Novi Bill Analysis -- Session 2

Bill 1 -- A Bill to Create an Emergency Draft (Cross, Jackson Western)

• Overview. The heart of the bill is to create a pool of young adults able to respond to emergencies. The nature of these emergencies is defined by mass casualties (Katrina, 9/11). Though not stated explicitly, this draft would be of limited duration and require approval of Congress. Sadly, the author of the bill will not be with us.
  
  
• Instrumental. The chief difficulty of the bill is the failure to deal with existing Selective Service law and regulations. For that reason all the parts on the "how" (Articles I, II, VI) can safely be rejected. Suggested Amendment: Eliminate Article I, II; add clause in Article X that "this bill shall follow the procedures as indicated in existing Selective Service legislation," then "all other laws and bills in conflict with this bill..." A second difficulty lies in the male focus -- this bill only applies to men, but not women. Given the scope of proposed activity, the reason is not clear.
  
  
• Clash. With so many easy targets (money, Don't Ask Don't Tell, male-only) it is easy to miss the more substantive issues underneath. Issue One, Volunteerism. how do we respond to disasters? is the proposed remedy adequate to meet the challenges (the Aff can argue that the size of these events means we need more people. We're still working on Katrina. Issue Two. Competence. Will a draft provide the resources we need? Structurally, how efficient will it be at recovery?

Bill 6 -- Ban Radio Censorship (Srini, Novi)

• Overview. Sometimes too simple can be a problem. The bill is tightly focused on music. With this we need to remember that that airwaves belong to the public -- that's why the government licenses and regulates broadcast companies. So this is deeply a question of personal freedom to listen and the rights of the public not to hear.
  
  
• Instrumental. The bill focuses on "songs," but what about other broadcast content? Could ir refer to words? And what about television? What is missing is why we limit it to songs -- that's worth exploring for the Aff.
  
  
• Clash. Oh this is fun. Issue One: Control. How do we control socially problematic material? Do we use government censorship? Create laws of what can't be said? Elsewhere we often let the market take care of these things -- what isn't popular doesn't show up. That's one reason the movie theatres ofer 20 screens, all the same. Sometimes we trust law suits to do the regulation (think of medical malpractice). So, should we go with the current system? or trust the market. There are two good speeches here. * Issue Two: the meaning of Public. If the airwaves are public, what does that mean? Is there a responsibility to use them? Or are they sort of like Michigan's forests of old: whoever gets there gets to use them as he wishes?

Bill No. 9 -- Encourage Use of Bio-Fuels (Lindsay, Rochester Adams)

• Overview. -- "Encourage" is a nice word for the financial carrots and stick. The stick is a 50% tax on gasoline, and the carrot a 30% reduction of certain taxes. Clearly part of the energy independence drive in our country. A very pertinent bill, in that regard. The bill also includes a section (IV) banning use of MTBE.
  
  
• Instrumental. The structure of the bill is fairly clear. The biggest question as to enactment is this matter of the 30% tax deduction in Section III. What tax is being affected? Section V makes this a Pay-Go, measure where the added tax subsidizes the tax cut (II). That's smart. But do these really balance? Watch for numbers in the sponsorship or 1st Affirmative speech.
  
  
• Clash. There will be several places to discuss. * Issue One: Technology. Are bio-fuels the best? There could be a very intereseting disussion here. * Issue Two: Energy Policy. Is the problem gasoline, or global warming? It is unclear whether Bio-fuels really result in a net carbon savings. * Issue Three: Special Interests. The bill favors farmers, but is that because of the technology, or the political clout? Another clash will be the role of the different players in determining energy (and other) policies.

Bill No. 13 -- A Bill to Surrogate a New Drinking Age and Implicate a New Driving Age (Potts, Portage Central)

• Overview. The title is a little confusing, a little too jargon-y. "Surrogate" can mean to substitute -- we just don't use it that way in normal speech, so it rings odd. The bill removes regulation of drinking and driving ages from State determination and assigns a national standard. The most directly controversial element will be that of lowering the drinking age to 16. The heart of the bill lies in Article III, where the State regulations are set aside.
  
  
• Instrumental. The bill is unclear about how it will be put into effect gradually. (Article IV). That's worth a discussion. Note there is no money clause -- you may want to think carefully about what the costs would be of a younger drinking age. Facts and statistics about teen drinking and what teen drinking to may be worth exploring. Since the states will be the ones enforcing the bill, how does the federal government get their participation?
  
  
• Clash. *Issue One: Constitutionality. There is a significant Constitutional issue here. Aren't these matters best left to the States (bone up on your 10th Amendment). *Issue Two: Governmental Philosophy. Related to the Constitutional issue will be the one of philosophy. As a general rule, laws are best the closer they are to the people. In the United States we have generally deferred to local or state government whenever possible. What do we gain by having a common standard on these areas? What do we gain if we have the States make the decision? Another way to put this point: why is the drinking age or driving a federal issue at all?
  

Bill No. 15 -- Stop Racism at Airports (Khare, Novi)

• Overview. If you're of European ancestry, you don't think much of the headaches that can come in the airport. It's mostly an inconvenience, for those who are Arab or S Asian -- going to the airport can be a case constantly being checked. This Amnesty International article gives the details. Although the issue seems to be related more to the war on Terrorism and so focused on any one who who looks Islamic, nonetheless the issue is framed as one of racial profiling. But if people are being profiled, perhaps in our day, there is also a reason. Conservative Daniel Pipes certainly thinks so. (Although this is a little old).
  
  
• Instrumental. Article 3 provides the teeth for the bill -- principally a database of bad actors n the TSA. What is missing in the bill -- what needs to be determined in the debate -- is how you would determine that a traveler is being pulled aside "solely on the basis of ethnicity." The issue of exclusivity is a difficult bar -- racial profiling is hard to prove in the best of circumstances.
  
  
• Clash. As the Overview makes clear, there is a division on whether such profiling is a necessity or not. Issue One: Prudence v. Rights. How do we protect ourselves? If our enemy is of a nationality, doesn't it make sense to be careful? But what about our insistence on innocence until proven guilty? How do we balance the need to protect and the need to safeguard rights? Issue Two: War on Terror. Surely some things need to be done in a war situation that are different from a time of peace. Is this one of them? Or to look at it another way, what if there War on Terror is only "so-called" as some would have it; a creature of the national leadership n the United States. This bill opens the door to discuss how we fight terrorism. Is searching young kids the way to go (see the Amnesty article, above)? Issue Three: It's my Privacy. What rights do I have when I go to the airport? Do I surrender them? What kind of privacy can I assume is mine? As you can see, some very good and important ideas come with this bill. Pay attention.