because you want to go, and people will usually go to most well known landmark, if I can make an equally over dramatization of a statement of yours, i'd say that you believed that each landmark gets equal tourists, so the Monaco Monarchy and the British Monarchy generate the same okay then, just because ya know the people of Monaco believe they have the best Monarchy. And look at the real world buddy, I'm proving you wrong! Monarchies cost money, just because in this world you believe they don't, doesn't mean that they aren't. If it's not in TM's budget then the world must follow suit, no. Monarchies are paid through tax dollars, if he didn't put it in then that's a mistake it should be corrected. Well thats again another point on how alot of members believe we can do unrealistic things, there would of course be parades, events, and ceremonies, like any real world Monarchy. Unless the Lovian one just doesn't do that any stays in everyday and there is no pomp and circumstance. But again let's line this out:
  • (Oh look i'm using bold as well!) We would have to give money to the Monarchy, if we don't then thats just one more unrealistic thing, and it should be changed. The tourism dollars would be less than what we would put in, a bad investment. For a small nation like ours and the fact that, if we are going by our current situation, we don't even take in tax dollars, and then realistically if we go by by your standards of low taxation, it would barley pay for them.
  • Unifying figure? Was it not just a few years ago when a civil war broke out? Where was that figure then? I don't remember it, in fact you were on the rebels side trying to over throw it. So excuse me if I laugh at that one.
  • What ever the need for the Monarchy was in the past its done now. We don't need these unelected figures. The cultural benefit is questioned, they have art galleries and such but those are maintained by the state, and even if the Monarchy was abolished the state would still take care of those. Taking it away wouldn't, It could be a symbol of the past and where the King use to live. Would add more culture and history too it.
​Walker Inc. goes to the King's purse not for its upkeep, never does it state its for the upkeep or pays the Monarchies dues, just actually his bank. Walker Inc. controlled 90% by him, has a small bus line,  makes a few trains and those that are made I guess are used for the PRC (okay profitable, but its going to King Dimi not to pay for it), and like Air Lovia, some of those are state owned. Again I can't even tell if these is a joke, or another gross overreach, but its not like all of a sudden like 80% of lovian culture is based on the Monarhcy. I'm pretty sure the unique culture in Novosevensk, Adoha, Hurbanova, Newhaven, depends on it. There are still great places in NC like artista and bayside, still great tourist attractions. I don't know if your saying that I suggested to remove it from history entirely and would have to delete it, but I never said that, just making that clear. We already have history and culture elsewhere, and this like any moment would create more history, to abolish the Monarchy. But apparently without it we are dumb to think we even have any culture and to think such a thing we'd be "wearing blinkers"! Ooookay then, well again i'll be going to the entertainment districts and beaches in Adoha and Sofasi, the economic and lovian historical sites in Pool, the russian culture in Novo, the unique religious history in Amish Kinley, and the fully developed language of Oceana and tell them all, your culture isn't anything compared to the Monarchy, or even of worth if there is no Monarchy. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:03, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, I'm actually fed up with trying to debate with you. The Monarchy is relevant to Lovia's economy, culture and politics. If you click random page 10 times you will almost 100% guaranteed find a link to the current Monarch or something closely relavent to the Monarchy as a whole, therefore it is completely relevant. At least if I was talking to a reasonable person who was pro-Republican such as Topaz they would understand the positives of having a Monarchy, although I understand in his beliefs they do not outweigh the negatives. And if you are going to pretend that the Monarchy is nothing to the culture of Lovia then you clearly spend more time coming up with rebrands for Labour than you do actually reading the pages on this site. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 16:17, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Alright then, Leo Fuster, Free Society, Philip Eastwood, 1908, Harvian Islands, Heart2Heart, Murder of Maarten Dolmatoff, Rockafellow, The Share Home, N-Television, Quarry Museum, Sofasi Railway Station. Emerald Bakery, The Pale, Three agents, Zhoosh, Candles & Candles, and finally at random page hit number 18 i got a company privately owned by Prince Alexander Springles, which he is planing to leave and would again go directly to his bank account to, not to pay for the Monarchy it's self. I do get the positives, being with an unchangeable Head of State, that like during Britain under WWII doesn't change or have the possibility. The differences between the two cultural and historically must be admitted that both weigh towards the more historical. And again i've weighed the two, the negatives are greater than the positives. And thanks for the true colors to show with an attack on the UL, glad to see your still on that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:33, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, you have only proved me right. 1908, the fourth on your list has a link to Princess Manon of Lovia, Harvian Islands links to Dimitri I! OUR CURRENT MONARCH, Heart2Heart has Dimitri named on the page, Murder of Maarten Dolmatoff links to King Arthur II of Lovia! Rockafellow is part of Founders Inc. a corporation partly owned by the Monarch, The Pale (as learned Lovian historians know) is the area of land before the formation of Lovia that the Monarchy directly ruled and had authority over, Candles & Candles also has a direct link to our current Monarch. Please read the wikia more! And do remind me of the negatives, give me a quick lists. And true colours? what opposed to the idea of a big tent party as radically left as UL? true, I fear I might be showing my opposition. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 17:13, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

If I might give my opinion on this. I seriously doubt that the monarchy is a highlight of Lovia. For the main reason that it doesn't really have the likability other monarchies have (especially not after the Hurbanova Crisis...). However, abolition will not only cost "money", it will be a pain in the ass to regulate this. Updating several pages, and with the only benifit of ... (read: nothing :P) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:40, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some do not feel it is, for various reasons but your last two points are the main reasons I feel everyone can understand concerning why abolition of the monarchy is not a good idea. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 17:13, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
So let us then take this neccesary evil, Oos, and turn it to our nation's advantage. I shall make Lovia feel proud to be a monarchy once again and instil in many a young heart a true and honest love for their country and it's rich and vibrant culture. As the Dutch would say: "baat het niet, dan schaadt het niet". We have this monarchy now, whether we like it or not. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 17:10, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
TMV is right, there are many more possibilities to enrich Lovia with a Monarchy than without especially with someone as well versed in Lovia as he and as proud of the nation as he. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 17:13, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
So, why don't we give it a vote then è? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:46, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Put it too the second chamber comrades, the people request a vote! :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:49, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

021. Congressmen Payment Act[]

  1. Each Congressman that is elected will receive 4,075 Lovian Dollars per month during that Congressman's term.
    1. If a Congressman does not vote on at least three-fourths of the bills or motions proposed in the Second Chamber, the pay of that congressman is halved for that year
  2. A Congressman receives pay until be supplemented with another job or revenue resource, up to 150,000 dollars.
    1. Once a Congressman receives outside revenue or pay of up to 150,000, the congressman will receive no pay from the state
    2. To make sure those Congressmen do not receive payment starting with the 2014 Congress, members will put a (NP) or "No Payment" to receive no state pay. If Congressmen wish to receive payment up to 150,000 with a supplement from the state, one should report it to the Minister of Finance before his yearly budget.
    3. Those that fail to mark correctly, or falsely report payment that Congressman will be banned from Congress for three months and receive no payment for the rest of the year.

I don't know if this act is needed but we certainly have a large number of Congressmen who are multi-millionaires and don't need payment at all. Again IRL we don't pay Congressmen so we need to allow workers and other middle class people to run with some payment. Congressmen will receive payment up to where it is supplemented with 150,000. Example: Yearly salary with no penalties: 48,900. So lets say that Congressmen works for another company and earns 130,000, he should report that he will only receive 20,000 from the state. Or can even deny the state pay if he or she feels fit, its up to you. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:42, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

The current (unofficial) salary in the budget is just $50,000. I think that it would be a lot easier to just have that salary that's the same for everyone (also, job income is not the only income either, there are also investments, gifts, etc.) except congressmen that refuse it. Then, in the elections, congressors who don't need the money but accept it can be slammed in advertisements. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:01, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Second Chamber[]

001. Government[]

I propose the following Government, Government Oos Wes Ilava II:

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro 13 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:54, February 7, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes. 77topaz (talk) 08:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes. But we should have the people with two posts use another character for their second post. I'll probably keep Galahad on Finance like last year. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 7 votes. fantastic stuff, here's to a new year of success Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 12:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes. Wabba The I (talk) 17:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 3 votes. Fantastic. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 votes. OK, I'll support this. --Semyon 18:53, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 6 votes (Read comments made by Hoffmann, totally correct. The users, and while I'm against QZ as health minister (i'm proud hes active), are inactive and wouldn't be able to fufill there jobs) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:49, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 2 votes. Daembrales (talk) 23:00, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 votes. -Sunkist- (talk) 00:08, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 9 votes Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 07:12, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Contra[]

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 1 vote. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:54, February 7, 2013 (UTC) (RTP)
  • Abstention Abstention 5 votes. Horton is right. --Semyon 19:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 2 votes .Granero (talk) 01:06, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! The Ilava II Government is now in power. :D —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

Users like Granero and Daembrales have all shown interest in having a ministry position, so we should include them. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:27, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

