The Method
Four modules back, this was just history. Put together, they form a method you can run on almost anything in the news. Four questions, in order:
1. Is this actually a federal power, or a Tenth Amendment question? (Module 4)
2. Which branch is actually deciding this — and are they accountable to voters for it? (Module 3)
3. Am I evaluating this on its merits, or because of which faction is for or against it? (Module 2)
4. What would I actually be willing to do about what I just concluded? (Module 1)
Running It on a Hypothetical
Take a bill that doesn't exist: the fictional "National School Lunch Nutrition Standards Act," which would set uniform federal nutrition rules for every public school cafeteria in the country.
Question 1: School nutrition has historically been set locally and by states — so is this a legitimate federal power, or does it belong in Module 4's territory?
Question 2: Even if Congress passes the law, the detailed rules would almost certainly be written by the USDA, an executive agency — meaning the people actually setting the standards you'd be arguing about were never on a ballot.
Question 3: Notice your own reaction. Are you for or against this because of who sponsored it, or because you've actually thought about the nutrition policy and the accountability question on their own terms?
Question 4: If you concluded this bill oversteps, or that it's fine, what would you actually do with that conclusion — nothing, or something specific?
Now Go Find Yours
That bill isn't real, deliberately, so this module could stay about the method instead of about a side. The next one you run it on should be real — something you actually care about, affecting you right now. Once you've worked through the four questions, the last one needs a name attached to it: the specific elected person who is accountable to you for that issue. This site's representative lookup exists for exactly that moment.