Leaders are choosing not to enforce laws they find inconvenient, and that isn’t right.
People in high places are flouting the law
America, we have a problem. In the past few days, our president, the mayor of New York City and the governor of the state of Washington each have announced that they will not enforce a settled state or federal law. Mr. Obama decided that he will delay yet another provision of the Affordable Care Act, in this instance the employer insurance mandate. Mayor Bill de Blasio decided unilaterally that the city of New York will issue identity papers to illegal aliens in direct contravention of federal immigration law. Gov. Jay Inslee announced that he is placing a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty in his state.
True, each of these involves an elected Democrat. However, what is to prevent a future Republican president, mayor or governor from choosing the laws they won’t enforce? Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Whenever an elected official at even the local level behaves with such arrogant disregard for their responsibilities, all of us suffer a clear diminution of our rights as free citizens.
Mark H. Reed, Plymouth
Whose responsibility? And at what cost?
Articles in the Star Tribune attack schools and educators for not providing lunches to children whose parents do not send in lunch money and for students who do not pass reading and math goals. In both instances, a great deal of the responsibility lies with the families. Send a sandwich or money with your child or call and ask for help. Emphasize the importance of education and require that your children study. Easy? Of course not. But it is your job. And your joy to see your children succeed.
Chris Schonning, Andover
• • •
You’ve got to be kidding. At what point have I become responsible for feeding the neighbor kid? Children need to be taught that if they don’t have any money, they can’t eat. Now, if parents are unable to supply the minimum money for their children to eat lunch, they most likely are unable to supply their children with any type of parenting, and shouldn’t have children, or their children should be removed from them.
If you disagree, I hope that you will pay for my McDonald’s the next time I walk in without any cash.
Bret Collier, Big Lake
• • •
“The state could expand the free lunch program to all students who now receive reduced-price lunch for an estimated $3.35 million.” That statement was included the Star Tribune’s Feb. 11 article about the lunch issue.
Minnesota’s population was 5,303,925 during the official 2010 census. Divide that number into the $3.35 million. The result is 63 cents per person. That’s how much it would cost per year to change reduced lunch to free.
Of course, we wouldn’t all pay just 63 cents. Some people don’t have to pay income tax, and others make up for that. Most households contain more than one person, so the figure is not just 63 cents per household. But if your household has enough money to pay direct taxes, are you not willing and able to put out a few dollars at most a year to help out?
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.