Is There A Panacea For The Masses?

World history contains reference to the many forms of communication shared. The lyre player, knight, storyteller, dramatic troupe, athletic league, not to mention pamphleteer and more. All impart a unique view of current events. The number and diversity in these forms ensure that there is access to information.

The question arises: how should these various forms of communication be governed? We ask what is the proper purpose of the regulation? And, how extensive should this regulation be?

The extent of regulation should depend upon the purpose of the information. Is it intended as a panacea, a manipulation. Or, does it reflect the obligation of certain nongovernmental institutions to provide sufficient information for the public to maintain its representative democracy.

To review and decide upon rules governing our information, both leaders and the public must define the concept of manipulative panacea. Is the purpose of the information moral, legal and rational? All regulations should place a duty to safeguard the public from communication that improperly influences and deludes more than informs.

Improper influence and delusion is often imperceptible. Thus upon whom is the burden to decide whether something constitutes honest information, regardless of whether in the form of musical performance, drama, athletics, printed material or other forms of communication?

In the thinking of some we do not begin as we become. We are formed and develop as we learn, absorb and reflect. This we do individually and collectively as we communicate. Perhaps purpose and intent and not content should govern our expressions of community.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

When Was There Last Enforcement Of The American Identity?

Why is there a declining sense of community in America? Less active participation in one’s neighborhood, religious organization and charities is occurring. Could this be a result of an increasing awareness of the current American social identity and our failing to achieve or actualize our identity as described by the literal wording in our time honored governing documents: the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, enforcing statutes and interpreting judicial opinions. Many blame the atomization of society upon social media and Artificial Intelligence. But, perhaps, popular resort to an obsession with the arts of new technology is a remedy of this absence of human connectedness and not the cause.

There are some attributes of personhood in America that require public discussion and enforcement by the law. For, without enforcement, trust in American society and government ceases to exist. Many of these laws in want of enforcement involve social conduct and behavior that are prerequisite to the rights and liberties of American law. This is not a reference to the future recognition of new rights and liberties, though there probably will be some new ones overtime, but, instead, a focus upon the long ago designated crimes that undermine democratic American society: incest, truancy and illegal immigration.

Enforcement is necessary because American democracy is premised upon the sanctity of the individual as each person obtains learning and an understanding sufficient to engage in self-determination and self-government. Incest is prohibited owing to the scientific rationale that children produced from such relationships often suffer from genetic impairment and the social rationale that the relationships often result from abuse and exploitation creating a sense of shame and inferiority.

School attendance is a fundamental requirement for citizens to be able to function and participate as active members of the voting public. This includes an adequate skill level in an arts and sciences curriculum, with vocational training available. And, as a nation of immigrants, America demands the absence of the abuse and exploitation of those seeking liberty from oppression in other lands. Without a path to legal residency they lead a life of illegal employment, want of civic involvement and nonexistence of social integration.

There are newly recognized civil rights and liberties in the modern era: integrated schooling (1954), contraception (1965), integrated relationships (1967) abortion (1973) and same-sex marriage (2015). However, the theories and rationales underlying prohibitions against incest, truancy and illegal immigration support the emergence of the person upon which the foregoing more recently acknowledged rights and liberties exist as an expression. Without the attributes resulting from the absence of incest, truancy and illegal immigration, one may not partake in fair schools, private relationships and self-governance.

We must look to the very foundation of America, below our officials in all aspects of government to the concept of the Rawlsian “original position” in which each one of us imagines that we do not know our place in society. From this position, we conceive of what our world should be. We must begin again to establish our society and government from its description in our essential documents. Enforcement is necessary according to modern terms for a modern era. And, individual existence in such a society requires a viable economic structure of single income livelihoods and feasible higher education tuition. For, even the cost of a public college or university education is beyond the ability of most parental incomes as well as the incomes of most graduates who rely upon student loan financing.

