Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

When it comes to analyzing the U.S. Constitution and determining whether or not Donald Trump or any other candidate is allowed to run for the office of president of the United States on the Minnesota ballot, I find it very concerning that the chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court would say something to the effect of "Just because we can, does that mean we should?" ("Should court bar Trump — even if it can?" front page, Nov. 3.) I thought it was our court's mandate to analyze our existing laws and make an unbiased determination. I recognize that any ruling will make people on both sides upset and potentially create civil unrest. That's the price we have to pay for living under democratic rule.

Karl A. Karst, Woodbury

•••

As the Star Tribune highlighted in Friday's paper, the chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in oral argument asked whether the court, assuming it has the power to do so, "should" disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. The United States Supreme Court, which most likely will finally resolve the issue, often benefits from thoughtful decisions in lower courts, whether federal or state. So, apart from the duty of the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide cases properly before it, it most definitely "should" provide its guidance to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alan Galbraith, Edina

This is a case for self-imposed amnesia. As a history major and lawyer acutely aware of the complexity of human conflicts throughout the world from ancient times and continuing, I never thought I would entertain the idea of just starting over — forgetting the past, erasing it. Of course this is folly. Just a wild pipe dream. But, if we could, we could concentrate our efforts to end starvation, make real worldwide medical advances and improve all lives worldwide. We have the ability but not the will. Clinging to religious prejudices, territory ownership and longstanding grievances has led the human race nowhere. Is there no hope for us?

Jean Mitchell, Edina

•••

From May 26 to June 4, 1941, the British Navy evacuated 338,000 soldiers from the encircled English Channel port of Dunkirk: an average of almost 38,000 per day, using primarily small craft and destroyers not meant for passengers, while lacking virtually any port facilities and under constant attack by the strongest air force in the world at the time. The British people are justly proud of this accomplishment, without which they could not have prosecuted the war.

By contrast, the Biden administration has virtually unlimited shipping capacity and no enemy to affect operations. The Gaza Strip has a population of around 2.2 million. At a rate equal to the Dunkirk evacuation, the entire population could be evacuated in 58 days. By my rough calculation, the number of women and children is approximately 1.65 million, every single one of whom could have been evacuated in 43 days — again, using the 1941 figures achieved under extreme hardship.

I am just about ready to vote for my congressman, Dean Phillips, in the primary.

Stephen Partridge, Edina

This is in response to the opinion written by Curtis Dahlin regarding the "Land Back" sites that were formerly the Upper and Lower Sioux Agencies ("White victims' graves are sacred, too," Opinion Exchange, Nov. 6). Why do you think that the graves of white people would be disrespected by Dakota ownership? Who said anything to lead you to believe that? The graves have gone unmarked for all this time, and you only raise this concern after the change of ownership? Why not decades ago? This plea of "white graves matter too," modeled after the mockery of the BLM movement ("white lives matter too"), speaks to the same lack of understanding — in this case of the depths of suffering that the Dakota experienced at the hands of white colonial settlement in Minnesota. The "Land Back" movement recognizes that past and, even more significantly, creates space for the Dakota to sustain their culture for future generations.

Laurie Stammer, Buffalo

Seeing the 2040 Plan forced to roll back fills me with disgust and anger ("Mpls. development plans in chaos," Nov. 6). It's an overturning of the democratically elected city government by a wealthy minority who have the time and money to shop around a lawsuit for half a decade until they get a decision in their favor. Bad-faith actors hide behind claims of environmentalism, claims that relied more on vague premonitions of the destruction of green spaces and mass arboreal murder than sound logic and data (see the Sept. 21 opinion piece from the leader of Smart Growth Minneapolis, "We aim to mend, not end, 2040 Plan"). What do we actually see with the end of the 2040 Plan? A kneecapping of our city's ability to meet the demands of the future.

•••

As a resident of the East Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis, I am very concerned by Rep. Michael Howard (of Richfield) urging the Legislature to alter the state's environmental laws to accommodate the 2040 Plan.

We all want affordable housing in Minneapolis. But not at the expense of our children's and seniors' health.

We in the East Phillips neighborhood have fought environmental injustice for decades. I suggest Howard obey the current law and show us what impact the 2040 project will have on our air and water.

It is my understand he represents Richfield. I suggest he focus on building safe environmental affordable housing there.

•••

I was shocked (but pleased) to read that the controversial Minneapolis 2040 Plan was suddenly scrapped and conveniently headlined the day before our City Council faces its future at the hands of Minneapolis voters. What a bombshell waste of time and money for all the years of effort and heartache this initiative has wrought! Add this boondoggle to the list of criticisms earned by the council.

Minneapolis residents and businesses have already realized some of the problems with high-density neighborhoods when bike lanes replace parking, when travel becomes congested and when emergency response vehicles cannot pass through. The growing problem of homelessness and lack of affordable housing continues with little relief in sight as more immigrants are "welcomed" to our strained resources of food shelves, health care and shelter. Progressive initiatives may work in a perfect world but seem to falter from the decisions and indecisions of our current government leaders.

Given the great concern over climate change, you would think that proper environmental impact analysis would have been a top priority for the initial 2040 planning phase, but it was ignored. We can only hope that voters make the right choices for a new City Council to guide our future with far better, timely, comprehensive decisions.