President Joe Biden deserves kudos for a fine speech, but the women of the night merit attention, too ("Biden vows 'unwavering resolve,'" front page, March 2). It was inspiring to see Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi behind the president — perhaps a precursor to a woman behind the podium in 2025. The standing ovation for Ukraine's ambassador was also moving and illustrates the rise of women in government worldwide.

And then ... there was the appalling boorishness of Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert heckling the president. The term "deplorable" comes to mind. Voters in Georgia and Colorado: Please vote them out in November. There must be other candidates, GOP or otherwise, who could better represent your fine states. Those two are embarrassments to their gender, their country ... heck, the human race.

We can do so much better.

Pamela J. Snopl, Minneapolis

•••

Biden did a great job highlighting his priorities in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. Rightfully, he spent a great deal of time addressing the crisis in Ukraine. Disappointingly, he spent next to no time addressing the crisis of climate change and the burdens we and future generations will bear because of our collective dawdling.

Our house is on fire. It is willful negligence to think we can get to it later. We need to get to it now.

Greg P. Olson, Eden Prairie

•••

Biden's State of the Union speech was just what was needed on Ukraine. Direct, firm, unequivocal. Good to hear from the grown-ups.

He did drop into legislator mode, with a laundry list that could have been better organized. On the other hand, with this list he signaled that his administration had finally awoken to the fact that putting all of his priorities into a big basket with a huge price tag was not a good strategy. People could only focus on the total cost since the programs were mostly skipped-over details. Last night he unpacked this shopping cart and talked about the programs within it, many of which are necessary, some of which may even get bipartisan support.

This was not riveting rhetoric, but it was needed.

Robert VanSiclen, St. Paul

The Russian invasion of Ukraine should make a number of issues more apparent. Dangerous dictators are not a thing of the past. Allowing one's country or region to be dependent on a dangerous neighbor for natural gas (or other essentials) is foolhardy. The need for a strong NATO is greater than ever. China is not our friend and never will be in any foreseeable future.

Consequently, if we wish to remain a democracy, we will need to make some choices based on need and principle rather than on what will be cheapest or most convenient in the immediate future. An adequate military defense will require the ability to be self-sufficient in manufacturing capacity within North America. We have the capacity to be energy self-sufficient and this can be achieved while continuing to fight climate change. Taiwan? It should be clear we cannot rely on Taiwan for any essentials as Taiwan is as vulnerable to China as Ukraine is to Russia.

Making decisions that will keep us strong and self-reliant are our best defense against foreign aggression. Making these decisions will be mildly inconvenient in the short term but will pay dividends in the future. Making these kinds of good, farsighted decisions will put us in a position to help protect other democracies.

Mark Brakke, Coon Rapids

•••

I nearly spit my coffee out reading a letter in the "Readers Write" section of the Star Tribune on Tuesday.

The reader said that "[former President Donald] Trump armed Ukraine with defensive weapons."

Did the reader miss Trump's first impeachment? Trump was impeached for blackmailing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by withholding the defense dollars and weapons that Congress had voted to send him. Trump badgered Zelenskyy repeatedly to start an investigation into Hunter Biden, or at least announce that he was doing such, whether he did or not.

All of that was to promote yet another false narrative to hurt Biden as an opponent for the presidency. Claiming that Trump armed Ukraine is in fact the gaslighting that the reader claims that Democrats are doing.

Terry Cannon, Castle Rock, Colo.

A recent letter writer says that Sen. John Marty doesn't understand the Constitution as well as he thinks he does ("The real meaning of 'well-regulated,'" Readers Write, Feb. 28, and "Serious about public safety? Regulate guns," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 23). The letter writer seems to think the phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution refers to the appearance of the militiamen and the condition of their arms. He states that the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment was not intended to mean government-regulated.

If one considers the only relevant portion of the Constitution to be the Second Amendment, then one could reach that conclusion. However, there is more. Article I, Section 8 states that Congress shall "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and that it will "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress ... ."

Clearly, there is every intention written within the Constitution itself to require the militia, referred to in the Second Amendment, to be government-regulated. Sen. Marty understands the Constitution quite well. I'm not sure the letter writer has even read the Constitution in its entirety.

Roger Nelson, Forest Lake

•••

I am greatly impressed by the astuteness of the Feb. 28 letter in the Star Tribune which convincingly points out that the Second Amendment reference to a "well-regulated militia" should be read in the 18th-century meaning of "well-regulated" as "proper and organized," not government-regulated. Certainly, everyone who adheres to this rationale will readily concede that the 18th-century meaning of "arms" are flintlock, muzzle-loaded weapons. I appreciate the letter pointing out this need for consistently following the original intent of our Founding Fathers, and hope to see it applied according both to the letter's and my proper interpretation.

Peter Hairston, St. Paul

•••

Monday's featured letter on gun rights almost laughably exposes the flaws in the "originalist" school of constitutional jurisprudence. The writer claims that in the 18th century, "well-regulated" meant clean and polite. But even if his (dubious) linguistic analysis is correct, he seems oblivious to the fact that he is arguing for the unfettered right of clean, polite militias to bear arms. So I guess we can prohibit "arms" among the dirty, rude ones. (And how about the fact that "arms" in 1791 meant primitive muskets?) Nor can he explain how we get from polite militias to arming every man, woman and child, whether or not they belong to a "well-regulated militia," and no matter how ill-mannered they may be.

What most galls me is the assumption that this individual right to bear arms is woven into the fabric of our society since day one. In fact, when I was in law school in the 1980s, this topic was not remotely controversial — the Supreme Court had long ruled that the Second Amendment did not create an individual gun right. Not until the Heller decision just 14 years ago did the court find a way to ignore the "militia" clause and invent an individual right that would have been unthinkable in the 18th century.

What about the right to abortion in Roe? I'll admit that would probably surprise 18th-century Americans as well. But I'm not the one arguing that social mores on the Eastern Seaboard in the late 1700s should be the lodestar of every legal issue we face today.

Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.