Ongoing progress and development has and will improve law enforcement as it has given rise to the emergence of new rights and privileges, such as scientific advancements in contraception, abortion and in vitro fertilization, which have resulted in newfound debates over the meaning of life. Similarly, incest prohibitions may be reformed with scientific developments in the field of genetics.

Currently, we must ask both government and ourselves as members of the public to look to the connection between our pervasive social ills and the absence of the enforcement of century old legal restrictions. Eliminating duplicity and inefficiency will only make our true society and government more visible and render more feasible achievement of the American dream.

Featured

A Natural Aristocrat for DNC Chair

In selecting the next Chair of the Democratic National Committee, democrats should learn from mistakes made in the most recent election this past November. The losses, president and below, are not solely the fault of current Chair Jamie Harrison. If any reason is to be cited, perhaps Harrison did not stress upon party members the importance of supporting candidates like himself. And, the next Chair should do so. A well-educated, wise, and worldly Democratic Chair would attract similar candidates.

Need we do much to remember the roles of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy in history, not to mention Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Democrats must admit that both Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden are not historical figures. Jamie Harrison would present a better candidate.

Democrats possess an opportunity in recently announced DNC Chair candidate Ben Wikler, currently Democratic Chair in Wisconsin, to elect a DNC Chair who may be held accountable to a known standard of ability. He and Jamie Harrison should be compelled to bring forth candidates, local to federal, similar to themselves. The nation must rely upon learned elites as its source of governance. This presidential election did not do this and qualified candidates further down the ballot lost.

Partisanship is not the issue. Rather it is the essential principle of democratic government, that of leadership by a natural aristocracy, derived from its populace with an equal access to education and information. Both Harrison and Wikler are meritocratic leaders. It is possible that more candidates of similar quality will announce for the position as Chair. However, Democrats, and all Americans, must abide by the manner in which a democratic society must be governed.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

The Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission of Ohio Issue 1, November of 2024

How do we evaluate the fairness of proposed reforms? Historically, we see ourselves anew and think empathetically that we are in the place of those whose condition is being remedied.

The Ohio Issue 1 Citizens Redistricting Commission creates a different method of redistricting Ohio for the purpose of General Assembly and Congressional elections. Issue 1 removes the persons currently empowered to serve as the Ohio Redistricting Commission by the Ohio Constitution: the Governor, Auditor of State, Secretary of State, an appointee of the House Speaker, an appointee of the House Minority Leader, an appointee of the Senate President, and an appointee of the Senate Minority Leader. In their place, Issue 1 would name 15 Ohio citizens who: (1) are not elective or appointive officials and (2) in the previous six years, have not: (a) held elective or appointive office in Ohio; (b) been a candidate for elective office in Ohio; (c) been an officer, paid consultant, or contractor to a political party, political action campaign, or campaign committee; (d) been a staff member, paid consultant, or contractor for an elected official or candidate; or (e) been a registered lobbyist or legislative agent with the State of Ohio or the federal government. These disqualifications apply to the immediate family members of the citizen commissioners as well. Citizen commissioners will represent the two largest political parties and independent voters based upon their previous primary ballot selections.

The citizen commissioners must not, in general, possess interests that conflict with the redistricting process. For, they are prohibited from holding elective or appointive office in Ohio for the six years following certification of their commission ‘s redistricting plan.

The redistricting plan of the Citizens Commission is subject to judicial review and must comply with the U.S. Constitution and applicable federal law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The proposed redistricting method of Issue 1 is, thus, accountable to the judiciary and constitutional principles of due process and equal protection of the law. Court action is a more speedy path to justice and fairness than would be awaiting the next feasible popular ballot approval of General Assembly elective officials or the redistricting plan itself. And, the citizen commissioners are selected by a panel of retired judges. Former judges often are active in the practice of law and subject to professional rules prohibiting even the appearance of impropriety in their conduct, no less actual conflicts of interest.

