State Tournament -- Session I

Overview

There will be seven bills in the first two sessions and six in the Super Session. As you prepare be sure to prepare speeches for at least four in each session. The bills are not numbered, but merely collected into a docket for consideration. You will be able to debate them in any order your chamber wishes.

As you do, also remember that the more you can bring to the bill, the better your remarks will be received. On some of these bills you will be tempted to simply attack the weaknesses -- it is far better to launch a critique that makes the chamber seem smarter at the end. Educate them. Illumine them. And of course disagree (or back them up) as you need to.

Be bold and be prepared to speak.

Bill: Amend the Patriot Act (Sen. Kehoe, South Lyon)

• Overview. Formally known as Bill to Prevent Abuse of Power in Investigations Using the USA Patriot Act, this bill addresses two of the more notorious sections of the Patriot Act -- this wide focus makes this bill especially challenging to debate. Broadly the issues turn about the scope we should grant the federal government in its pursuit of potential terrorist threats. Section 215 was criticized vehemently in the original Patriot Act, but in the 2006 renewal, some of those criticisms have been addressed. The Constitutional and legal issues are rife; complicating the measure is that some measures are themselves deemed "secret" -- FISA courts govern Sec 206 and operate outside of the usual public channels. To understand issues, you may want to read this post by Marty Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown. The complexity of the law under consideration reduces this bill to its more political aspects (are you for Bush or against him). Along with the subjects, you may want to look up something on the FISA courts, but this is a very complicated and not altogether clear area of government. Complexity means that Chambers will resist consideration.
  
  
• Instrumental. As noted, what exactly is under consideration? The bill wants to amend the Patriot Act but does not specifiy how or where. The battle will turn on what are the appropriate avenues for pursuing would-be terrorists in a digital era. Focus One: what does the author mean about "individual specification? " -- the exact cell phones? The exact accounts? (Note on bill writing: this is the sort of confusion that arises when a bill is written too loosely). Focus Two: who certifies? Again the bill wants a vague court -- but should terrorism be pursued in this manner? But a special court like the FISA, and how do you control? You can see the issue taking shape, can't you? Besides, an opponent of this Bill may reasonably ask whether the FISA courts already cover this. What's different? Focus Three: what other bills are being rendered void (Section IV). This needs real clarification. It is helpful to keep in mind that the Patriot Act is actually amending a number of existing laws, so how this change affects others will be unclear.
  
  
• Clash. So how do you debate a hopelessly complex bill? The pro-side will use some of the more notorious horror stories regarding the Patriot Act. They are out there. Three issues however deserve better consideration.
  First: Terrorism. how does one fight terrorism? What are the right tools? Who should delegate this battle -- that is, can we trust our government to protect
  Second: Freedom v. Risk. There is the tension between security and the freedom of citizens. Americans have often prized freedom, even if it has meant assuming more risk. Here, you may want to bring in considerations of the Fourth Amendment and the broad expectations of privacy.
  Third: Technology. How do we keep ourselves safe in a world information moves increasingly across mobile devices? What is the nature of modern information technology? Perhaps the Patriot Act is a symptom of a larger issue. Again, a good speeches are available on both sides.

Bill: Ban Political Advertisements (Sen. Macy, Novi)

• Overview. In a political year like ours, who doesn't finally want to turn off the political ads on television? The Bill provides a categorical ban on political ads in support of a candidate as well as prohibit attack ads. The focus on television alone will give rise to the legitimate questions about other modes of advertising (bill boards, mail, internet, etc.). This looks as if it is doing a lot, but perhaps it is doing too little. As with broadly written bills, there are some weaknesses that will need clarification. Other nations have very restrictive rules governing political advertising, these are worth looking into, as are various proposals on campaign finance reform.
  
  
• Instrumental. As written, the bill is ambiguous about how broadly it should be taken. First, what is meant by "television?" Should that include private broadcasts (cable, satellite)? Second, consider the significance of the word "for" in Line 1. The word would seem to cover ads by a third party on behalf of the candidate. Third, Article Two leaves unspecified who these candidates are: the same as in Line 2? Or should you consider this a banning on all attack ads? (And again, what constitutes an attack ad)? Use the cross-ex to clarify these issues. For those in favor the narrower the bill is construed the better chance it has for real debate.
  
