The docket — examples
Sample Legislation
Each piece below starts with a question the founders argued about — and that Americans still argue about — then connects it to something in a young person’s life today. Every item comes with a balanced brief so you can prepare both sides.
These are examples, not the final docket
The exact bills debated on October 10 will be released closer to the event. These samples show the style, difficulty, and themes to expect — and they are excellent practice material right now. Teachers and classes are also invited to write and submit their own bills.
How to read the briefs
For every item you will find a short Founding anchor (the historical root), a Why it matters today note, and a two-column Both sides at a glance. The two columns are written to be equally strong on purpose. In the round you may be asked to argue either one, so learn them both — that is the skill, and the point.
The docket is organized around the three themes of the anniversaries: liberty, equality, and religious freedom.
Liberty
Bill LIB-1
A Bill to Require Judicial Authorization for Government Access to Personal Location Data
- In this Act, “personal location data” means records held by a company that reveal where an identifiable individual has been over time, such as cell-phone or app location history.
- A government agency must obtain a warrant, based on probable cause and issued by a judge, before requiring a company to disclose an individual’s personal location data.
- In an emergency involving an imminent threat to someone’s life, an agency may obtain the data without a warrant for up to 48 hours, after which a judge must review whether the emergency justified it.
- Location data obtained in violation of this Act may not be used as evidence in court.
- This Act takes effect 180 days after passage.
Founding anchor: The Fourth Amendment grew directly out of colonists’ fury at “writs of assistance” and general warrants — open-ended permission for officials to search where they pleased. James Otis argued against them in 1761; John Adams later said American independence was “then and there born.”
Why it matters today: The phone in your pocket keeps a near-constant record of where you go. The framers never imagined it — so who should be able to see it, and under what rules?
Both sides at a glance
In favor
- Privacy is a core liberty; a detailed map of your movements is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect.
- Technology now makes mass tracking cheap and silent — the check of a warrant matters more, not less.
- A judge’s sign-off is a modest, familiar safeguard, with an emergency exception for true danger.
Against
- Warrant delays can cost crucial time in investigations and in finding missing or endangered people.
- Data shared voluntarily with a company may carry a weaker expectation of privacy than a home or a letter.
- A single 48-hour window and strict evidence rules may be too rigid for fast-moving public-safety needs.
Resolution LIB-2
A Resolution on a Program of Required National Service for Young Adults
Whereas the founders treated civic duties such as militia and jury service as part of belonging to a free republic; and
Whereas shared service can build common ground among citizens of different backgrounds and beliefs; therefore be it
Resolved, that the United States should establish a program asking young adults to complete one year of national service — with civilian or military options, fair pay or benefits, and accommodations and exemptions for hardship.
Founding anchor: Benjamin Franklin’s line — “A republic, if you can keep it” — captured a founding worry: self-government survives only if citizens take part. Early Americans expected duties (jury service, the militia) as the price of liberty.
Why it matters today: Gap years, AmeriCorps, and military service already draw many young people. Should service be a shared expectation — or a personal choice?
Both sides at a glance
In favor
- Shared duty builds shared citizenship and bridges divides between regions, classes, and beliefs.
- Participants gain skills, direction, and a stake in their communities.
- Everyone contributing is a form of equality: the burdens of a free society are shared, not optional.
Against
- Liberty includes choosing one’s own path; required service is a serious imposition on a year of someone’s life.
- A national program would be expensive and hard to run fairly.
- Generous incentives for voluntary service might achieve the same goals without compulsion.
Equality
Bill EQ-1
A Bill to Establish a Civic Proficiency Requirement for High School Graduation
- Before graduating, each public-school student must pass an exam on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the basics of American government, modeled on the test new citizens take when they naturalize.
- Students may retake the exam as many times as needed, and accommodations are provided for students with disabilities and English learners.
- Funds are provided to schools to support civics instruction so the requirement does not fall hardest on under-resourced schools.
- This requirement applies to students who enter grade 9 after the Act takes effect.
Founding anchor: Thomas Jefferson argued that a self-governing people must be an educated one: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free… it expects what never was and never will be.” The promise that all are “created equal” assumes citizens equally prepared to govern themselves.
Why it matters today: Surveys regularly find that many adults can’t name the branches of government — yet every new citizen passes a civics test to join the country.
Both sides at a glance
In favor
- It guarantees every graduate a shared, equal foundation for citizenship.
- If we ask it of new citizens, asking it of all citizens is fair and consistent.
- The bar is modest, with unlimited retakes and funding attached.
Against
- One more required test can crowd out deeper learning and become “teaching to the test.”
- Curriculum is traditionally a local and state decision, not a one-size mandate.
