As is discussed daily in these pages, America has many serious problems.  Some of these problems require revolutionary change.  But some others may be fixed or at least significantly alleviated by a carefully aimed rifle-shot statute.  Let's look at some of those.

(1) Teacher Certification

Political revolution is occurring in many school district school board elections across the fruited plain.  But the most well intentioned new board member often finds his plans frustrated by the teachers, who are nearly all woke.  This is due to the one-two punch of (1) the state law that mandates that schools hire only "certified" teachers and (2) the 100% woke output of the teachers' colleges, as noted in chapter six of Stanley K. Ridgley's Brutal Minds.

This situation paralyzes a would-be revolutionary school board.  A well placed statutory rifle shot that toasts the statutory certification mandate will liberate the school board and empower it to allow the sun of rationality to shine into the darkness of wokism by replacing certified teachers with qualified teachers.

Image: A.I.'s idea of a generic state capitol building.

(2) Population Decline

Across the planet, many nations, including the USA, China, Korea, Japan, etc., are experiencing population decline.  This appears to be largely due to the attitude of the younger generation that children are an unwelcome financial burden.

Why don't they perceive their children as beneficial for their old age?

Here we encounter a sad failure of the common law.  The basic theory of the common law is that the law grows out of the customs of the people.  Hence, common law is often called "customary law."

Because it has always been the clear custom of the people that aged parents are cared for by their adult children, one would assume that such duty of care is a rule of the common law.  However, that is not so.  It is an inexplicable oversight that the common law does not impose a duty on adult children to care for their aged parents.

There lies the opportunity for a rifle-shot statutory correction that will recast progeny as economically beneficial to parents.  All this requires is a simple statute stating that adult children have a legal duty to care for their aged parents.

(3) Electrical Power Generation

In recent news, we have seen PJM Interconnection, America's largest electric grid operator, issue a "Level-1 energy emergency alert" for a potential electrical power shortfall.

PJM Interconnection "coordinates the movement of electricity through all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia."

Question: How much of the power PJM distributes is generated by wind or solar, or other unreliable sources of electrical power?  Wouldn't customers in those fourteen states like to know?

More questions: Who is your electrical power provider?  Who generates the power that your provider distributes?  What proportion of the power it distributes is generated by wind or solar?  Wouldn't you like to know?

Here is another opportunity for a beneficial rifle-shot statute: a statute mandating that every electrical power provider publishes on its website a pie chart showing the percentage of its total distributed power generated by wind, solar, nuclear, coal, hydro, etc., etc.

This will allow customers a basis for judging their exposure to a power failure.

(4) Putting Transgenderism Out of Business

This suggestion does not involve new legislation.  It suggests acting on old legislation.

Transgenderism is a pendant of homosexuality.  Although the Supreme Court gave constitutional protection to homosexuality in the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas, there nonetheless remain 17 states in which homosexuality is a crime, although they cannot enforce it.

In Lawrence, the Supreme Court explicitly held that homosexuality is within the liberty protected by the "substantive due process" of the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, In June 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the present Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade on the grounds that the "substantive due process" right that founded Roe v. Wade is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition," nor was it considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and it was unknown in U.S. law until Roe.

Ergo, is it not a good bet that the same Supreme Court that invalidated the "substantive due process" of Roe v. Wade will likewise invalidate the "substantive due process" foundation of Lawrence v. Texas?

How can an appropriate case be brought before the Supreme Court?  All that should be necessary is for one of those 17 states to prosecute a wealthy homosexual for the crime under its homosexuality statute.  It would be fascinating to watch whether the state court of appeals and the state supreme court salute Lawrence or Dobbs as the case wends its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.