  
• Clash. The obvious issue is that of the First Amendment. Who determines who speaks or who does not? Banning types of advertising is safer than the banning of a message (Article Two). You may also want to consider the nature of television. Is it intrinsically manipulative? Does it present a false image, or does it reveal character? (Is that Huckabee on the screen or who we are supposed to think Huckabee is?) Here, there is another interesting essay at Balkinization. Finally, you may want to pick up on the issue of wealth. To what extent should elections belong to the largest pocketbook? Does great wealth distort the choices the nation must make? If so, how can we isolate elections from this impact?
  

Bill: Last Chance Medical Experimentation (Sen. Wymer, Ionia)

• Overview. A somewhat ghoulish title, but the overall bill is fairly well focused. The bill would permit experimental treatment and surgeries on patients identified as living in "last chance situations." As a matter of form there is a confusion between permitting and legalizing. The bill allows for appropriate authorization by patient or a patient's representative. There is one element of conceptual confusion as to who would pay for such procedures: the bill's concern for insurance companies (sec 2d, 2e) suggest that the author envisions patients' paying for the procedures done to their body. Given the topic, this could spark a very interesting debate.
  
  
• Instrumental. Two issues should both be cleared up early on in the debate. First What is missing is any limiting on the power of these so-called experimental procedures. Must they be specific to the condition at hand? Or does the fact that you have fallen into a coma, mean that the doctor or research can experiment on any part of your body? Potentially, this could get pretty ghoulish. You go in for incurable liver cancer, and the next thing they're experimenting on your knee, etc. Second, there is the question of who pays (and who benefits). While it seems that the author is thinking patients pay, the real beneficiaries of this would be doctors and researchers -- so shouldn't they pay? And if they pay, how much more? This may be worth an amendment.
  
  
• Clash. The most obvious clash will come in the territory of experimental medicine. Do we approve this because it is presumed to work? Doesn't that push us into an idea of ends justify the means? Here, the bill looks remarkably like the same conflicts that center on stem cells. For those with strong sense of right to life and the integrity of the human body, they will want to protest this bill as a violation of the person, while those in support will emphasize the benefits. Another issue to consider is the role of money. When you pay, do you get better subjects? Does money distort research? Yet perhaps the most important issue to raise is that of free consent. What does it mean to give consent to radical procedures? When one is dying and dependent on the hospital, how much freedom does one have? What are the conditions for free consent? You may want to look up protocols for medical research.
  

Bill: DPRK Normalization (Sen. Gallicki, Dearborn)

• Overview. The bill instructs the State Department to take two qualified steps to address the isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, otherwise known as North Korea). The two steps are pre-emptive steps in the US-DRPK negotiations over nuclear weapons. It should also be noted that Article 2 represents a doubling of historic US positions. The US State Department position on N Korea is here. This is likely to face overwhelmingly negative response -- so extra work on a possible affirmative case may be an occasion to gain credibility. You will certainly get the chance to get heard.
  
  
• Instrumental. The key issue is the freedom the Senate/Congress has with respect to bi-lateral negotiations. It may be properly objected that the bill hand-cuffs the freedom of the State Department and the President to negotiate treaties and their conditions.
  
  
• Clash. The big clash is constitutional (President v. Senate). A second clash to work on is the role of how to bring in rogue nations. Finally, you may also want to consider the specifics of the US history with N Korea. What are the expected results of these efforts? Will it change the DRPK behavior? Read up on the history of their negotiating style (see Foreign Policy, as well as NYT). The affirmative will argue that we have simply not used the right carrots.
  

Bill: Anti-Depressants vs. Clinical Therapy (Sen. Smith and Sen. Clark, Grand Ledge)

• Overview. The bill bars the prescription of anti-depressants to minors until after other clinical therapy options have been found to be ineffective. The penalty phase addresses the prescribing doctor. Often the use of anti-depressants by teens is linked to suicide. Some studies have suggested that there is a link, more recent articles perhaps not. Adding to the confusion is this study suggesting that one needs both drugs and clinical ("talk") therapy.
  
  
• Instrumental. This is a fairly tight bill in terms of construction, though the initial sentence has its difficulties. It bars the prescription except if prescribed -- a sort of circular argument. The real action is in Section two. The question of age may also be useful to bring up. At 18, some teens will be full adults (physiologically) and so presumably able to take the meds without harm. Some are not. Does an arbitrary date hinder the purpose of the bill? One may also want to raise the question of whether the schedule of penalty is really adequate. The key focus is that doctors lose their license on the third prescription. That is substantive.
  