When we seek to begin a new governmental structure, we should consider our personal situation. If we were potential candidates without knowledge of our political party affiliation or socio-economic status, would we deem the proposed Citizen Commission fair and just in its consideration of districts for candidates? This view is that of American philosopher John Rawls in his theory of the “veil of ignorance.” For Rawls, we at no time know our future, what our social and political standing will be. Consequently, we seek governmental reform that assures equal government. In evaluating Ohio Issue 1, and all redistricting proposals, including that currently in place, we should envision that we are both the voter and the candidate whose district is to be drawn.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Shouldn’t We Rely Upon Natural Aristocrats To Maintain A Democracy?

Is it possible for a democratic nation to survive when governed by an average or mediocre leader who is surrounded by above average, intellectual advisors? Does the public defer and act each day under the mind of the leader or that of the leader’s staff? In reviewing America’s current election season, perhaps we should ask if the complexity and sophistication of the nation mandate the election of candidates with the greatest academic achievements, ability, and accomplishments. Leading a nation does not involve the same skill set as does political warfare. Americans have seen what happens when persons other than its natural aristocrats are elected. Periodic corrections are required by a well-versed staff to which the elected leader defers rather than with whom the leader consults and confers. Essentially, any elected leader should be qualified to serve on the cabinet or staff of the leader. The roles should be interchangeable. If not, the self-governing people have no mentor.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Ohio Constitutional Amendments Demand a 50% Voter Approval: Vote No on Issue 1

On Tuesday, August 8^th, vote no. For, a majority, 50%, approval by the voters of amendments to the Ohio Constitution should be maintained. America is a country governed by its people, one of majority rule.

We, through the U.S. Constitution and those of the states, acknowledge that a majority of a population of a country might be flawed and tyrannous. Consequently, America engages in a representative system of “checks and balances.” Our legislative bodies, executives and courts act to filter our laws and reforms. In no respect does America act under a system of direct democracy wherein the collective body of individuals determines the laws by which they are governed. With respect to the amendment of the Ohio Constitution, amendment proposals require extensive review by the Attorney General, Ballot Board or Secretary of State. All proposed amendments may be challenged in a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court.

With these checks and balances in place, we should encourage popular involvement and participation in American government, not place our legal development more and more out of reach. The Ohio Constitution is rarely amended. It is a truly difficult process, even by the majority vote of the electorate. The current constitutional requirement inspires communities and learning so that a voter may form opinions and express oneself at the polls. A sense of self and self-government are needed in light of rapidly developing technologies, such as artificial intelligence and digital assets. We should not dilute or remove the people from the process of law.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Is the United States of America under Siege?

Following the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, in the ordinary course of legislative business, one must ask the place of this event in history. To what does it give rise, where does it lead America, and what does it indicate for its citizenry?

One could argue that there is too much hostility within the American majority, too much dissension, for America to continue with a republican form of government, for the United States Constitution to remain. A democratic military relies upon patriotism and a caring respect for government. Its military is derived from the majority population. If the majority no longer believes in justice and freedom under the U.S. Constitution, the military will not possess the moral force to protect the government from threats both at home and abroad.

The storming of the American Capitol was a rebellion, a failed revolution. The cause cannot be deemed that of madness or irrationality. Rather, it must be acknowledged to be an expression of a competing ideology. For, regardless of the methodology of the acts of violence against a government, such acts embody and express an ideology.

Consequently, diplomacy is required to reach agreement and compromise, to heal a country and the world. Denial of the existence of the beliefs and positions of the rebelling entity begets further uprisings and intermittent rebellion. An inclusive truce is necessary. Moreover, in the world’s history, uprisings, rebellions and revolutions, including the American Revolution, have long been subjected to the ad hominem of madness and irrationality, without their being evidence of proof other than reference to acts embodying a competing ideology.

Why Did the Attempted Revolution Occur?