- A new graduation hurdle may hit struggling students hardest, even with support.
Bill EQ-2
A Bill to Lower the Voting Age to 16 in Municipal Elections
- Citizens who are at least 16 years old may vote in municipal (city and town) elections.
- Citizens may pre-register to vote beginning at age 16.
- This Act does not change the voting age for state or federal elections.
- This Act takes effect for the next regular municipal election cycle.
Founding anchor: “No taxation without representation” was a founding rallying cry, and American history has steadily widened who may vote — most recently the 26th Amendment (1971), which lowered the age to 18 under the banner “old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”
Why it matters today: Many 16-year-olds work and pay taxes, drive, and are directly affected by local decisions about schools, parks, and safety — but can’t vote on them.
Both sides at a glance
In favor
- People affected by decisions — and who pay taxes — deserve a voice, an equality-of-representation argument.
- Voting habits formed young last a lifetime, strengthening turnout overall.
- Local elections are a sensible, limited place to start.
Against
- Eighteen is a reasonable, consistent line for the responsibilities of adulthood.
- Younger voters may be more swayed by parents or teachers than voting independently.
- A patchwork of ages across local, state, and federal elections could confuse voters and officials.
Religious freedom
Bill REL-1
A Bill to Establish a Standard for Religious Accommodation
- Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless doing so is necessary to achieve a compelling public interest and is the least restrictive way to achieve it.
- An accommodation may not be granted if it would impose a significant harm on other people.
- This standard applies to public employment and public schools — for example, requests regarding religious holidays, head coverings, or dietary needs.
- Agencies and schools shall publish a clear, simple process for requesting an accommodation.
Founding anchor: The First Amendment protects the “free exercise” of religion. James Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance argued conscience is a right no government may override, and early Americans accommodated Quakers who refused to bear arms.
Why it matters today: Students and workers regularly ask for small accommodations — a day off for a holy day, a head covering, a meal that fits their faith. When should the answer be yes?
Both sides at a glance
In favor
- Protecting conscience is a founding promise, and it shields minority faiths most of all.
- A clear standard treats every religion the same and reduces arbitrary denials.
- The third-party-harm limit keeps accommodation from becoming a license to hurt others.
Against
- Laws should generally apply equally to everyone; broad exemptions can fray that principle.
- “Significant harm” and “compelling interest” are hard to define and may invite disputes.
- Case-by-case accommodation can burden employers, schools, and coworkers.
Resolution REL-2
A Resolution on a Daily Moment of Silence in Public Schools
Whereas the First Amendment forbids government from establishing religion while protecting each person’s free exercise of it; and
Whereas a moment of silence lets students pray, reflect, or simply rest without the school endorsing any belief; therefore be it
Resolved, that public schools should observe a brief, voluntary moment of silence at the start of each day, during which each student may pray, think, or sit quietly as they choose.
Founding anchor: Jefferson described a “wall of separation between church and state.” In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Supreme Court held that government may not compose or lead official school prayer — while leaving room for voluntary, private practice.
Why it matters today: Many students report stress, and schools experiment with mindfulness and quiet time. Where is the line between supporting reflection and endorsing belief?
Both sides at a glance
In favor
- It is neutral and non-coercive: no words, no leader, no required belief.
- It makes room for students of every faith and of none, equally.
- A calm start can support focus and well-being.
Against
- A daily ritual may feel like soft pressure toward prayer, raising establishment concerns.
- Whose practice does the silence center, and who feels left out?
- It uses instructional time and can be hard to administer fairly.
Write your own bill
Classes and teams are invited to draft original legislation for possible inclusion or for practice. Writing a bill is one of the best ways to learn how laws actually work — and it ties neatly to a government or history unit (see For Teachers).
A simple recipe
- Pick a live tension rooted in one of our themes — a place where good people disagree. If only one side has anything to say, it won’t debate well.
- Say what happens and how. A bill answers who acts, what they do, when it starts, and how it’s enforced or paid for — never why (that’s for speeches).
- Keep it to a handful of short sections, in plain language. Number them.
- Test it for balance. Write two strong sentences for each side. If you can, it’s a good bill.
- Add an anchor. Note the founding-era idea or document it connects to.
Formatting
Use the layout of the samples above: a title beginning with “A Bill to…” or “A Resolution on…,” then numbered sections (bills) or “Whereas… Resolved” (resolutions). Submission details for original bills will be posted on the event page.
On balance
The briefs above are written to be equally strong on each side. Including a topic is not an endorsement of any position; the aim is good-faith debate, with every student prepared to argue either way.
Next: the Student Guide turns a brief like these into a three-minute speech, step by step.