To a degree I do agree however I think that the lack of year round activity and lack of a well developed position known to the citizens of the wikia makes it hard for us to confidently include them. I think a good idea would be to have a reshuffle of the government in maybe 3, 4 or 6 months and review the positions that they have shown interest in and see if they: a) are active enough to assume positions and b) have shown attempts to develop that area of interest in lovia. Personally I think a review in three months would be good and would hardly be unfair. We address concerns and ensure that if they are properly addressed they get the positions they deserve. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 14:33, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
When starts it? Wabba The I (talk) 17:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Then again it might be better to include more users than having a select few with two or more (Oos being the exception). And going on the year round activity, Granero and Pikapi have been as active as Sunkist, yet they have none and he has two. I would like to see further inclusion now, and in a few monts when we do the review we can reshuffle the ministries of less active users. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 18:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
The few who have two are normally the ones who were unchallenged in the positions they chose or whose positions were only challenged by other people with multiple positions. It is impossible to include users in positions that they want when that position they want is occupied by a person with that position only. This is the problem you do not seem to see. On the matter of Sunkist, Sunkist has been a lot more active than Granero and Pikapi (who didn't even show interest in a position) recently (over the past three months) and you fail to also consider he was almost completely unchallenged for those positions. This is inclusion as far as we can get it with the people who want these positions. Too many people want the same positions, we can't please everyone so we've chosen the people we think are best. I'd hope you'd agree rather than bring up points that have been repeatedly addressed. I'm glad you're on board for the review though, I think that if we have tri-monthly reviews we can keep government active and reward users with commitment and interest, it's good to have you on board for that. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 19:20, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
We could just give Daembrales and Granero one of the relatively unchallenged positions. Though I would still like to review the Health position (nah, his Bismarck ideas are a step in the right direction, so it's fine) HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 19:30, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
We don't want to give them a position they don't want and ask them to be responsible for it, that's unfair on both them and the people who take and interest too. Glad you've come around, the Bismarck model is a model for universal healthcare, he's on our side with this, truly. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:48, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with not having a post. =) I think that there are better candidates than me, as i am not too active and not too experienced either. However, i would appreciate a ministry if someone thinks i am fit for the job. :D Daembrales (talk) 23:00, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

@Daembrales - Remember you have multiple congresspersons, (2 i think) vote with them Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:10, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

@Pikapi - You didn't sign up for any ministries. Even if you are active, a major party head, and former Minister of Commerce, you didn't sign up for anything :/ @Horton - A lot of Americans don't support universal healthcare at all. I just don't want taxes funding things like gender switches and what not. For legitimate medical treatment it makes sense to pay for people, but when it's something like that, I don't see a need for others to pay for it. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Sunkist seems to prefer simply the name "Ministry of Agriculture". Should we continue using that name or use the new longer name, or perhaps a compromise between the two as simply "Food and Agriculture"? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:21, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Should or shouldn't separate people be used for separate ministries (e.g. Nicholas Sheraldin for Minister of Environment, Levi Straszev for Minister of Tourism and Sport)? 77topaz (talk) 02:58, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you get to decide. You could even use one of George's or Viva's users. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Should a page Ilava II Government be created, and the ministers be listed there? 77topaz (talk) 03:41, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Eventually :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:10, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
Why not yet? :P 77topaz (talk) 07:18, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
@ Quarantine Zone- Are boob jobs and sex changes medical necessities? No, so we should not include those in any law. You are right in that I'd like to fund our healthcare through taxes, but we need limits. Cosmetic changes for vanity purposes should not be covered. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:05, February 8, 2013 (UTC)  

SCJ[]

This is where the supreme court judges shall be elected.

Kevin Madison (Happy65)[]

Ygo August Donia (TMV)[]

Arthur Ismagiloff (Semyon)[]

Victor Veldhoven (GP)[]

Ucchi Kirishima (QZ/CDP)[]

Owen Stanton (Wabba The I)[]


Samantha Brown (TimeMaster)[]

AS IT IS NOW THE 1ST OF MARCH, THE SCJ VOTING IS CLOSED. THE NEW SUPREME JUDGES ARE KEVIN MADISON (20 VOTES), ARTHUR ISMAGILOFF (17 VOTES) AND SAMANTHA BROWN (17 VOTES)

Ministry of Justice. 

004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite[]

As a concerned Lovian, I propose to change our Marriage Act in subtle ways to make it more open-minded. Lovians - progressives and conservatives alike - are open-minded people, who care deeply about liberty, but also equality, justice, and harmonious living. I found that the Marriage Act was well-written, but did not account for a few things, and had a few very old-fashioned and liberty-restricting elements.

The rewrite I propose is not a radical overhaul. My own politics are those of radical overhaul, but with this proposal, I just want to bring minor, beneficial change to Lovia. I hope it shows I am serious about politics, and that I care about coalitions, alliances, and goodwill in politics.

The original text can be found in the Federal Law.

Proposed version Marriage Act[]

  1. Marriage is an understanding between two adult people, referred to as parties, who voluntarily agree to take up certain rights and duties.
    1. The spouses have the duty to live in harmony with each other, offering each other respect, affection, consolation, and care and treating each other in fairness.
    2. The spouses have the duty to communicate with each other and make informal agreements concerning both the personal and professional including work, the household, sex, parenting, and finances, and to verbally resolve any conflicts. Considering the possibility that the spouses cannot come to an agreement on their own terms, it is the duty of both spouses to counsel for advice from a third party.
    3. The spouses have the right to retain their autonomy within their marriage including the right to choose and perform the profession of their liking, the right to keep personal finances, and the right to individually see and meet people.
    4. The spouses share the responsibility to take care of their children or others in their custody as well as of their possessions and properties.
      1. Both spouses share the liability to all expenses made for the benefit of the spouses’ child or children, which can be proven to be essential to the well being of the child.
      2. While the spouses have the right to make any informal or formal arrangement as to whom pays what, the law can enforce the shared liability of expenses of the above-described type in the case that conflict arises and the existing arrangement is fundamentally unfair to either or both spouses.
    5. Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with vitals.
  2. Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met:
    1. Each of the parties is at least 18 years old, or 16 given that the parents or custodians of the less than 18-year-old party fully consent with the marriage;
    2. Each of the parties agrees with the marriage on a voluntary basis;
    3. None of the parties is already in a standing marriage under Lovian law or under similar law in the country where the marriage was carried out;
    4. The parties are not genetically related in the first or second degree ruling out marriages between parents and children, brothers and/or sisters, aunts and/or uncles, and nephews and/or nieces, and cousins.
  3. The solemnization of a marriage is carried out in public before a representative of the law.
    1. A representative of the law is the Governor of the State in which the marriage is solemnized, a person appointed by that Governor, or any person who is in public service in the federal or state government.
    2. No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met, unless he or she conscientiously objects to the solemnization, in which case he or she shall report his objections to a Deputy Governor or another representative of the law who must then contact the parties to arrange for solemnization to take place under his or her supervision. The government is legally bound to solemnize any marriage that conforms to the demands set forth by the law.
    3. The parties sign a marriage contract at the public solemnization agreeing to the conditions laid out by the law. The representative of the law acts as a witness and validates the contract by signing it as well.
  4. A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases:
    1. If the marriage is proven to not have been legally solemnized;
    2. If one of the spouses obtains a cancellation of the marriage contract;
      1. A spouse can cancel a marriage through a lawsuit if he or she proves that the other spouse has neglected his or her duties as a spouse;
        1. In this case, the neglecting spouse can be sanctioned to provide financial support to the neglected spouse.
        2. In this case, the judge must decide upon an arrangement concerning raising the spouses’ child or children, taking into account the opinions and wishes of both spouses as well as of the children concerned.
          1. Unless one of the spouses is considered an immediate threat to the health and security of a child, every person has the right to have regular contact and communication with his or her child.
          2. Every arrangement decided upon by a judge must take into account the health, security, and happiness of the child and the spouses’ ability to provide for those.
    3. If both spouses agree upon the termination of their marriage, effectively cancelling the marriage contract in the presence of a representative of the law.
    4. Upon the death of one of the spouses, or both, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.
    5. One year after one of the spouses has been reported as missing and has not been found, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.

Proposed changes[]

In the proposed version, some of the terminology has been changed, either to increase uniformity and clarity, or to reflect a more open-minded spirit. No mention is made of homosexuality, though: our law already allows for same-sex marriage.

The duties and rights of married people change, so that they are no longer obliged to actually live together (it is possible to be married harmoniously and live in separate places) and are no longer legally obliged to be sexually faithful to each other. Instead, extra emphasis is put on the emotional duties of married couples. Also expanded is the section on how to resolve marriage conflicts, including those with children.

The age at which marriage can be solemnized is lowered to 16, given the parents' consent.

The solemnization is simplified. A couple in want of a marriage only needs a representative of the law, more broadly defined now: the governor, someone appointed by him/her, or anyone else representing Lovian government. The "announcement" period is no longer needed.

The law explicitly states that "No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met". At the urging of Ooswesthoesbes, a provision is included to allow for conscientious objection by the representative of the law. A simple but efficient procedure is included to arrange for such cases.

Termination of the marriage contract by a single party, through a lawsuit, is rewritten. Provisions are included on what the judge can decide, financially and in the matter of children. The stress is on making harmonious arrangements and looking after the child's interests. A divorce should not be a war, and the child should never be its victim.

Thank you for your consideration. Punarbhava (talk) 17:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Voting[]

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro 13 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB)
  • Pro Pro 2 votes Wabba The I (talk) 17:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 6 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:21, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (a bill written by a progressive, supported mostly by a christian conservative. Seems like Pun has found some good fame in Lovia :D great job!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:21, March 5, 2013 (UTC))
  • Pro Pro 8 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:56, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 3 votes - It's not that I particularly like the law, but it's a lot better than the old one, so I'm voting pro.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:58, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes 77topaz (talk) 02:37, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 3 votes. Bart K (talk) 08:31, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 7 votes - The first bill of the new government, let's keep on moving! - Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 08:52, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 Votes -Sunkist- (talk) 02:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Contra[]

Abstention[]

  • Abstention Abstention (4 votes) HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:56, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 1 votes. Bart K (talk) 08:31, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! With a 51% majority. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:47, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

Thank you, Lovians! Punarbhava (talk) 09:50, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

007. Voting Rights[]

This since we're adding to the Constitution must have at least 75% 66% a tall, tall order. But I think we have enough general approval for this no? Within it we secure the right to vote for those 18 or Older, and with approval of governors (extending state's rights and devolution) to 16 in statewide elections. We also protect minorities in their right to vote and the right to exercise that right without interference.

