Nearly all federal government policy decisions involve issues of perceived popular fairness. Whether it’s the question of transgender competition in women’s athletics or financial reparations for perceived past injustices, the fairness remedy must be judged in the current context of established legal precedent and potential consequences. Proposed changes demand foresighted anticipation of future interpretations similar to that of our forefathers in constructing a Constitution that has survived 249 years of history with minimal amendments. In a very large and prominent nation devoted to individual freedom of speech, there will always be detractors of almost any proposal for change that could affect some minority category. An element of resistance, real or contrived, major or marginal, has been present throughout our history on specific controversial subjects. The principal difference at this time is inherent conflict between immediate political gratification and establishing a credible basis for restoring and perpetuating national prosperity with clear majority support. Phil Osifer