Amid all the sound and fury in the American presidential election, with the latter being on the whole more justified than the former, a remarkable voice of sanity emerges in the form of an open letter (yes, a much overused format, but justified this time). It’s from two women, both mothers, about the central issue in the apparent unraveling of America: the unraveling of the family. They ask Donald Trump what he might do about it, especially given his own example. And it’s an entirely appropriate question for the man who would be Republican nominee and apparently will be. But it could also be asked of almost anyone aspiring to office, as a reproach in some cases including Hillary Clinton’s and merely an urgent policy question in others.

Nothing matters more than intact families in making America “great” again. Nothing matters more in making it whole, in making it free, in preserving limited government, decentralization and vigorous citizens able to tackle problems both public and private instead of passively waiting for incompetent overbearing government to barge in and make things worse. And nothing matters more in people’s private lives.

So what has anyone to say about it? The problem is by no means unique to the United States. Whether you are American, Canadian, Australian or any other nationality, I strongly urge you to read the letter, to ponder it, to see what answer you might give as well as what answer any candidates do American or otherwise.

While politicians are gassing on, here's the sort of thing that really matters: the Washington Post reports on a superbug resistant to last-resort antibiotics, and liable to share its genes with other more sinister bacteria, that has reached the United States. People tell me, oh, I wouldn't want to live in the Middle Ages because they didn't have antibiotics. Well, we did and we squandered them.

Three cheers for modernity.

In today's Mercatornet Newsletter, Editor Michael Cook cites a noteworthy observation by his colleague Carolyn Moynihan:

A great deal of ink has been spilt over the rather dreary topic of the state of public bathrooms in the United States. Transgenders, it is argued, clearly have a civil right to access the bathroom of their choice. This is an issue which affects, at most 0.3% of the population. For my money, Carolyn Moynihan, our deputy editor, has penned the most sensible contribution to this debate. She asks why Americans are working themselves into a frenzy over bathrooms when nearly 1 in 6 young men between 18 and 34 is either out of work or in jail.

In principle it's possible, even logical, to be compassionate to everyone. But her observation underlines how selective, and ostentatious, some people's concern seems to be.

In my latest National Post commentary I praise the New Brunswick court ruling that our Constitution (S. 121) does indeed clearly expressly ban interprovincial trade barriers. It’s high time someone did something about them, and shameful that the New Brunswick cabinet apparently intend to continue riding roughshod over the rule of law and their citizens. See also the paper I had the privilege of co-authoring for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in 2010, along with its Executive Director Brian Lee Crowley and the late Robert Knox, a veteran of efforts to free up interprovincial trade, arguing for striking down all internal protectionism in goods, services and trades on exactly those grounds. It looks as if it’s finally going to happen.

In my latest column for the National Post I argue that we all know on fundamental things we vote by simple majority, Ayes v Nays. Including electing MPs and absolutely including changing how we vote. Otherwise our constitutional order has no legitimacy.

In my latest National Post commentary I say the Liberal plan to study Canada Post is a feeble dodge to get them out of a foolish campaign promise.

In my latest National Post commentary I argue that dividing the right in Alberta might be the best way to unite it.

Suppose you are a delegate at a political convention. And suppose a resolution is put forward that “No delegate shall vote for any candidate who threatens violence, or condones violence by his or her supporters, to influence the political process in this party or our nation.” Could you vote against it? In fact the convention is a major one, being watched carefully by many of your compatriots and many people abroad. But it doesn’t really matter. It’s a question of who you are. Are you someone who could possibly fail to support a resolution that forbids thuggery and intimidation as tools for gaining a nomination or winning election?

Now you may see where this is going. But beware of what Soren Kierkegaard called “a covetous eye on the outcome”. Close your eyes and answer the question clearly and frankly in the privacy of your own conscience.

OK. Now do look at the outcome. Because I am indeed thinking about Donald Trump. And I’m thinking about him because of a post by Ilya Somin on The Washington Post’s excellent “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog, in which he suggests that the Republican Party can, and should, stop Trump by adopting precisely such a rule.

As Somin notes, “The Republican National Convention Rules Committee has almost unlimited power to change the rules by which the delegates vote.” And the committee will be selected from delegates to the convention. He says he is not optimistic about their finding a way to stop Trump. But they “certainly will have the power to do so, even if not the will.”

As Somin further notes, among many other observations and arguments worth reading, “Trump has threatened “riots” if he does not get his way at the convention and repeatedly condoned violence by his supporters against even nonviolent protestors. If there has not been a rule against such behavior in the past, it may be because, until this year, no one imagined that a candidate who condones violence in the political process could get so close to the nomination.”

At this point some people will be saying hold on, this is just a trick to keep Trump from getting the nomination. And it certainly would have that effect. But that doesn’t make it a trick. Rather, it would be a principled decision. If it excludes Trump, it’s because Trump is unfit to be given the nomination.

Some Trump backers, including Canadians, might be inclined to dispute that claim. But before doing so, I ask them please to close their eyes, forget that Trump is involved, imagine if it helps that it’s some radical leftist firebrand who’s actually said the kinds of things he has, and then picture themselves confronted with the resolution above as a voting delegate. And never mind “democracy”.

I’m not asking what you think of other people’s decision to back Trump. I’m asking whether you personally could vote against a resolution blocking the nomination of people who openly advocate and threaten violence not against the nation’s enemies, but to gain political advantage in a political system based on liberty under law.

Could you really?