  1. Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.
    1. The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote.
      1. Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
  2. A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.
  3. No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.
    1. Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
      1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
    2. The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order.
    3. Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
      1. Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
        1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Voting[]

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro 6 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:14, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes on the condition that it is in Article 2. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:46, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 13 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:05, March 16, 2013 (UTC) (CCPL - OSB): I'd prefer Article 5, but I'm not too bothered about it either.
  • Pro Pro 5 votes. Seems ok. :) --Semyon 18:08, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 18:22, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 18:55, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes 77topaz (talk) 19:49, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 3 votes, and I really don't care what Article it's added to. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:57, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 9 votes. Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 19:32, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 7 votes - hey hey hey! I think this is passed :D Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:40, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Contra[]

  • Contra Contra 1 vote. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:05, March 16, 2013 (UTC) RTP: Women should be excluded from voting rights.
  • Contra Contra 5 votes. "The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order." And states should be able to set voting age at any rage, it be under 18 or over 18. -Sunkist- (talk) 21:25, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 8 votes My condition was not followed, so I will support the later proposed repeal. The proposal was never passed since I only voted Pro on my condition. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:13, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 2 votes - not sure what is going on here so ill follow tm Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Declined This proposal is declined. Withdrawn. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

(Correction: only 66% for an amendment, not 75%) --Semyon 18:08, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this go in section 5 though due to its realtion to election matters? The article doesn't matter much to me though Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:22, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

66% thanks semyon for the corrections, also glad to see the voice of far-right conservatism always in play :P (so far 32 votes in favor!) Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:16, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Your voting contra over personal reasons, sunkist. Dissapointing. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:32, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

What, I just said why I'm voting against it, I'm against the Supreme Court taking peoples voting rights away and the states inability to set the age limit where they want too. How can you just accuse me like this, what the hell? -Sunkist- (talk) 21:42, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know the supreme court ccan but remember, you'd have to file the case. But it before the court, get it agreed to, then afterwards if there is public dissaproval its accpeted. If there is then obviously Lovia, Democracy, and the Judiciary branch must be corrupt. I think that's aimed at very horrible ciminals or domestic terrorists (civil war) so that if they do go to jail, (in our case) prisoners having the right to vote, you don't. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:46, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Then sepecify it and also allow states to raise or lower the age limit as they please, don't make them have a cap limit. -Sunkist- (talk) 22:08, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
It would make little sense for people to be able to vote in the federal elections but not their state's elections. :P 77topaz (talk) 22:13, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
I thank topaz for that totally valid point. On the issue of the courts, you can chage it after this passes to a more progressive liking if you want, i'll support it. The general support is for the universal (almost) age of 18. So we kept that federally. But there is some who want 17 and 16, so im devolving that power to the states just for statewide elections. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:18, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Slight problem[]

For this law to go in effect, we would have to bring back the State Laws. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:47, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Should we change it to governor, then? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:53, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
Well, such a thing should be in a law. So, it requires state law :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:01, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
@Oos - You've seen through my master plan of proposing a law which would eventually rile up state's rights advocates like you into starting a fight for devolution. LOL no but i'm 1000% behind state law, let's get on it!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:58, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Libertas becoming a full member of the IWO[]

Libertas will officialy become a member of the International Wikination Organisation. Wabba The I (talk) 18:08, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

Comments[]

  • I don't feel I can vote on this until I have a link to the wikination in question. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 20:47, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
    • Come on, you've never heard of Libertas? HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 20:48, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
      • (edc) Here you go. I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it already tbh. --Semyon 20:51, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted! By a 51% majority at minimum (QZ did not specify # of votes). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:12, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Wabba The I (talk) 11:13, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

009. Repeal of Twelfth Amendment[]

I request that the Twelfth Amendment be repealed, and be replaced with the text below. Wikipedia defines a constitution as 'a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.' While parts of the Amendment fit this definition, such as minimum age requirements, or anti-discrimination clauses, because they are 'fundamental principles' which Lovia is governed by, others don't. For example, it's not within the remit of a constitution to decide that electioneering as acceptable 30.1 meters away from a ballot station, but not 29.9 meters away. I think this was why there was so much uncertainty about which article to put the law into - it's because actually it shouldn't be in any of them.

An extra part of Article 2 of the constitution (in bold):

  1. Every human being and citizen has the right:
    1. Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion.
    2. Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language, sex, property, birth or other statuses.
    3. Of privacy.
    4. To have personal or common property.
    5. To be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly.
    6. To have a residence.
    7. To work and to receive education.
    8. To relax and recreate.
    9. To live in peace with his or her fellow-men.
    10. To live in welfare.
    11. To become a Lovian citizen.
  2. Every Lovian citizen has the right:
    1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three.
  3. Every Lovian citizen above the minimum age requirement has the right:
    1. To vote in federal and state elections.
      1. The minimum age requirement is set at:
        1. Eighteen years, for the federal elections.
        2. Either sixteen, seventeen or eighteen years, for the state elections, at the discretion of the government of the respective state.
      2. No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.

An new federal law, to be entitled the Elections Regulation Act:

  1. Any citizen wishing to exercise their constitutional right to vote must file registration for voting with the State Government.
    1. Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
  2. Proven violation of Article 2.3.1.2. of the Constitution is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
    1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
  3. The voting rights of citizens can be removed by way of a Supreme Court order if they are deemed unfit to exercise those rights.
  4. Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
    1. Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
      1. The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Voting[]

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro 5 votes. --Semyon 17:03, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes -- Repeal is not necessary, however, since I voted pro on a condition, and my condition was not followed, and thus the necessary support was not reached. This should be treated as the revised Twelfth Amendment, the original of which never passed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:15, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • The same argument did occur to me, but I wondered if it was somewhat specious. :P --Semyon 20:42, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 6 votes (good compromise) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:08, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • Glad you think so. :) --Semyon 21:11, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes. The other clauses should be added to the Federal Law separately. 77topaz (talk) 02:37, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 3 votes - Sounds good on paper. So I'm incline to believe it will work well in act. Flag of the Hurian Federation Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:53, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 14 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:51, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 12:40, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 13:45, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 7 votes again well for such a reform - Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:38, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 3 votes. Isn't most of this in Article 8 of the constitution? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:12, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes. Bart K (talk) 12:36, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Contra[]

  • Contra Contra 5 votes, I still believe that states should be able to place age limits on their elections at any age they want, or keep it at 18. ---Sunkist- (talk) 08:36, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand that, but I don't think that age limits should ever go below 16. I think that allowing states to set their own limits is remarkably devolutionist in itself. :) --Semyon 21:45, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain[]

  • ...

Well, the ERA is now passed, but the Constitution part isn't. :/ I'll add ERA. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted! By a 68% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:45, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

010. One millionth State Reform[]

Okay, I think it's good enough. We need a special majority: State Law and State Council. As there does not seem to be enough support for State Courts, I propose to keep it in the freezer and maybe vote seperately on that later on.

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 8 votes - Elections for the state council are too complex. I think it's too much. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 8 votes. Same as Time here. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:01, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Declined This proposal is declined. Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

Couldn't this be a 12th state reform :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:55, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the twelfth amendment if accepted, but not the twelfth state reform :P I think it's the fourth :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:57, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
True my mistake :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:06, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's the third real state reform if we don't count the one when Dimitri wanted to stress Lovia as a federal state :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:09, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
How many votes pro semyon! XD lol Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:32, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
I understand 3.4.2 good but what is it now? Oceana has what age and Kings has what age and ... ? Wabba The I (talk) 18:37, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? About, voting age? It varies about state elections is all not that major. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:32, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
@Wabba: the voting age will be set in the State Law. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 03:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Let me stress the direct need of State Laws, or the law above this one will be illegal (no state laws, no setting of voting age per state). So I urge all the people blocking this to bring forth better ideas or change their vote to Pro Pro. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:20, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

And anyway, actually, apart from states with more than three candidates running, nothing changes. There is nothing that's more complex... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:32, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is prohibited to set a state voting age. State Laws might be illegal, but this is just a decree. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:25, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
A voting age should be placed in a legal document. Currently, states - read the constitution - do not have the right to create legal documents. And as I said, practically, nothing changes, apart from the new State Laws and the fact that a user will represent f.e. 15 people instead of 1... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:37, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
I don't even think It will be that much though, this law is designed to say, If your interest and want to mae changes to your state you should have the choice not just one man with near dictorial authority only bound to by the federal law. I think even after this, a clause to say you can run and be able to  participate in two states whould be better because if you have the interest to change your state you should be able to. This way, even while a good half of users are semi inactive we will have at least two to four users trying to vote and change states. Obviously I think users like Semyon and Oos, in there respecctive states, will hold near majorities in there states because of there interest and now the use of the '3-2-1' voting system in state elections. For myself? I would love to rune in Clymene and Sylvania, I love both of these states, hell I would even love to do it in all give, but I understand that that isnt practical but what would be better is two so people can have invested interest in the state they do love. And plus theres an inactivity part within this bill, s o if soo many new users get elected, and fail to participate, new elections are held, and i'm guess the actives user's share of the vote will be greatly increased. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:13, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, your entire argument is invalid, as most states have already implemented state councils... The only thing that'll change is that they get State Laws (so some real legislation). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:01, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

My argument? Anyway I think this vote has failed. so if thats the case It's just one step closer to the LP abstaining from congress, its getting old. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:55, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

No, TM's argument that it would make everything more difficult. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 03:21, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

011. Repeal Green Energy Act[]

It's silly. --Semyon 16:17, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Voting[]

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro 5 votes. --Semyon 16:17, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 votes. -Sunkist- (talk) 16:18, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 7 votes Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 16:19, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 6 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:57, April 20, 2013 (UTC) (I prolly even voted for this, but it's empty language and not even enforced)

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes (The "premise" of the act is good, but it seems to have been ignored) 77topaz (talk) 21:02, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
We who started this, (Sunkist, Semyon and me) want to repeal this and replace it with a new Green Energy act that is properly written and can actually help us progress as a nation towards green energy. A pro would help us to get this moving. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:27, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
I say get the act written first. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:00, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TM. First write a new one, cuz then we'd only need one change in the law instead of two. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:57, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes - On the grounds that I'd much rather see what the other party has to offer before I make any decisions on the matter. Flag of the Hurian Federation Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:36, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Declined This proposal is declined. Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

012. Approval of the Headlands Cross State Line[]

The construction of the "Headlands Cross State Line" will take place.