Throughout the world’s existence, history’s development and progress has exhibited great hardship and horror. The storming of the American Capitol could be an example of the development of the world by means of such hardship and horror. Many deem this to be development through the reason and spirit in history, the Hegelian dialectic. According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in the world there is the existence of the status quo; the critique or destruction of the status quo; and then the collective synthesis of a new, positive result in history. One would attribute to this phenomenon, the slow but developing and evolving state of human progress.

In some sense, Hegel deemed this the actualization of the known and preexisting universe and cosmos by the spirit of history. Yet, those living in each intermittent era of unknowing naivete ask why the negative, destructive critique of the status quo is necessary to evolve and develop, regardless of the result produced. Does it have to do with human nature and the mind of man? Does reasoned critique possess limits necessitating a reliance upon negative destruction? If a destructive negation is not necessary, perhaps society should strive to divert destructive animosity toward reasoned discussion.

In the thought of Hegel, we ask what is the positive result of the negative undoing and destruction of the U.S. Capitol. Does the storming indicate that, in addition to criminal penalties, some form of political reform will or should result? Could the rebellion give rise to either the creation of third and or fourth political parties, or a parliamentary form of government?

If third parties are cultivated, ideology through rebellion could express itself lawfully in the form of party platforms and representatives in elected office. If transition into a parliamentarian form of government, the United States would no longer rely upon a separately elected executive with a greater concentration of power in the form of a right of veto over the legislative body. Parliamentary government would require a significant reform of American government. Yet, rebellion and attempted revolution are significant acts.

There must be a humane and positive response by government and society to the rebellion, regardless of what one believes to be its cause. Rebels seek an answer to their demands. They seek their definition of justice. We cannot loft above them an ideal, utopian definition of justice which has been long deemed beyond reach by the world’s greatest elected officials, academics and philosophers. We must seek and strive toward a viable definition of justice: the right of all people to political participation through peaceful expression.

If America abided the principles and text of the Constitution, specifically, and rule of law, generally, differences and disagreements would be settled in the context of traditional political debate and law making. The United States must maintain the quality of its existence as a representative democracy governed by a natural aristocracy. It must act according to law and include the concerns and needs of all within the course of day-to-day debate. Ignoring any segment of the public results in an emotional response such as rebellion. Providing justice to all will avoid such in the future.

America should not attempt to avoid Hegelian peaceful critiques of the status quo, for debate and critique are the basis of the American political system. But, Americans must channel critique within structural modes of expression. From the ordinary member of the public to those occupying the highest office in the land, political participation and the ability to self-govern combine to avoid the recent cathartic event witnessed in the storming of the American Capitol. For, no rebellion or revolt takes form in short order. No one person could be responsible for persuading so many to act against their country. Revolt and rebellion result from a long felt disheartening of many people with their country. The only remedy is to provide a sense of enfranchisement and receptive, meritocratic government.

As J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur stated: from soil values grow. American democracy is premised upon the dignity of the individual and respect for all. A storming of the bastion of the people’s government indicates that an overwhelming number of citizens require that government be restructured to meet their needs. The United States needs to bring democracy closer to the soil of America.

Third Parties May Be an Answer to America’s Current Debate

Third parties are often factions that leave major parties over certain issues. America must discern the grievances possessed by America’s rebels. They ostensibly are supporters of former President Donald Trump. However, such violence coalesces and surrounds more than one person. It evolves over time and involves a plentitude of issues. The Capitol revolt was not the temperance party, the women’s suffrage movement or Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party. These ideological expressions were serious and longstanding. Yet, they did not reach the level of violence as the recent storming of the American Capitol. Consequently, the deep seated, violence inducing concerns and grievances of the Capitol rebels rely on more than what might be offered by one person. For, in expressing their grievances, they sought to destroy the very government former President Trump represents.

