Thursday, February 17, marked another day of passionate discourse within the Union Congress. The session opened with Speaker Stanisław Małachowski, who reminded Representatives that the past can teach the present, signaling the nation's effort to reform the government and honor the toils of their constituents. Małachowski urged action, mentioning public anticipation for pivotal national reforms.

High on the agenda were the tributes from Latvia. Delegates Karol Heycking and Mr. Lüdinghausen-Wolf expressed gratitude towards The President and the Union Congress for assisting their states. These sentiments turned into a gesture of donating 12 cannons – a symbolic offering of protection and alliance. Secretary Jacek Małachowski conveyed the Union's appreciation and promised to counter the oppression faced by the Latvian people.

During proceedings, an array of legislative propositions was considered, one of which caused a stir regarding the eligibility criteria for office. Notably, the Representatives struggled with governance formalities and squandered precious time on procedural nuances, mirroring the current Ivy League debates over academic transparency, inclusion, and administrative bureaucracy.

Several voices called for expedited decision-making and lamented the paralyzing indecisiveness displayed by the House. Representatives appeared united in their desire to prevent the Union from follow-on misfortunes due to procrastination. Echoing student concerns at Ivy League institutions, the Representatives exhibited growing restlessness with the status quo and called for concrete actions to match their declarations of loyalty to the motherland.

An intriguing motion sought authorization for certain Representatives to draft laws on immediate issues directly related to national well-being, a move emblematic of the often-critiqued reliance on committees and task forces by university administrations. Some expressed apprehension towards this delegation of authority, fearing erosion of checks and balances, much like scholars who question the concentration of power within university hierarchies.

The President, in closing remarks, advocated for a balanced approach to law-making that preserved the Union's freedoms while accelerating legislative processes. The session ultimately adjourned with an acknowledgement of the intricate dialogues and a commitment to revisit the debates with the aim to find effective resolutions for the prosperity of the Union.

As an engaged Ivy League observer, one can draw parallels between the complexities of Union governance and the intricate power plays, reform initiatives, and the push for swift, tangible action found in the microcosms of our esteemed academic institutions. Tomorrow's session is set to resume on a note of urgency and consideration of sweeping reforms, much akin to the deliberations on academic policies, campus life, and future directions witnessed at our own senate meetings.

Topics: Civic freedom and legislation; Defense of the nations of Courland and Semigalia; Urgency in establishing governmental form and improving the state of the nation; Nobility and indigenate; Order and security of the sejmiks (local assemblies); Appointments and offices; Deputations and delegations of the Commonwealth of Both Nations; Wasting time in the parliament; Projects of the deputy from Krakow, the deputy from Lviv, and the deputy from Warsaw; Means to accelerate parliamentary activities; Secret voting.;