  • Costs - $70,500,000
    • Labour - 1 average worker @ ~$60,000 - ~500 workers - $30,000,000
    • Resources - 1km of rail @ ~$500,000 - ~81km of rail - $40,500,000

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 14 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:33, May 18, 2013 (UTC) I keep to my point that I'll only approve this if a railway between East Hills and Hurb is constructed as well.
  • Can that not be done in another vote? Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 14:35, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
    Not separately :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:09, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
    @oos - if the people who support this in princple of railroad contrustion and jobs they'd prolly support it too so vote pro! Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:13, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention Where are stations or stops? Wabba The I (talk) 16:18, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention (clarified) Agree with Wabba, and also, is this the same thing that we had discussed in chat a couple months ago to extend one line and make the unextended part a double line? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:46, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
    • @wabba? Are you serious? Usually it'll be decided by the train company that wants to use it and will be done along the way. the last one that was agreed too, in which YOU were apart of. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:36, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
@Wabba - Stops are in Charleston, Train Village and Noble City. @Time - yes that exact one. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 19:46, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
We already have the Peace Island Railway and the Trans Sylvanian Railway which both stops in Clave Rock so why a new one? But you are rights. Charleston needs a station too. But I think it is better to smelt them into one (Trans Sylvanian and this proposal) with stops in Noble City, Train Village, Charleston and Clave Rock? But you are the Governor and Deputy Governor. Wabba The I (talk) 20:18, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Thing is Wabba, Noble City, Train Village and Clave Rock are all connected to the railway system. Clave Rock, which has less population than Charleston, is connected and Charleston isn't. This plan would connect it and because of the increased traffic that would be faced (transportation of both people and cargo) it also expands the tracks to Noble City, this increase in capacity will bolster our economy. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 21:10, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
I think 400 workers is good enough for both (not together). Wabba The I (talk) 14:44, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted! With a 62% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:08, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

013. Approval of the Emerald Railway[]

Renovation of the Emerald Railway.

  • Costs - $100,000,000
  • Stops: Hurbanova Shkola Hurbanovni (to be constructed on the current line Hurbanova - NC), East Hills

Voting[]

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro 14 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:43, May 19, 2013 (UTC) If more than 25+ votes here, I'll switch my vote above :P
    • There are 35 votes pro already. :P 77topaz (talk) 05:05, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 08:28, May 19, 2013 (UTC) East Hills need a station.
  • Pro Pro 8 votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:47, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 7 votes - I can support this, however we really need to add the cost of these projects to the budget. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 13:59, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 2 votes Daembrales (talk) 18:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 5 votes ---Sunkist- (talk) 03:23, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 8 votes HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:03, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes. (This has 52 votes now, I think) 77topaz (talk) 19:57, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 6 votes (fasionably late ;P) Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:12, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro Pro 4 votes Bart K (talk) 09:09, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Contra[]

  • (btw i never abstain, don't see the point of it) Contra Contra 6 votes, needs discussion in some form in the first chamber like our railway did. No petty politics please. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:55, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • If you had read all the links I have given you earlier on, you would've known it is entirely worked out. Better than your proposal :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:38, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
    What links? we never even debated this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:25, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
    In a slightly different model which also connects East Hills to Clave Rock, f.e.: [4] --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:07, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain[]

  • ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! With a 52% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:39, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • Do we really need such a large budget. Both railway projects costs too much. Yes tracks are expensive but do we really need 500 workers? Do we really need to pay them all $60,000? Wabba The I (talk) 19:17, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
    Well, it's a project that will take more than a year to construct, so we'd have to give the workers a year worth of salary. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 03:20, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
    The land in Sylvania the route the track will be laid is quite flat, with lots of workers piling on forwards, it won't be much longer than 1 year. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 09:01, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
    Well, the land in Oceana is quite rocky and not flat :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:27, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
    Yes but the route it will be built along is quite flat because there was once a train track there (even with disrepair and damage it won't be too difficult to refurbish things). Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 10:34, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
    True, but you seem to miss out two things: 1. It will be a double-track, so the current route will have to be broadened. 2. We need to build a new railroad bridge over the Hurbanova Stream :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 04:07, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

014. Referendum Act[]

  1. All registered Lovian citizens, aged 18 or over, may vote in any nation-wide referendum ordered by Congress.
  2. A referendum taking place is semi-binding to what the majority of the voters on the proposal indicated as their preference.
  3. Each referendum should contain two options that can be voted on by any voter.
    1. The option that receives the simple majority of the vote or more will become the option acted upon by Congress and the Federal Government, making appropriate changes.
      1. For a referendum to become semi-binding, an option must receive at least a simple majority of the votes.
        1. If no option is able to receive a simple majority of the vote after the first vote, the least popular option will be dropped and another vote held at a later date to settle the issue. This must occur repeatedly until an option receives a simple majority of the vote.
      2. The first round of voting takes place in Forum:Referendum and has a legal duration of at least one week, and two weeks at most.
      3. If a second round of voting is needed, it too takes place in Forum:Referendum and has a legal duration of at least one week, and two weeks at most.
  4. Voter turnout, the total amount of correctly casted ballots, must be at least one third of the total franchise for a referendum's result to be semi-binding.
  5. A referendum can only be issued by the Lovian Congress, following a simple majority in favor of any proposal to hold one.
  6. All referendums passed by Congress and their recorded results are added to a list of "Approved Referendums".

Voting[]

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! With a 58% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:50, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

We should a binding referendum section too? I think we should propose a referenudm on state and local councils as well ^_^ Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:59, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea. I'm contra binding referenda in the law. Any way, we as Congress ultimately should keep the power. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:10, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
We should also provide a mechanism to ensure congress largely follows the voice of the people, instead of voting NO or YES despite a majority of Lovians wanting the opposite. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 14:01, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
We should not :P We've got elections to pay off any wrongs. If the people are not satisfied with the way Congress works, they'll vote them away. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:30, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

015. Revision of OWTBs State Reform: no state councils[]

As I believe it to be in the direct need of the states to regain legislative powers, I will add a reform with just the reconfiguration of the state laws (source: [5], changes are fat).

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

  1. 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 ministers of the federal government, and has control over government ministries, government institutions and civil services.
        1. The Prime Minister and other ministers 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 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.

Article 5 – Legislature and executive power

  1. In general, the competencies of the state level are limited to local government that does not interfere with federal law and government. The following competencies belong to the state level:
    1. The naming, organizing and maintaining of urban parks, public places, streets, markets, roads (with the exclusion of highways), waterways, natural areas and environmentally significant places that are not protected by the federal government, culturally significant monuments that are not protected by the federal government.
    2. Informing the state population about the various aspects of the state, the federal government and its policies.
    3. The construction and planning of neighborhoods and hamlets.
      1. The Governor may decide on the construction, destruction, re-organization of neighborhoods and hamlets in that specific state.
        1. The Lovian Congress may overrule the Governor's decision by a normal majority. From the moment a bill to overrule that decision has been proposed to Congress, the Governor cannot proceed with the construction, destruction or re-organization. If the decision is in effect overruled by Congress, the Governor may not construct, destroy or re-organize neighborhoods and hamlets for one month, to protect the state and its inhabitants from whimsical construction plans.
    4. Bringing the people of Lovia and the different levels and branches of government closer to one another.
    5. Advising the Lovian Congress on issues related to the particular state.
    6. Advising federal institutions in relation to protected natural regions and culturally significant locations and monuments in the particular state.
    7. Creating and managing state agencies and corporations which have the sole function and duty to perform the tasks the state government is entitled to perform, including but not exclusively maintaining roads and waterways and protecting cultural and natural heritage.
      1. Such agencies and corporations are not entitled to engage in other economic activities.
      2. The number of such agencies and corporations within one state may not exceed five, allowing states to run a cultural heritage agency, a natural protection agency, a public works corporation, an urban planning agency, and other possible such agencies or corporations.
  2. All competencies not covered by the states inhere to the federal level.
  3. When a state is in conflict with the federal level or with another state, in relation to their legal competencies, any of the involved parties may consult the Supreme Court.
    1. The Supreme Court Judge must in turn consult the laws of Lovia and must interpret these justly and with respect to the well-being of the Lovians.
      1. The Supreme Court Judge must then decide to which of the involved parties the competency of conflict inheres.
      2. The Supreme Court Judge may also find the matter inconclusive. He or she may then require the Congress to amend the Constitution. Such a requirement is binding and obligatory.