Permanent realignment of the two major political parties in America into third parties may require some phenomenon such as a rebellion or near revolution. Broad based, grassroot rebellion expressed in the form of movements such as the Capitol rebels could coalesce to form a third party. Some of the rebels could be akin and ideologically similar to the Libertarian party which acknowledges an expression of faction and inter-party strife within the two major parties in America, with the Libertarian party combining fundamental American ideals with conservative economics.

Despite the dramatic events of January 6^th, would the Capitol rebels fail as a third party as have most others in American history? The two major parties in America could adopt the ideological grievances and positions of the Capitol rebels and thus lessen any incentive to form new parties. Yet, the Capitol rebels may be so long underrepresented in politics and government that they cannot avail themselves of traditional forms of political participation that a political party offers. Perhaps, for the sake of democracy and diplomacy, citizens who agree and are sympathetic with the positions of the Capitol rebels should lead a new party to which the rebels could belong. This would transcend typical obstacles to formation of a third party such as inadequate financial resources and local and state support. And, a greater increase in popular participation in politics would benefit the emergence of a new party.

The Capitol Rebels Are Due the Benefits of Political Association

Regardless of punitive sanction, the civil self-government of the Capitol rebels should be cultivated. Political parties provide an opportunity for self-expression and civil debate in pursuit of principles and public policy goals. Parties provide a didactic function in educating their members in the art of civics and government. Most importantly, parties foster trust among members by encouraging members to self-govern in a trustworthy manner. Political parties permit representation in a republican form of government. Political parties diffuse the tyrannous majority. This is the guidance the Capitol rebels need.

Political parties embrace general philosophies and thus permit inclusion of as many people as possible. As a result, over time America has evolved into a two-party system. The party of traditional moral values and business interests is the Republican, and the party supporting working class labor and minorities is the Democratic. To transcend this duopoly, third parties must draft a broad-based philosophy that is not a single-issue attraction. In what way do the two major parties not offer ideals, principles and ideology appealing to the Capitol rebels so that a third party would not be a viable alternative?

Is the American experiment in democracy more democratic, more fair and more just with two, adverse political parties willing to expand and be more inclusive? To return to sound and civil government, America must enumerate the possible philosophical bases for third parties, including the Capitol rebels.

In what way do the Capitol rebels represent diversity within the United States? Are they urban and rural, of higher education and not? What are their unifying principles and concerns? In what way did the ideology of Donald Trump find expression in the rebellion of January 6^th? Could the Capitol rebels support the theories of meritocracy and natural aristocracy upon which the United States is founded? Promoting a third-party expression of fascist rebellion could be avoided in a free democracy. Listening to and incorporating itinerant concerns into the political structure would be preferable to forcing violent forms of expression. Third parties possess grievances often expressed through violence when the subject of structural exclusion.

Supporters of former President Donald Trump indicate that they are considering forming a third “Patriot Party.” This demonstrates the perceived need for structuring the public support he possesses into a viable form of expression. Whether one considers Donald Trump to be a “cult of personality” leader or not, he cannot utilize his support unless it assumes effective form. Also, he must create a generational legacy amassed around his positions, opinions and ideology that transcends his being deemed a mere one election figurehead.

Perhaps, the Capitol rebels will create a fourth party. Another grassroots movement may become as entrenched and as well-known as the Patriot Party. Would such a fourth party readily follow on the coattails of the Patriot Party if it quickly announced its existence?

Former President Donald Trump holds grassroot Republican support and must maintain its trust. He must do so by cultivating civil participation. A rebellion or attempted coup is an indication that the cultural voluntary servitudes of entertainment and athletics are no longer an effective panacea. They are enjoyed but do not support or supplant reasoned self-government. Rebellion indicates the cry for a remedy, and the rebels themselves have no answer. Exchanging attributions and projections of blame by governing officials will only result in continued public negativity. People must be encouraged from a grassroots level to engage in traditional political participation.

