Readers Write (March 26): The rule of law, government accountability, ride-sharing, climate change, Minneapolis police

A thank you to Lee Schafer for his excellent March 19 column ("Surdyk's stunt latest assault on rule of law"). However, it wasn't just what he wrote about liquor store owner Jim Surdyk's defiant and illegal act that caused me alarm; it was a single sentence toward the end of the article that worries me the most: "There's little reason to hope so far this year that the leaders in Washington will provide a lot of help anytime soon for shoring up our belief in the rule of law." Is this what this great nation has come to, where it is acceptable to thumb your nose at laws that are the very foundation of our democratic system and separate us from autocratic dictatorships? What a wonderful legacy to pass on to future generations.

• • •

The trouble with having a business columnist get on his high horse about the "rule of law" is that he is out of discipline. Surdyk intentionally violated the effective date of the law sunsetting the Sunday sales liquor ban. It gained him a competitive advantage over peer businesses. The principle invoked as law by Schafer is that he must disgorge the profits and pay a penalty. The central premise of the rule of law is that all must stand equal before it.

Then let's penalize Surdyk as if he were Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein. Most will recall that JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs crashed this economy, robbing the rest of us to the tune of trillions. The resulting criminal fines disgorged an infinitesimal share of the profits garnered. "The laws of France are fair and just; neither rich nor poor may sleep under the bridges of Paris," is not a recitation of the rule of law. It is a naked statement of political power. Schafer has the principles confused.

Regarding the March 22 letter responding to the March 21 article "ICE agents hit courthouses":

Someone needs a refresher in high-school government class. "Everyone" doesn't apply to the rights guaranteed by the language of the U.S. Constitution. Those inalienable rights are reserved for lawful citizens of the United States of America. Naturalized or native-born citizens are granted those rights; "no matter where they're from" doesn't cut it. If you're from "no matterville" and entered the U.S. illegally, you are a criminal. Period. And where better to pick up criminals than outside a courthouse?

Also, the function of "law enforcement" is to enforce the law, yes? So if your local/regional "law" officers aren't doing this, then in fact they are committing criminal acts by knowingly failing to act. That is long-established law, whether one likes it or not.

Lori Sturdevant ("Minnesota's renowned people power is fading," March 19) notes the decrease in influence that Minnesota citizens have over state government. The will of the people is losing out to the power of money as citizens boards are being axed or restricted by the Legislature despite praise for the positive impact they have on the operation of government and democracy in our state.

Here's an equally egregious example to add to those cited by Sturdevant. Would you believe that a regulated body could virtually eliminate the rulemaking authority of a citizen board? That's what is proposed by SF 839, which has passed the Senate State Government Policy and Elections Committee. It severely restricts the rule authority of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. The board has the unenviable task of regulating the actions of legislators while at the same time the Legislature sets its budget. This citizen board is the public's only assurance of oversight of the legislative branch.

SF 839 is a very serious overreach by the Legislature that violates the balance between the legislative and executive branches. As Sturdevant observes, it is also one more contribution to voter cynicism.

The writer is chair of Minnesota Citizens for Clean Elections.

Regarding "How Uber, Lyft bent the rules to win" (March 19): There are a few questions no Minneapolis City Council member was asked during the public hearings of 2014.

2) Has there been any business involved directly in public safety where the accountability rules have been ignored or discarded?

The answers to both are no, and it all seems pretty fishy to me. The subsequent vote to legalize "transportation network companies" in the city was 12 to 1, which means Uber was pretty successful in its lobbying, however it applied it. We need to know how exactly this apparent corruption occurred. Other cities stood up to them, but Minneapolis folded. Why is that?

The writer is training coordinator for Blue and White Taxi.

With Scott Pruitt, a man who denies the impact of human activity on climate change, at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the article "Racing to prevent wipeout of the world's coral reefs" (Health+Science, March 19) was timely and frightening. The science community from many different areas has weighed in with evidence of human impact on a warming climate worldwide. It should concern all of us that we have a responsibility to reign in dangerous practices of energy use and abuse — it is critical that we be stewards of this beautiful planet that we live on.

The Trump administration is demonstrating a "scorched-earth" policy in dealing with issues relating to the environment, most notably by dismantling the EPA and choosing to scoff at the Paris accord. I urge you to check out National Geographic's excellent series "Years of Living Dangerously" for further information on work being done to address the concerns of a changing Earth and what can be done. Time is running out to reverse the damage that has already been done to this planet we call home.