Article 6 – Amending the Federal Law and State Law

  1. 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.
  2. 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 Minister 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.
  3. 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.
  4. For each motion that has been moved to the Second Chamber by Congress, and that is in due time either approved, rejected or proven unable to gain the required support, Congress must keep a record, starting February 1st of the year 2011, which will be known as the Congressional Journal.
  5. A motion to amend the State Law can be:
    • A proposal for a new article in the State Law;
    • A proposal to amend a section of the State Law;
    • A proposal to remove a section of the State Law.
  6. The required steps to propose a motion to the State Law:
    1. All Lovian citizens that reside in the concerning State may write and propose motions to the State Law.
    2. Motions are presented to the respective State's Governor.
    3. The Governor is expected to read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of the Governor, changes may be proposed.
      1. The Governor has two weeks time to either accept or decline a proposal.
    4. When the motion is accepted by the Governor, it must be implemented. The Governor and the Deputy Governor are enprivileged to enshrine passed motions in the law, although all citizens of the respective State may do that, if done correctly.
    5. When the motion is not accepted, either because the Governor opposed it or because the two weeks consideration time expired, it shall not be implemented.
      1. Any citizen has the right to propose an altered version for reconsideration to the Governor.
  7. A motion that is not intended to be enshrined in the State Law, but that does need Governor's approval, is proposed and managed in the same way.
  8. The Lovian Congress reserves the right to block additions and amendments to the State Law by a normal majority, if the motion is deemed contradictive, unconstitutional or illegal.
  9. It is legal for States to create a State Council with the State's own choice of election system and system of running. However, the Governor has the final say over the workings of the State, behind the Federal Congress.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • Neutral Neutral 1 vote Wabba The I (talk) 10:23, June 8, 2013 (UTC) What do you mean with article 6: 2.5.3 the last part: "the proposer may also choose to lengthen the voting period"?
  • That's a part which already exists in the current law: it means that if a majority has not yet been reached within two weeks (because of some temporarily inactive politicians), but chances are high it will be accepted, the proposer may choose to add another week of voting. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:30, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments[]

I propose to add this line: It is legal for states to create a state council with the state's own choice of election system and system of running. However, the Governor has the final say over the workings of the state, behind the federal Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:47, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really add anything, cause it's not illegal without the line being in the law. But if you think it's really necessary, we'll add it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:30, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
It's not really necessary, it'd just be nice. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:50, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if anyone objects to this, just change your vote. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:45, June 10, 2013 (UTC) that'd be clear enough I'd say :P

A quick calculation: 58 out of 67 > 9 to go :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:23, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're some of those nine votes, please also vote pro on the election amendment farther up the page. x) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:19, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I never understood though why we don't do it out of percentage of votes casted. I mean within a two week period obviously people will vote pro or contra, and it will be seen, so why not just count those who want it passed or not passed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:26, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Because if two out of three total voters (of one hundred MOTCs) voted, it shouldn't pass. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:27, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

yeah but thats why each law must have two weeks of minimal voting. So within that two week period if another memebr sees it and votes contra then it doesn't pass :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

5 to go :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:20, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted! --Semyon 15:53, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

WE HAVE STATE COUNCILS depending on the state and laws which will take time Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:59, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

016. Weapons and Safety Act[]

  1. Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to conceal any fire arms from others while in public.
    1. All owners must be at least 24 years of age.
    2. Ballistic knives and sheath knives are not considered fire arms.
  2. All automatic weapons are illegal, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
  3. Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy, but legal to own for historical purposes.
  4. Bayonets are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy, but legal to own for historical purposes.
  5. Bullets containing poison, toxins, and explosives are illegal to manufacture, trade, buy, sell, and own, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
    1. In the case of an official government military, militia, or police, soft chemical explosives are legal.
      1. This includes chemicals similar to the following: Capsaicin (pepper spray), phenacyl chloride (mace), sleeping gas, tear gas, or chemicals in stun grenades.
        1. Sleeping gas is any chemical containing halothane vapour (Fluothane), methyl propyl ether (Neothyl), methoxyflurane (Penthrane), 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or fentanyl.
        2. Tear gas is any chemical containing chlorobenzalmalononitrile, dibenzoxazepine, nonivamide, bromoacetone, xylyl bromide, or synpropanethial-S-oxide.
        3. Stun grenades are any explosive containing pyrotechnic metal-oxidant mixes of magnesium or aluminum, ammonium perchlorate, or potassium perchlorate.
  6. Newly manufactured items that have a similar look or use to firearms are required to have orange tips to signify that they are not legally firearms.
    1. This includes but is not limited to water guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, BB guns, and model guns.
  7. Bows and crossbows are considered weapons fit for hunting.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes - Only on the grounds that I find the ban on certain weapons to be a bit too overreaching. Like maybe my guy wants a fully automatic rifle. However, on the grounds of protecting citizens and not being a gun nut, I agree with the billion. Since I'm split on the matter, I abstain. The Hurian Database Wiki Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:29, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
    Why the * would you need an automatic rifle for self-protection? A normal gun is more than enough and if won't cause as much collateral damage :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:55, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 8 votes - Argh, I still think this might be mergeable with the Firearms Act. The last line is kind of meaningless, also. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes. Yeah, this should probably be reworked, indeed. 77topaz (talk) 04:33, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 7 votes there are bits overly picky and far too specific, I also think that a change like this needs to be a complete rethink of the firearms act and more. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 09:57, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes Like 77topaz, Hoffmann and TimeMaster said. Wabba The I (talk) 13:24, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes. Bart K (talk) 12:48, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Comments[]

  • ...

017. No confidence[]

With the passing of this motion, Congress withdraws its support for the Ilava II Government and calls for immediate federal elections.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • Contra Contra 8 votes - Btw, I thought we were trying to keep the numbers (017. etc.) first & second chamber proposals synchronized? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:28, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 8 votes (might move to abstain). New elections are unnecessary as our congress is active and works well. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 17:00, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 4 votes. As per Horton11. 77topaz (talk) 02:28, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 4 votes Wabba The I (talk) 13:21, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Abstention[]

  • Abstention Abstention 14 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:55, June 15, 2013 (UTC) I haven't decided yet
  • ...

Comments[]

We have inactive people, so what happens if of all total votes cast, there is a majority Pro? There's also a mismatch between motions of confidence (the first proposal that selects the government at the top of this page) and motions of no confidence: a contra for a confidence is a pro for a no confidence and vice versa. But what's an abstention? Should the government be required to maintain confidence, so we'd need a 50% vote Contra to block this proposal? I don't even know; I'll check the Constitution. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:40, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

I checked this already. A motion of confidence is treated like any other, so this will have to receive 50% pro to pass. :) --Semyon 15:42, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, just checked that too. Maybe it's something to consider changing next Congress? :/ —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:45, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, imo wouldn't an absentation, in this case, just be like not voting at all since it's just a straight foward Yes or No vote? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:51, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
No, this bill has to get 50% to pass as normal. So as usual abstentions are the same as voting contra, practically speaking. --Semyon 15:53, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
IDK how that goes but I thought you wanted the SCP destroyed, this would be a way to raise activity and get rid of them. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:40, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
I do, but I don't think an entirely new Congress is necessary. :P I might change my vote later, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:46, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
Well that's not nice. Lovia should not go into dirty politics like our neighbors to the east. My future with SCP is uncertain and has to be decided. I might just act on behalf of the party and merge it into a new project if Marcus is still in (as Happy is not around). HORTON11 Inbox • Follow me! 17:00, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
Well Ill have to talk to you about that, honestly on chat or now. I have questions Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:30, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
It's not nice, but it's the truth. SCP just doesn't fit in Lovian politics in my idealistic view. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 04:02, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
Personally I have nothing against the SCP, apart from wanting a chance to reclaim the seats that people gave the CNP, not the SCP. Hoffmann LogoCNP KunarianTALK 07:05, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
Obvious analysis time It's 25-24-16 and since not the whole congress agrees and the rest inactive most likely not gonna pass unless oos gets along. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:21, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
But, guys, elections are fun. :'( --Semyon 17:47, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
You might be able to force one by resigning from the Government, and then when Congress can't appoint another due to not having 50% confidence, it will have to dissolve. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:54, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but then technically, it would have to wait a month since we'd be "inactive" from congress" (right?) I still supprot them I hope you do to TM. I mean technically the only way we get anyhting done it by having 90% of the actives on board (which can never happen) and then the parties with smaller members (like yours) calling and calling for there members to finally just vote! It takes to long we need an active congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:00, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Also, we apparently don't have a provision for a Congress being unable to provide a successor to a minister post, but we do have this: "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." Finally, I don't strongly oppose (it's weak) them but I don't really want to abstain from the vote either, and I just ended up voting Contra. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:02, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Woh, I didn't know the PM actually has something he can do :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:08, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
He's also a member of various inactive boards. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:10, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
   To clear the air, Oos is on one of my Labour boards and too be honest only a few ministers actually do "things" with there positions. While adding to the "inactive" argument, It's me, you and Kunarian only doing something with their ministry positions. Again i'd like a new congress hopefully Oos and you changes the votes for a new congress to be made. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:57, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I still got a minimum of ten days to decide :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:56, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, that statement isn't fully accurate. I, as Minister of Tourism and Sport, have revived the LSCA Major Soccer League and also worked on the Lovian Men's Curling Association and the Tour of Lovia. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to be as active in the Ministry of Environment, though I have worked on the National Park Service. 77topaz (talk) 06:24, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I still am not sure about it. It could be useful, but a year is ridiculously short of a term. Most countries have two years at the least, usually four years or more. I'd rather we sort this out in the next Congress, as I'm unsure if we'll really gain anything from a new Congress, other than Happy's seats going from 9 down to 5 or so and PL being eliminated and amendments being a bit easier to pass. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:27, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

There would be a lot of shift I think. Labour would definitely lose seats as well and I think that I would lose at least two seats if not three. I think that GP would lose seats as well, and there would probably be some minor changes to other things. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 20:46, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Another Green Energy Act repeal[]

Pointless act as pointed out by Seymon and Kunarian. Any Concerns? To the GP or Greens who think this is an attack on environmentalism, i'm the biggest green here, but this isn't even enforced, empty language and just, I don't even get it. I'm sorry how would you expect a nation to become fully green in 2 years? To the neo-cons, hopefully this means later on we do get some moderate legislation and you support it for a greener lovia. Hopefully I hope you vote pro (a social democrat taking away regulation, Tony Blair must be similing from heaven) Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:05, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • Contra Contra There is no positive effect in removing it, because any addition of coal/oil/natural gas hasn't been approved by the community yet. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:47, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 14 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:19, July 1, 2013 (UTC) agree with TM. we need an alternative first.
  • ...
  • ...

