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

•••

If Trump is convicted of the Jan. 6 charges and wins re-election, some have opined that he can serve as president because there is no mention of a convicted felon serving as president. Which of the founders would have had the audacious thought that a convicted felon could not only run in an election, but after winning, that he or she could serve as president? No one would have thought of this, so does an omission of this mean the person can serve? Imagine, a person convicted of trying to overthrow a legal election takes the oath of office and swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It's outrageous, and it just cannot be allowed to happen.

Doug Jensen, Minnetonka

•••

All the discussion about the indictments is to a large extent irrelevant. You have solid Democrats and solid Republicans. What will decide the election are the voters in the middle, who won't vote for who they like better but who they hate the least.

Thomas E. Oakes, Eden Prairie

•••

The indictments of President Trump are nothing more than a blatant, egregious, politically motivated attempt to prevent him from winning the 2024 election.

Jim Bendtsen, Ramsey

•••

Lawyers defending disgraced former president Trump will apparently argue that Trump's belief that there was "outcome-determinative" fraud in the 2020 election — despite reams of contradictory evidence and court decisions indicating otherwise — somehow excuses his persistent propagation of the Big Lie. So the leading candidate for the GOP in the 2024 election is either delusional in the extreme or a pathological liar. Either should be disqualifying for the holder of the office he aspires to retake.

Chris Malecek, Mendota Heights

Deborah York's commentary ("Culture of chaos taking over Minn. schools," Opinion Exchange, July 31) raises serious questions about discipline in Minnesota Public Schools. She focuses on recent legislation that essentially prohibits discipline for elementary schoolchildren, but the problems exist in all grades. Why? "Equity" ideology says there must be the same disciplinary outcomes for each racial group. Since the state Human Rights Department threatens schools with legal action if they don't follow this "rule," they don't discipline minority children or any students at all. But, actual discrimination law says everyone "similarly situated" must be treated equally, not that results must be the same for each racial group irrespective of actual conduct.

If, as is sadly but objectively often the case, there is more violent conduct by Black or brown students, then more discipline for those students is not discrimination. Instead, failing to discipline those students is both failing them and failing the rest of the students, as well.

Black educator Aaron Benner in St. Paul was forced out when he said as much, a few years ago, and the problem continues. Equal justice means discipline for all offenders, not "quotas" that exempt some by race from discipline they should receive.

Douglas P. Seaton, Edina

•••

Another heartbreaking commentary from another broken teacher who loved teaching. In June, Laura Kimball commented on the horrible decision to let students keep their phones during class time ("I'm leaving Mpls. schools over cellphone chaos," Opinion Exchange, June 21). Now, we have a different teacher, Deborah York, speaking to us about the culture of leniency, zero consequences for bad behavior and the resulting loss of classroom control for teachers, paraprofessionals and principals.

If there are no incentives, no consequences, no motivation for any K-3 student to behave, respect others and learn both appropriate school subjects and good civic behavior, why have school? These are some of the reasons that school testing, student grades and ratings and forward progress in United States classrooms are falling behind so many other countries.

What's it going to take for our government, school administrators and parents to wake up and send our children to school to learn, to listen, to obey and to enjoy school as their teachers do?

Joyce Suek, Minneapolis

I read Evan Ramstad's column in the business section on Wednesday regarding Japanese beetles ("Before business, there's research"). I am certainly no fan of them either. However, as an avid gardener with no lawn in my front yard and a small strip of grass in back, the answer to me is obvious: Reduce or get rid of your lawns! I would not begin to suggest that everyone do what I've done over many years. I do wish, though, that there would be more focus on the successful ways to transform lawn space into native plants, shrubs and perennials. If chosen with climate change in mind, they are welcome additions for birds, butterflies and beneficial insects. Many are also drought tolerant or resistant. It is said that lawns are the biggest water-guzzling "crop" in the United States. They provide little to no benefit for wildlife. As the University of Minnesota's research continues to look for "an organic product for reducing the number of Japanese beetles," lawns continue to use our precious water, and for what?

Patty Brand, Robbinsdale

•••

The reprinted editorial from the Mankato Free Press, about natural lawns, was remiss in not going into a bit more detail about native plantings ("The move to natural lawns," Aug. 3).

As a landscape contractor for 45 years, I've planted a large number of native plantings that were meant to replicate a native prairie. Most of those plantings failed. They failed because the choice of plants for the areas was not appropriate or no maintenance was planned to make them succeed.

I'm a believer in biophilic design, which means that you should look to nature for design ideas in creating a pleasant, enjoyable yard. Look to woodland edges as a guide. Notice how thousands of years of evolution have created a very "planned" look — lower plants in front, stepping up in height as they approach the trees. Plants are usually in masses, which helps them propagate and provides a self-maintenance quality that keeps out noxious weeds.

Remember that even though native plants can be planted anywhere, it is very pretentious to think you are somehow replicating an actual prairie.

Think instead about planting in such a way that when completed, people will be inspired by the beauty of the way the plants were chosen and placed to mimic the natural environment that has taken so long to perfect.

Also, the Free Press editorial implies that your native yard, once established, will be relatively easy to care for. That's a total fallacy. Many invasive weeds are much stronger that the native plants, and will quickly take over if not pulled.

Please consider the effort needed if a native yard is proposed. Your neighbors will thank you.

Leo Vander Broek, Minneapolis