Representative Democracy Is the Answer

As a republican form of government in the modern era, America is a great, expansive experiment. In merely three hundred years, it has demonstrated a slow but effective development toward justice, fairness, equality and inclusion. A small yet painfully effective rebellion cannot undermine three hundred years of history. Rather, violent uprisings indicate a need for even further progressive democracy.

A democracy must be premised upon trust held by the people in each other, among themselves as they engage in self-government, as well as trust evoked by the government between it and its citizenry. A political party must similarly remain true to its principles and party platform. Promises unkept are hypocrisy. In the recent era of duopoly, no competition exists between the parties. They each have turf dominated by party leadership and no incentive to honor promises made each election. As a result, elections flip flop with exchanges in elected figureheads with no real change in power possessed.

As a result, the U.S. Capitol was stormed by the partyless and unrepresented. They are ostensibly amassed by and the adherents of Donald Trump. But, do they know anything more than that he sought their support. What specifically do they stand for given that they sought to destroy the government they sought for him to lead? The only answer for the rebels is their participation in the American government in some structured form. And, this means participation in the form of a political party, one currently existing or a new, third party. Or, do they remain American citizens who feel that they will always be outside the bounds of government, always unrepresented.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

The Economic Question, an Answer

Democratic government does not suggest limits on wealth in a capitalist economy. It suggests due compensation for work and labor, and the property produced. From the earnest of manual laborers to the highest of intellectuals and professionals the amount paid in compensation must achieve a balanced equation. All must be paid an amount sufficient to sustain their every work day.

With regard to the majority manual vocational class, America lives in an economy of two income households. Development in academic opportunities for women, schooling and childcare and commercial venues for purchasing our daily needs makes a two employee household sustainable with adequate incomes.

Similarly, with regard to the learned professions, specifically academics, the highest employees of federal and state government, and non-managerial employees of multinational corporations, such as general counsels and attorneys, a true disparity in compensation exists with that paid mid-level corporate managers without justification. The American economy is sufficiently developed so that there is no longer an argument that learned professionals not be paid a truly self-sustaining level of compensation.

Mid to senior federal and state employees, as well as law and medical school graduating students, should be paid a level of compensation that permits a balanced household budget. Currently, the salary levels paid mid-level corporate employees who do not possess an equal level of academic accomplishment or equal level of daily responsibility exceed the salary levels of those within the learned professions.

From church to social clubs, community involvements to entertainment, not to mention the day to day expenses of maintaining one’s position of employment, adequate compensation is necessary. It must be obtained by earnest development of the American economy. But, also and more importantly, we must philosophically accord parallel and equal value to our first year attorneys and physicians, our first year professors and teachers, and our federal and state executives and judges, as that accorded our mid-level corporate executives.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Judicial Review and the Separation of Powers

A balance of power among the governing authorities in America requires a new look. Not so much as to the three federal branches of government, but rather as to our principle of federalism and the relationship between our states and territories and the three federal branches of government.

So expansive a territory as the United States requires greater guidance from above through the equally as expansive federal system of government. Our Article III courts may readily provide an initial and comprehensive source of a consistent, uniform and ever more evolving body of governing law.

In doing so, both judges and attorneys should view the law in an imaginative and creative manner that makes the most of both precedent and our founding legal precepts. Courage to look beyond one’s jurisdiction for a supporting argument when proper and prudent provides efficiency and, more importantly, an improvement to the community in which we live by encouraging polite discussion and debate.

Citizens can discuss government and the Rule of Law over the tea and coffee cup. We do not have to wait until the throes of an election to analyze our society and government. Let’s get started.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

Should the Federal Government Pay Tuition for Higher Education to All for All?

This Story was originally published in October of 2017 and it discusses a subject matter of continued relevance. For, in an increasingly more complex society and government how do we maintain a democracy if each of our residents and citizens are not able to understand our world.