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes. Until I see what the proposed "alternative" is, I cannot really vote for this. 77topaz (talk) 04:44, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 8 votes. Until we get a good alternative I'm neutral on this. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:50, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes Bart K (talk) 10:45, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Comments[]

Is there actually a replacement act this time? 77topaz (talk) 20:00, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those were my first thoughts as well. Wouldn't it be a good idea to write at least a replacemtn act? I mean, it doesn't have to be fully fleshed out, but a draft would be nice. Cadaro (www.tonefactory.lo) 22:02, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
Can't believe you got a socialist saying this but, jesus this regulation is too much, and tbh i've never met a leftist who hasn't like a regulation, but heres one to start. Its so broad and useless, OOC it would be never passed. So sure write a replacement but we have to start by repealing it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:35, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • @77/GP - But as a Green this act actually harms you instead of helping. The laguage is empty, useless and not even enforced since its passing. So as a green or strong environmentalist and you say "Okay I support the current language" what your getting it nothing anyway, repealing it would be the first step to new legistaltion. I get the whole "we need lengthier legistlation though: but this is literally nothing and actually harms the green cause because it seems as if theres actually somthing there but there isn't. So hopefully you vote to repeal and then work on new legislation. Marcus/Michael Villanova 04:58, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Why don't we work on new legislation before repealing the current act? Because, if this gets repealed now, we will have no legislation on this matter. 77topaz (talk) 06:20, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • But look at the empirical argument, this current legislation does nothing right? This legislation while "Sweeping" isn't enforced. So keeping it or repealing it does nothing, keeping though actually makes it seem like something is getting done and that were all green n stuff, but were not. Repealing it would just eliminate unnesscary regulation (which effects Pool, and sea towns) and allow for actual legislation to be passed instead of being teased into thinking that this is good regulation. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:41, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it just makes nonrenewable energy illegal. It is only a preventative, since we only had renewable at the time it was passed. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:44, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Topaz and Oos. I would like to see a clear solution, concise and effective before we go replacing this. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:50, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Article 12 - Taxation Act[]

  • Article 12.1 - Taxation Regulation
    1. In accordance with the Financial Outline Act, Congress should set tax levies in a federal budget in February or March for the budget of the fiscal year starting on April 1.
      1. A normal majority is required to set tax levy amounts.
      2. The tax levies may be reset to a different rate at any time in February or March.
      3. Congress may not change the levies after April 1.
    2. A proposal of set levies must fulfill one of the following aims:
      1. The aim of filling a budget that has been drawn up by the Ministry of Finance; or,
      2. The aim of filling a budget that has been drawn up by the Ministry of Finance and paying off debt accumulated by the government.
    3. States may set and change levies of different taxes on a State level. These taxes are additional on top of taxes set by Congress.
      1. Governors may set tax levies to raise money for use by the State governments, these taxes must be set with one of the following aims. The aim of funding State projects that are beneficial to the prosperity of the State or the aim of funding State projects that are beneficial to the prosperity of the State and paying off debt accumulated by the State government.
      2. Congress may overturn the levies set by the Governor by voting with a normal majority.
        1. Should Congress overturn levies set by the Governor, then the Governor may not set new levies for four weeks and current levies in the state are set to flat 0% rates.
    4. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for filing and collecting taxes.
      1. The Ministry of Finance must create documents that shall be used by government and individuals for filing taxes.
        1. These documents must be simple, easy to understand and must not be misleading, there must also be a way to trace who filed the taxes on the documents.
      2. The Ministry of Finance files taxes for all individuals or corporations unless otherwise stated.
        1. In cases where the Ministry files taxes so that an individual or corporation ends up paying more tax than due, they are given an exemption in the next tax year equivalent to the over taxation. In cases where the Ministry files taxes so that an individual or corporation ends up paying less tax than due, the Ministry may request but may not force the individual or corporation to pay the difference on top of taxes in the next tax year.
        2. In cases where an individual or corporation files their taxes so that they end up paying more tax than due, they may not request reparations or an exemption. In cases where an individual or corporation files taxes so that an individual or corporation ends up paying less tax than due, the Ministry may force the individual or corporation to pay the difference on top of taxes in the next tax year.
      3. The Ministry of Finance must create a department for collecting taxes.
        1. Those employed by the Ministry of Finance to this department are considered tax collectors.
        2. Tax collectors are responsible for filing taxes
        3. Tax collectors may collect taxes electronically with permission of the tax payer, they may also collect them from their bank account with the permission of the tax payer and they may also collect it in person from the tax payer with their permission.
        4. Tax collectors are the enforcers of taxation within Lovia. They are given the right to temporarily seize property of tax evaders, disallow individuals or individuals of corporations to leave the country, revoke a citizens passport, use force to detain tax evaders and arrest tax evaders.
        5. In all cases the Ministry of Defence must keep up to date with the actions of tax collectors and co-operate in enforcing their rights and must actively assist the Ministry of Finance in the detainment and arrest of tax evaders until they are brought before court.
    5. An illegality is committed if any of the following occur:
      1. A government official fails to correctly collect or file taxes due to negligence.
      2. An individual fails to correctly file taxes with the intent of reducing the amount of tax paid.
      3. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.
  • Article 12.2 - Income Tax
    1. Every individual of 18 years of age or older must pay Income Tax should they be eligible as defined by law to do so. To be eligible to pay Income Tax and an individual must do one of the following.
      1. Be earning income as defined below and must have resided within Lovia's national borders during the tax year.
      2. Be a Lovian citizen earning income as defined below and must be earning income from an individual or corporation which resides within Lovia's national borders.
        1. In this case only the income gained from the individual or corporation that resides within Lovia's national borders is eligible for tax.
    2. Income is the sum total of the following.
      1. Wage and salaries.
        1. Wages, salaries and tips recieved by an individual for performing a service for another individual or entity or from another individual or corporation they are employee of, minus any wages, salaries or tips that an individual has given to another individual for being an employee of the concerned individual.
      2. Pensions.
        1. Pensions or annuity payments recieved by an individual from another individual or corporation minus any pensions or annuity payments that an individual has given to another individual. Pensions and annuity payments are fixed payments over a specified or unspecified period of time.
      3. Capital gains.
        1. Capital gains received by an individual from another individual or corporation. Capital gains are the profits gained by buying and then selling property, shares or bonds.
      4. Lump sums.
        1. Lump sums received by an individual from another individual or corporation, minus any lump sums that an individual has given to another individual. Lump sums are single payments of money.
      5. Rental income.
        1. rental income recieved by an individual from another individual or corporation, minus any rent that an individual has given to another individual. Rental income is when a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another individual.
      6. Dividends.
        1. dividends recieved by an individual from a corporation. Dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members.
    3. Income Tax required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individuals income and levying a set percentage which goes to the Ministry of Finance.
      1. An exemption from this levy may be set, a next number of Lovian Dollars of income may have a set percentage levied and this may be done multiple times. All other income after these bands has a set percent levied.
    4. Income Tax must be paid every year on the 1st of March.
      1. Unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Income Tax for individuals however individuals residing within Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Income Tax.
      2. The Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual with the documentation to file their own taxes.
    5. An illegality is committed if any of the following occurs:
      1. An individual distributes income to others for the main purpose of reducing the amount of tax paid.
      2. An individual evades or otherwise fails to pay said taxes.
      3. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.
  • Article 12.3 - Property Tax
    1. Every individual or corporation who owns property or land as defined by law within Lovia must pay Property Tax should they be eligible as defined by law to do so. To be eligible to pay Property Tax an individual or corporation must do one of the following.
      1. Own property or land within Lovia's national borders.
    2. Property is the combination of land and an improvement that has been built upon said land.
      1. To avoid confusion property is measured in square metres by taking the distance between the furthest points along the width of the improvement and multiplying them by the distance between the furthest points along the length of the improvement.
      2. Property is considered land if the improvements width and length are each no larger than 2 meters in size.
    3. Land is land that has not had an improvement built upon it.
      1. To avoid confusion land is measured in square metres.
    4. Property Tax on property required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individual or corporations measured property and levying a set amount which goes to the Ministry of Finance depending on the amount of measured property owned.
      1. An exemption from this levy may be set. All other property has a set levy of Lovian cents per square metre set.
        1. Unless the property is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, National Monument Service or is Federal or State property in which case all other property has a different levy of Lovian cents per square metre set.
    5. Property Tax on land require to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individual or corporations measured land and levying a set amount which goes to the Ministry of Finance depending on the amount of measured property owned.
      1. An exemption from this levy may be set. All other land has a set levy of Lovian cents per square metre set.
        1. Unless the land is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, National Monument Service, is Federal or State property or is being used for agricultural purposes, in which case all other land has a different levy of Lovians cents per square metre set.
    6. Property Tax must be paid every year on the 1st of March.
      1. Unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Property Tax for individuals and corporations however individuals and corporations based in Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Property Tax.
      2. The Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual or corporation with the documentation to file their own taxes.
    7. An illegality is committed if any of the following occur:
      1. An individual or corporation evades or otherwise fails to pay said taxes.
      2. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards confiscation of property as punishment.
  • Article 12.4 - Imported Sales Tax
    1. Every individual or corporation which operates within Lovia's national borders must pay Imported Sales Tax should they be defined by law as eligible to do so. To be eligible to pay Imported Sales Tax an individual or corporation must do one of the following.
      1. Have brought goods from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders.
      2. Not be a citizen or be based outside Lovia's national borders.
    2. Individuals or corporations who have brought goods brought from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders must register the goods with customs officers.
    3. Imported Sales Tax is required to be paid on all goods when they are first sold within Lovia's national borders after having been harvested or manufactured outside of them and all services when they are paid for within Lovia's national borders.
    4. Worth is the amount of Lovian Dollars the good or service is sold for.
    5. Imported Sales Tax required to be paid is calculated by taking the worth of the imported goods when sold and levying a set percentage which goes to the Ministry of Finance.
      1. all worth has an exclusive percentage levy set.
    6. Imported Sales Tax must be paid every year on the 1st of March.
      1. Unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Imported Sales Tax for individuals however individuals or corporations residing within Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Imported Sales Tax.
      2. The Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual or corporation with the documentation to file their own taxes.
    7. An illegality is committed if any of the following occur:
      1. An individual or corporation evades or otherwise fails to pay said taxes.
      2. Failure to register all the goods that have been imported due to either intent or by negligence.
      3. Illegalities can be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.

