Yuri, I am afraid you're pushing the boundaries of the Constitution. I fear that "running all government owned infrastructure in the state" and "integrating different logistic and economic issues into the state policy" does not fall under these categories:
- 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.
- Informing the state population about the various aspects of the state, the federal government and its policies.
- The construction and planning of neighborhoods and hamlets.
- Bringing the people of Lovia and the different levels and branches of government closer to one another.
- Advising the Lovian Congress on issues related to the particular state.
- Advising federal institutions in relation to protected natural regions and culturally significant locations and monuments in the particular state.
States (and their Governors) are not entitled to found and own companies, are not entitled to run railway stations (this task is taken up by the Department of Transportation). As I said, I am afraid the creation and ownership of this company (and the state's shares in the Cooperative Farming I.) are illegitimate. That's because the Constitution is very clear on what states can and cannot do. The things described above can be done, the rest not (I quote: "All competencies not covered by the states inhere to the federal level."). --Arthur Jefferson 
07:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- To all others: please do not make this into a discussion of "what states should be able to do". I am just applying the Constitution here. Full, in-depth discussions can take place in the First Chamber. --Arthur Jefferson
07:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I see, I'll change things around a bit but can assure you the outcome will be the same. I'll adapt the structures to fit the Constitutional description, but not the essence. Regaliorum (Shō Kitana) 09:49, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I think there's one thing here, you cannot just pass by: the Law does not authorize involvement in businesses, nor the ownership and use of companies like these... What about bringing this to the national level? You easily could, you know. Dimitri 09:52, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- This company still carries the legacy of before the public sector on federal level was created. I'll rewrite it, but the State should be allowed to participate/guide/create cooperatives and homeless shelters in the light of 'city planning'. No economic participation because the law doesn't allow that, but the whole planning and allocating issue seems doable. Regaliorum (Shō Kitana) 09:55, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I know it "should", but it "can't" yet. I'll think about a small amendment that inserts the following clause: "... and to found, own and run a state public service company that executes and/or manages the infrastructural works [etc] within the state." Something like that. Dimitri 09:58, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm turning it into a bureau for our city planning. We do have that power, right? Regaliorum (Shō Kitana) 10:00, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I spose, yes. Anyway, I will be adding a clause to the Constitution, to give the states at least the legal possibility to take care of the business that are supposed to take care of. Dimitri 10:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm turning it into a bureau for our city planning. We do have that power, right? Regaliorum (Shō Kitana) 10:00, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of State's rights but having like some state board or somthing is good. Marcus Villanova 13:40, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Public service is good and necessary, and i think the state is the best government to handle it. So we should have federal and state cooperation on this or to expand state powers so infrastructure can be improved. Horton11 17:07, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
- I know it "should", but it "can't" yet. I'll think about a small amendment that inserts the following clause: "... and to found, own and run a state public service company that executes and/or manages the infrastructural works [etc] within the state." Something like that. Dimitri 09:58, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- This company still carries the legacy of before the public sector on federal level was created. I'll rewrite it, but the State should be allowed to participate/guide/create cooperatives and homeless shelters in the light of 'city planning'. No economic participation because the law doesn't allow that, but the whole planning and allocating issue seems doable. Regaliorum (Shō Kitana) 09:55, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I think there's one thing here, you cannot just pass by: the Law does not authorize involvement in businesses, nor the ownership and use of companies like these... What about bringing this to the national level? You easily could, you know. Dimitri 09:52, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I see, I'll change things around a bit but can assure you the outcome will be the same. I'll adapt the structures to fit the Constitutional description, but not the essence. Regaliorum (Shō Kitana) 09:49, October 24, 2010 (UTC)