Letters to the Editor | Jan. 10, 2024

President Joe Biden recently made his first official presidential campaign speech — a blunt and personal condemnation of former President Donald Trump’s past and planned assaults on our democracy. While surely an appropriate beginning, this will not be enough. We already have ample evidence of Trump’s flagrant disregard for any people or laws that hinder his need for power and adulation. Naturally, but unfortunately, the energy required to fuel our outrage at such a multitude of unprecedented corruption over time is not sustainable. It becomes normalized. Some condone and praise Trump while others despise him.

Biden must appeal to the small, moldable middle at a selfishly personal level. In the simplest terms, without ineffectual sloganeering (see “Bidenomics”), he must gradually force them to notice an important handful of real-life things his administration, without fanfare, has done for them and their families. Capping insulin costs, advocating women’s medical rights, record-low unemployment, huge backyard infrastructure jobs, and emotional support of military families, among others. That message must be repeated and repeated and repeated so that unemotional, instinctive choices are privately made in the voting booth. With promises of dictatorship, revengeful threats, personal insults, planned governmental dissection, and woe to the disloyal, the former president will reliably do his part to illuminate this obvious comparison until Election Day.

Joseph B. Baker, West Chester

Philadelphia is already seeing the effects of the climate crisis, with increasing temperatures and precipitation. In the future, storm surges will cost Philadelphia in flooding, the city will see more climate migrants as global temperatures continue to rise, and higher temperatures will not only impact the city’s most vulnerable residents, they will also be a threat multiplier of health problems, like asthma, breathing, and heart problems.

Such a huge problem impacting all Philadelphians, yet Mayor Cherelle Parker has been absent from the climate conversation and did not attend either the Green Philly Climate Mayoral Forum or the Green Living Plan Mayoral Forum this spring. Parker does have a cleaning and greening plan, with litter as a quality-of-life issue that needs to be addressed. But Philadelphia has opportunities to be a climate leader, which will impact our future generations. Philadelphia should directly connect city decarbonization efforts to climate change, not solely lumped under a “greening” plan.

Philadelphia has already set a goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. And there’s an opportunity to decarbonize the city-owned Philadelphia Gas Works, as a city report explored in 2021. With PGW accounting for 20% of Philly’s carbon emissions, we could actually make headway toward that zero carbon goal. We can also prioritize the Municipal Energy Master Plan, which has set goals to generate or buy 100% of all municipal electricity from renewables by 2030. In the meantime, as climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has stated, one of the most important things we can do about climate is talk about it. Because if we don’t talk about it, then why would we prioritize taking action? With such a critical issue looming in our future, the mayor’s silence is deafening.

Julie Hancher, cofounder and editor, Green Philly

Regarding Kyle Sammin’s column against efforts to keep Donald Trump off primary ballots, arguing that Congress’ failure to pass a law enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment renders it unenforceable seems a nonstarter. The amendment authorized Congress, not the executive or judicial branches, to remove the “disability” (not crime) of insurrection from an individual by a two-thirds vote. Congress’ failure to remove that disability from Trump seems more damaging to him than the lack of unnecessary legislation is to the section’s enforcement. Congress may enforce, not modify, or nullify Section 3. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments have identical language authorizing Congress to enforce them through legislation, to deal with state obstructionism. Constitutional provisions remain operative absent such legislation. A dysfunctional 117th Congress will never approve Section 3 enforcement legislation. That delay would damage the country if an insurrectionist assumes the presidency and decides not to leave it, creating a crisis dwarfing his Jan. 6, 2021, efforts.

Stewart Speck, Ardmore, speckstewart@gmail.com

Columnist Kyle Sammin claims that removing Donald Trump from the ballot, pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, because he engaged in insurrection against the U.S. is “undemocratic.” He is wrong. The 14th Amendment has been part of the Constitution since 1868. Whether Sammin likes it or not, it is the law of the land. It is no more “undemocratic” than the Electoral College, which has allowed five people (most recently Trump and George W. Bush) to become president even though they did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Trump had adequate due process: The Colorado trial court conducted a five-day trial, during which Trump could have testified and presented evidence. He chose not to, even though he was represented by counsel. And contrary to Sammin’s contention, nothing in Section 3 requires a criminal conviction. Section 3 does, however, provide the exclusive means to challenge any disqualification: Two-thirds of Congress can vote to allow an insurrectionist to be a candidate for office. Sammin conveniently omits reference to this for obvious reasons.

Rich Hluchan, Cherry Hill

Thank you for the great opinion piece (“What I wish for in 2024: A coherent immigration policy”) by Luis F. Carrasco. His piece is balanced and compassionate, and presents the real question we must face as a nation and citizens of the universe: What do we want our country to be? I agree with his conclusion: “If we are to address immigration, in 2024 or beyond, we need to start by facing these harsh realities. What we do next will determine who we are as a nation.”

Angelica Aquino, Miami

Why wasn’t there a law passed during President Joe Biden’s administration prohibiting a convicted felon from running for the highest office in the land? Why on Earth is a person facing 91 felony charges even in consideration legally for any office of government? And even more incredible, this same person refused to sign a loyalty oath, a pledge promising not to advocate overthrowing the government. Why isn’t its signature mandatory for all candidates? Why hasn’t the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, requiring all presidential candidates to turn over their income tax returns, been passed? Nor a law mandating a president release any tax returns filed while they hold office? It’s like we are living in an alternative universe.

K. Mayes, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.