Voting[]

Pro[]


Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • ...

Comments[]

46 pro votes! we need more people to vote! signal everyone! Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 14:36, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Passed as well, finally :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:06, August 13, 2013 (UTC
By me :3 Happy65 Talk CNP LogoCNP 13:11, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and several others too :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:21, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
:P 4kant,6FRÅGOR??? 13:25, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

014. Financial Outline Act[]

  1. The expenditures and revenue of the Government of Lovia are managed by a budget.
    1. Expenditures are the outflow of money from the Government, spent in order to maintain the programs and organs of government and support the nation of Lovia and its interests.
    2. Revenue is the inflow of money into the Government, collected in order to pay for expenditures.
      1. Revenue includes taxes and tariffs, outlined in the Taxation Act, and any income generated by a program or organ of the Government.
  2. On April 1 of each calendar year, a budget passed by Congress shall go into effect.
    1. Such a budget must be passed by a normal majority in Congress during the months of February or March of the same calendar year.
    2. After April 1 and before December 31 of the same calendar year, all citizens eligible for taxation should outline and pay their taxes to the Government.
      1. Citizens who do not complete this procedure may be prosecuted for tax evasion by the Ministry of Justice.
    3. Congress may modify the expenditures of the budget by a normal majority after April 1 to accommodate any unforeseen changes, but not the revenue.
    4. In the event that no budget is passed by Congress, the budget from the previous year should be extended proportionally for the amount of extra time it is being used until a new budget is passed by Congress.
      1. In this case, citizens should file and pay their taxes once the newer budget is passed. If they have already filed and pay their taxes for the old budget, a refund will be given once the citizen pays their taxes for the newer budget.
  3. A budget must include the following items:
    1. A setting of tax and tariff rates for each tax and tariff explained in the Taxation Act, which may or may not be variable depending on the income or profit of the paying entity.
    2. A setting of expenditures made by the government.
      1. Expenditures must meet the necessary costs for the upkeep of all government programs and organs and all other non-discretionary spending.
    3. An outline of income from non-tax or tariff sources.
  4. A budget made by the Government should have its revenue be equal to or greater than the total expenditures made by the Government.
    1. This provision may be ignored in times of national crisis.
    2. When the federal budget is facing a deficit, the state must borrow money on the financial market.
    3. When the federal budget has a surplus, it should be used to pay off the country's debt.
      1. Spending the surplus on new policy can only be done if the new policy is taken up in the budget, lowering the surplus.
      2. If there is no national debt, the surplus should either be converted to new policy or saved in a reserve fund.
  5. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for heading the creation and enforcement of a national budget.
    1. The Ministry should work alongside Congress, the other Ministries, and the rest of the Government to formulate a budget each year.
  6. The Government must not overfund or underfund any program or organ of the government within its budget.

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • ...

Abstain[]

  • ...

Comments[]

53 votes pro! :D (this isn't a constitutional admendment so it passed right?) Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:11, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:29, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
Accepted This proposal is accepted! (since Semyon seems to have been neglected his post for months and this isn't the first time other users have helped out with this role :P) 77topaz (talk) 20:13, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly, the proposal is accepted because there's some mysterious responsibility I've failed to do? Seems rather illogical to me. --Semyon 13:51, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

018. No confidence[]

Congress is now pretty much completely inactive. It no longer serves its purpose of representing the Lovian people. Furthermore, recent political debates such as the future of the monarchy, whether Mr. Ilava should be created Heretow, and the recent creation of new settlements would be best discussed in the context of an election, so the people are able to make the final decision. This is especially true considering that a number of parties have disbanded and reformed since the election - I'm thinking of the SCP and Labour/RLP in particular. A renewed mandate for all politicians in congress would definitely not be a bad thing. Finally, it's well-known that elections in Lovia lead to increased activity. New and enthusiastic congressmen, forced to fight for election or reëlection, will be sure to rejuvenate the legislature.

Therefore, without intending any criticism of the government, with the passing of this motion, Congress withdraws its support for the Ilava II Government and calls for immediate federal elections. --Semyon 19:43, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

  • Pro Pro --Semyon 19:43, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Contra[]

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes. With the two new votes, Congress seems reasonably active. Hasn't the mid-term elections period already passed, anyway? 77topaz (talk) 20:48, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • It may be active but you need enough of it to be active for more than 66% of Congress to consistently vote, we don't have that. Hoffmann LogoCNP2 KunarianTALK 21:12, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstention Abstention 14 votes --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:07, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Comments[]

I would only comment back to Mr.Seymon that "without intending any critcism of him" that he did not vote on either very important economic measures and should vote on them before we try to disband congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:14, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

OK fair enough. However, bluntly put, trying to roleplay the economy doesn't work and therefore I can't work up any interest in financial legislation. I'd rather set up a cultural organisation or something. :) --Semyon 17:06, August 4, 2013 (UTC)
Haa sorry was having a bad day. I gree with your comments and the reason for the vote of no confidence, but seems as if the votes for it just aren't there so we shall wait to Novemeber and January. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:43, August 4, 2013 (UTC)
I think we can roleplay the economy. Just make up little news issues. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • What's up) 22:50, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

019. Donia for King[]

Alright, this's been takin' way de long :P This vote is for officially replacing King Dimitri I with King Sebastian I, to be played by Donia (The Master's Voice).

We need a 50% majority. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:33, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • Contra Contra 8 votes, and revert the changes to Alexander. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:15, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 5 votes - Hell no! Referendum on Monarchy or Republic, then if Monarchy then prefered choice. I thought that was the way it would be done. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:42, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 4 votes. Yeah, I thought the same thing as Marcus as well. :P 77topaz (talk) 20:10, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
  • Contra Contra 1 vote. Hey! Who took my vote off! And I'm voting contra for reasons I've already stated Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 09:39, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain[]

  • ...

Comments[]

I don't think this is legal, so we will have to get a 67% vote, because we are ousting a king, which the constitution does not allow. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:15, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

It is both legal and legitimate and a 50% majority will suffice. And Prince Alexander ain't going anywhere. We've been over this already, Timey. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 18:49, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, the Constitution has nothing stopping Congress from changing the Monarch neither does the law. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:02, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure 1B 2 and 4 can be interpreted that this is not allowed. Just because it's not explicitly forbidden doesn't mean it's allowed. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:29, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

What's up with these hipster monarchs? Can't we get one adult ruler, not some random weirdo with a guitar? The Hurian Database Wiki Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:30, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Alexander won't be King, Prince Sebastian will be, Dimitri's cousin. Whose pictures are pictures of me myself. As you read his biography you will see Sebastian is a classy guy, a former diplomat and a learned man. A serious and hard-working man in a stable marriage. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 20:32, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
TMV - It's 67% to change the constitution, 50% to Federal Law. 67% is needed on this vote because the Constitution says who the monarch is not federal law. So again, it needs 67% vote! Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
It's not changing the Constitution, no law forbids a change in Monarchy via the Congress and as the Congress is the highest legislative power in the land it cannot be barred from doing so. Only an amendment to the law, restricting Congress's powers would change this. Also all executive power is vested in the Government, so in many ways Oos could oust Dimitri and install TMV, not truly democratic but he has the power. One thing Lovia lacks is a limitation on Government power but to be honest what do you expect when the constitution was written by those in favour of over-arching government. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:02, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

May I just say that I favour a referendum of the people although considering Congress are the elected representatives of such people, this is legitimate but some may question by how much. Personally I continue to favour a continued Monarchy for the benefits they bring and the amount of work that will be have to be done to correct a massive change in Lovia and I favour TMV as monarch for the simple reason of needing an active and strong leadership. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:05, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

  1. 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. (Section 2, 2.1)

It is apart of the Constitution, I would argue since you are changing the line of sucession, it would take a 67% majority.Does he have that power really? Tbh I don't know, I know he has the power to disband congress (a bit much don't you agree?). Well I've argued for republic, but i'd like to see the Monarchy/Republic referendum first please! Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:20, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