Admission to American colleges and graduate schools is duly regulated by several nongovernmental organizations, notably, entities such as The College Board, the Educational Testing Service and the American Bar Association. And, our secondary and elementary schools are similarly reviewed and ranked as to merit, both within political subdivisions and across the nation, by educators, journalists and governing officials.

Would an assumption of tuition payments for all American college and graduate programs by the Federal government undermine current private governance by those currently governing and affiliated with America’s private schools of higher education? Would it undermine the aura and efficacy of local history and culture within our publicly owned and governed colleges and universities?

Perhaps, the objectivity of the nongovernmental organizations responsible for admissions testing and school ranking in American higher education already provides and requires obligatory accuracy and fairness as to merit and quality across the nation in a way that state, local and private control of funding currently may not affect. Private and state decision-making in higher education must currently yield to duly enacted legislation and promulgated regulation, and a replacement of the monetary source for tuition, from the student, parent and or school to the Federal government, could not transcend present governmental procedures. Our schools would, in every respect, remain fully self-governing and retain due and fair competition.

The question then is whether Federal tuition runs only to the public good and public interest, and if the American economy can afford to pay the tuition of all college and university students? There seems to currently be neither an economic necessity nor an economic value in requiring students and parents, as the recipients of the goods and services of American colleges and universities, to make the tuition payments, when the ultimate beneficiary of educated Americans is America. Educated Americans determine America’s reputation and goodwill and the relative efficacy and value of its democratic government. In doing so, the American public receives goods and services provided by those who do not earn the true value of the service they provide over the course of their careers.

Salaries of ordinary citizens and residents barely pay living expenses, no less do these salaries provide for college tuition. And, it is hoped that American families contain more than one child. College graduates and licensed professionals earn less than professional athletes and corporate executives. Our governing officials, doctors and lawyers provide more to keep America sane and rational than do CEOs, pitchers and quarterbacks. How can CEOs and athletes work day-to-day without professionals and government officials overhead. And, non-managerial employees and traditional small business men and women, who would receive college tuition for their children, would still benefit from American capitalism. Students and graduates of the long existing 2-year colleges, who receive learning in the technical arts and vocations, would certainly provide more to the public good as interns during school years in subjects related to their studies than as employees of those within their community who offer the highest pay in part-time employment regardless of the task.

A parent’s future payment of tuition to American colleges and universities is a for-profit incentive in the American and international marketplace. Currently, parents look to a child’s academic achievement, and the competitiveness of admission to America’s colleges and graduate schools, as an incentive for business success. Federal tuition would lessen stresses unrelated to achievement, regardless of parental income. And, the once thought long entrenched competitive advantage of students attending private elementary and secondary schools, is, now, rarely a concern, for advances in teaching, curriculum and college recruiting have provided economies of scale within local governing political subdivisions, and create a just capitalism in education.

If America’s professionals and college graduates are deemed, as our governing principles intend, to grow and raise children who make the most of our academic institutions, how do these professionals provide for their children’s tuition, even in two professional households, and even if with only one child? How does such a family pay for its children’s college and graduate school attendance, even if they are, themselves, among the American socio-economic elite? And, are not these very children of American professionals and college graduates socially obligated, themselves, by our social contract as citizens and residents, to not squander what has been provided to them by their parents and secondary school educators?

The centuries-old legal principle of discerning the merit and value of prospective legal and or governmental reform, as I profess to personally coin and denominate: “experimentation among the States,” may be in order. For, it provides that, if not all Americans are ready for a proposed reform, one State, or a few, in the Federal Union might enact a variation upon the proposed reform, for review and evaluation by citizens and judges. Today, governmental payment of tuition to public colleges and universities, especially as recently announced in the State of New York, may provide a basis for Federal reform, especially by our current President and noted businessman Donald Trump. For, President Trump professes a belief in the economic competition, efficiency and small government that Federal tuition payments to all American schools of higher education would provide. This may be achieved by President Trump from now through the inauguration of his successor in 2025!

Lori Gayle Nuckolls