  
• Clash. The first battle to consider is the dichotomy of the bill, especially in light of evidence. Is it talk or is it drugs? What if there is a middle way? The preference for talk first appears to be an interposing of a social policy into a medical decision. An analogy would be how the US government controls funding on sex education to abstinence programs. Should social policy come before the doctor's decision? What about emergencies? Finally, you may want to raise up the question of how we determine what is the proper course to pursue: what kind of data do we use? Simply medical data (whatever works is good?), or do we also go with social norms? Second clash is the role of pharmacology to control our moods. For affs, this will be a big clash point. Philosophically, are we turning to pills or other mood altering items to help us Manage? What does this say about us? There are some good philosophical points to be made., but remember, back points with quotes or other evidence.

Bill: Cloned Meat (Sen. Le, City)

• Overview. Increasingly issues of technology show up in the agricultural arena, whether it is the addition of hormones to milk, varieties of genetic splicing, or the cloning of livestock for human consumption, as here. The recently announced permission by the FDA for use of cloned meat, will raise issues for consumers about food being pure and safe. This bill draws the use of cloning to the public eye through use of labeling regulation. A Senate bill spells out much of the same aspects of this bill, in of course greater detail.
  
  
• Instrumental. This is a very clean bill. The most awkward moment is in line 1, where the bill addresses "companies that package meat" to meet the regulation. This has the impact of permitting retailers to buy unlabeled packaged meat and still maintain their freedom from this regulation. Suggested amendment: require all packaged meat bear the label, instead. This moves regulation from packer to the retailer (and so more easily corrected by shoppers -- it lowers cost of enforcement). Some may object that there is no penalty per se attached to this bill. Should this become an issue, one may amend the bill to refer to the Food and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.333) for penalties. Or an alternative Suggested Amendment: any person who violates this bill shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
  
  
• Clash. Here's where things get interesting. Clash 1: is cloning safe. This is the basic argument. Clash 2: Reckless / Entrepreneurial US ag policy. Europe and US differ radically on the approach to Ag Tech. Clash 3: How do we incorporate technology into our food chain? This could be the key to feeding the world and reducing our energy footprint, etc. Others in negation will want to ask for more direct regulation. Another area perhaps worth thinking about is do we apply the regulation at the beginning of the process (a la Europe), or at the end, at the market level? Who then decides, the consumer or individual user, or the regulator? This is a case of two very conflicting philosophies.

Bill: Ban Abortion (Sen. Tiggs, Sen. Dunstan, Adams)

• Overview. Like many hot button bills, this one is at once full of passion and then left wide open as the authors substitute general or less-than-precise words. Funding and enforcement are especially in need of clearer thinking. That this is a hot button issue suggests that many arguments will be advanced that are premised either on emotional reasoning, or as a re-hashing of existing political stances (pro-Choice v. Right-to-Life, etc.). A lengthy cross-ex should be avoided. Vote against extension, force people to make their points in speeches. Otherwise, the cross-ex will consume speaking time for other bills and speakers. This is the real danger of this bill.
  
  
• Instrumental. There are so many problems with this bill it is hard to begin. Generally, the bill has inadequate definitions ("Illegal" -- felony? misdemeanor? civil? criminal? also "living being" -- what constitutes something as that?) You may find other issues to take up with this. A second area is that the bill does not adequately acknowledge current Constitutional standing, in particular one should note the absence of health and safety clauses for the woman. This opens a huge can of worms on its own. Finally, there is the question of implementation. The bill is directed to local and state government; the penalties include that of "manslaughter" (see 18 USC 1112) -- there is no such item as "first degree manslaughter" only voluntary and involuntary. With no additional funding, it is hard to see how the bill does not result in an unfunded mandate.
  
  
• Clash. The classic hot button issue. There are plenty of interesting issues to address here -- though the heat of the bill may not allow for them to heard well. Clash One: Who gets Government Protection? What is the criteria we use? What are the standards that we can all agree to? Clash Two: How do we safeguard health of the mother? Clash Three: the role of wealth. Those with means get the abortions, those without do not. How then do we make bills that are equitable in impact?