You are not changing the line of succession. What is happening is that Congress is voting to impeach the Monarch and impose a new Monarch in their place. There is nothing written on that within the law, nothing for it but as a key point nothing against it, therefore it can take place. Besides the constitution only covers inheriting the throne and line of succession NOT (and maybe this is something to correct) Congress impeachment nor Congress imposing a new Monarch, which as the highest legislative authority it can do. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 01:53, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
The constitution already has this covered; Alexander will request not to be included in the Line of Succession for personal reasons. Consider him having done that already. Leaves us with the next of kin: the son of a previous monarch. But, alas, Arthur III who was King before Dimitri has no descendents in the LoS as they requested to not be included. So we go to the closest thing we have, which is Dimitri's oldest paternal cousin, Prince Sebastian. To do so is perfectly legal. So yes, we can oust Dimitri. And yes, we can select his cousin to replace him. We can and we will. As for the becoming a republic part, Oos brought this up earlier but I might as well say it again: to cleanse all the pages on this site of any mention of a crown and royals would be a bitch, and there is absolutely zero added value to do that no matter what any unimaginative American republican might say. I know you hated King George and all for his grand colonial bitchery but don't be hatin' on Sebastian. I'll see to it that he be a good and loyal citizen of Lovia and a truly inspiring patriotic individual. It will be a cultural enrichment to our nation and an overall good development and it sure beats having a monarch who is never around and forsakes his royal duties. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 06:08, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to retcon the monarchy, we could just replace it. 77topaz (talk) 06:20, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
That too takes time, and would only be done on a personal whim of the minority of the site's users. There is no added value, but this discussion is not on whether or not to be a monarchy, it is on whether or not Prince Sebastian (me) should replace King Dimitri and give Lovia an active monarch again. Ler's keep the discussions seperate. Now Topaz if you'd like to change your vote I'd be most obliged. See, once I start acting as King and you dislike my performance you can always hold yet another referendum and have me ousted and the monarchy abolished. It's quite simple. Now all I'm asking, and I believe this to be perfectly reasonable, is for you to give me a chance to prove myself. For actions speak louder then words ever could. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 06:35, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
My opposition is more to Oos's handling of the situation (ignoring one of the referendums) than to the concept of you as King per say. And anyway, weren't most of the actions you were planning to take just words (i.e. speeches and all that jazz), anyway? 77topaz (talk) 06:57, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
I understand your objections, and considering that I'm thinking of writing up an act to do with this situation. Also yes the actions of TMV as Monarch were mainly due to be speeches and simple actions really, just making the Monarchy likeable for the whole of Lovia again as well as making it active which I dare say would be a boon to Lovia both IC and OOC, boosting the activity of the wikia. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 08:14, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, also, by electing you, aren't we making you more of a president than a king anyway? 77topaz (talk) 06:59, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
If your opposition is not to me being a King then change your vote into a yes as right now, you are voting against me being a king and not against Oos. He already is Oceana's Heretow after all. And yes I would hold speeches but I'll also represent Lovia at sports events and weddings and the like, and promote the image of our nation abroad in other wikinations. And I am not being elected, I am simply taking over from a monarch unable and unwilling to perform his royal duties. That does not make me a president. This vote is simply on whether or not the people support me taking over. If you support me taking over from Dimitri then vote on that. The monarchy versus republic discussion is a whole different ballgame despite some people who would like it to be handled as one issue. The vote's up now, my cards are on the table. If you do not oppose me being Dimitri's replacement, then vote and make it so. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 07:07, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
@Topaz: Not really, we're more of making the Monarchy Elective and in many ways by doing that we're democratising the position and making it responsible and answerable to the Lovian people via Congress. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 08:14, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Weren't we intending to make this a referendum of the Lovian citizens (instead of a Congress vote) anyway? Isn't that why the Referendum Act was created? 77topaz (talk) 08:20, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
We shall make a referendum on whether to keep the Monarchy HOWEVER I believe this should happen after we are able to experience what it is like with an actually active Monarchy that contributes to the nation and gives us real leadership. This trial period should be a good time, around 6 months, so that we can really experience it, after this time we should call a referendum and decide whether we want to keep the new and improved Monarchy. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 08:44, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't this meant to be part of a referendum as well, though (whether to replace Dimi or not). Also, wouldn't a Congress vote like this require some sort of IC reason for the Congress to abdicate Dimitri (as an IC abdication of Dimitri would require a different vote - who to replace him with (the line of succession problems around Alexander etc. might connect to that)). 77topaz (talk) 08:51, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Well IC, the argument could be that he's unpopular, caused various revolts in co-operation with unpopular governments and is rarely seen. Also this isn't an abdication but rather an impeachment and so the line of succession does not apply. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 09:38, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is too much to read for me :P If anything interesting has been said in this discussion, you guys know where to find my talk page. Otherwise, this is a 50%. Why? For the simple reason it is not unconstitutional and the ew monarch fits what has been discribed in the constitution:

  • 1B1: descendant of the first Lovian monarch (yes); 1B1.1: either male of female (yes)
  • 1B2: absolute cognatic primogeniture (yes); 1B2.1.: requested that they be removed (case Alexander: could easily be fixed, family puts pressure on Alexander, he removes himself from line of succession)
  • 1B3-7: irrelevant

So, we don't need a constitutional amendment and we're not doing anything illegal. Therefore, a 50% majority is enough. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:36, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think it is illegal, just because there is no provision saying the monarch can't be removed doesn't mean they can. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:29, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

The reverse could be said too: just because there is no provision sating the monarch can be removed, doesn't mean they can't. In this case, we can do it. If the law has no provision saying we can breathe, we still can (and should) :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:11, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
In this case the Monarch can completely be removed because Congress is the highest legislative power in the land with all powers (bar those that are devolved to the states) invested in it. And you of all people should know that if there is no provision against an action, the action is fully legal, such as the use of Marijuana in Lovia which is completely legal simply because it hasn't been made illegal. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:18, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think the Constitution is perfectly clear on the matter. :P The first clause states that 'the ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch.' The second clause then clarifies on the meaning of 'legal inherited': 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.' Therefore, there are two reasons why this proposal is unconstitutional (and therefore requires a 67% majority):

  1. The previous monarch has to either die or abdicate. Congress is not given authority to depose the monarch.
  2. Even if Dimitri ceased to become king, for whatever reason, Alexander would automatically become king, unless he chose to remove himself from the LoS. Once again, Congress has no authority to remove him.

So while this bill can pass, it has to have a 67% majority to overrule the constitutional problems. :) --Semyon 19:28, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

While I think this could be debated I do think that there needs to be better clarity in the Constitution. Although I think Semyon has actually made a point that I think I missed, although you only need a 67% majority to change constitutional law, which is not what is occurring, so technically a 51% majority would suffice as you aren't changing the law, although again I think this point could also be heavily debated, never the less I think that this debate about percentages needed will come to little meaning until after the referendum as I do not think this particular proposal will be passed. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 22:14, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
We are not bypassing the constitution when we simply say Prince Alexander, for whatever reasons he may have, chooses not to be in the Line of Succession anymore. Therefore Prince Sebastian automatically becomes the next of kin and therefore King. It is perfectly legal and not against the constitution in the slightest. 
Another thing we should consider is this... we may oust Dimitri through the constitution. Say that his dwindling popularity cost him his throne. But what I suggest ages back in the Pub was that we simply write he steps down for personal reasons, and with his brother out of the picture the only logical choice remaining is his cousin Sebastian. See this vote not as a vote to "oust Dimitri", but rather as a vote on whether or not people agree with the agreed upon storyline. By doing so, and having this background story in the back of our heads as we go through this procedure, I think we can all agree on the fact that none of what are doing here is actively against the constitution. And all we do here is speed up a process, for reasons I consider to be perfectly reasonable. Dimitri will not be ousted. He will abdicate. And his brother gives up his claim to the throne. At which point Sebastian, as Semyon so kindly pointed out, legally inherits the throne. Why make it any harder on ourselves? Realism and logic can go hand in hand. Everybody wins. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 22:28, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
"Agreeing upon a storyline" would be an OOC discussion/vote, though, and isn't Congress an IC entity as well? :P 77topaz (talk) 08:01, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
That's why we've created the OOC referendum in the pub. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:49, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
The Referendum Act implies the creation of a "Forum:Referendum", and anonymous are never really reliable. :P 77topaz (talk) 09:14, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
Fixed, anyway, the referendum is not anonymous.. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:52, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay, that was created after the earlier discussions. Should we not delay this vote then, until after that referendum? 77topaz (talk) 08:44, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Depends. If this vote has a positive outcome, we can keep it. If it has a negative one, then we have to create a new vote and see if we really have a democratic government listening to the will of the people. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:55, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
By "positive" and "negative", I presume you mean "similar to the referendum" and "not similar to the referendum"? :P 77topaz (talk) 09:00, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Eh... I mean positive=referendum is pro :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:06, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
We can't really know the result of this vote, nor the referendum, yet, so wouldn't it be more sensible to say whether the two results would be alike or not? 77topaz (talk) 09:23, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Eh.. I don't really understand that though :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:38, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

020. Update NSO[]

We need a 50% majority. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:53, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Voting[]

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

Pro[]

Contra[]

  • Contra Contra 8 votes - missing a bunch of Sylvanian hamlets. Maybe I'll add them later if someone else doesn't. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:36, August 21, 2013 (UTC) Added them.

Abstain[]

  • Abstention Abstention 4 votes. There are a number of issues, as I've outlined in the First Chamber, below, etc. If these are fixed, I'll vote pro. 77topaz (talk) 20:17, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
  • ...

Comments[]

This list isn't up to date. And isn't Windthorn the old name for Nordhorn? 77topaz (talk) 19:57, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's been fixed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:47, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Okay :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:13, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

We need to encourage people to vote here! Multiple major users, including Semyon, Horton and Marcus, haven't voted here yet! With their support, we could easily pass this (it's at 42 votes pro now, right?). 77topaz (talk) 08:59, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

I'll inform MartijnM. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:06, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
He hasn't voted yet. :P 77topaz (talk) 08:30, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

021. Amendment to judicial elections[]

  1. The term of each Supreme Court Judge lasts for six months one year, or shorter, if they resign due to personal reasons or a conflict of interests, or if the Judges declare their inability to judge the case.

Also I propose that if this law is passed, then that indicates the current Judges can stay in their posts, since no-one seems particularly interested in replacing them. If you have a major objection, mention it/vote contra. :) --Semyon 18:44, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Pro[]

Contra[]

Abstain[]

Comments[]

This needs 66 votes, because its the Constitution. So 13 more needed. Someone wake up your fellow inactives :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:06, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Damn it! If only I had more votes in the chamber :P Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 15:16, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Correction: it needs 67 votes. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:24, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Accepted This proposal is accepted! I wonder if this even needs to be called an amendment? We can just call it a "minor fix" è. x) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:19, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an amendment :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:38, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
I propose the compromise of 'minor amendment.' :P --Semyon 09:33, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
:P I guess I can agree with that :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:38, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Or "minor, fixing amendment". That way, TM will have his entire name "minor fix" in it as well :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:39, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Sounds too silly. I think we'll have to find a compromise between your compromise and my compromise. :o --Semyon 12:24, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Minor fix amendment? :o --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:28, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me. :P --Semyon 12:39, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
:P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:43, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Minor amendment is fine. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:57, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Okay :o We dancing with colons now? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:15, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Time's gotten addicted to colons very recently :P 4kant,6FRÅGOR??? 13:34, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
He got the virus :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:14, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement

Fan Feed

More Wikination