ArabBeauty101
contestada

PLZZ HELP ASAP (60PTS!!)



(Para 6)...No one denies, of course, that there were some disloyal persons of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast who did all in their power to aid their ancestral land. Similar disloyal activities have been engaged in by many persons of German, Italian and even more pioneer stock in our country. But to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well-intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of
the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.

(Para 7) No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry...

(Para 8) I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Constitution.

3. Justice Murphy does believe that there are some disloyal people in the United States. How did he believe that the U.S. government should react to such disloyalty?


4. Do you agree with the Minority Opinion that the military must have limits, even in times of war, and that racial prejudice did play a role in the U.S. government’s treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II? Explain your reasoning.

Respuesta :

MrZieleniewo

Question 1.  

Yes, Justice Murphy conceded that there were some people within the United States who acted with disloyalty toward the United States.  In this case, the issue had to do with Japanese Americans on the West Coast. But in his Dissenting Opinion, Justin Murphy argued that the fact of disloyalty by some should not mean that all Americans of Japanese ancestry be subjected to restriction of their rights and evacuation orders.  As he wrote, "Under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights."  Treating all Japanese Americans as if they were guilty of disloyalty to the United States was a violation of their constitutional rights and was a "legalization of racism," as Justice Murphy put it.  All citizens of the United States must be treated "at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution."  

Question 2.

I do agree with the Minority Opinion that racial prejudice played a role in the US government's treatment of Japanese Americans.  The military was allowed to act outside of proper constitutional limits and infringed on the rights of citizens.  There was definitely prejudice, which means pre-judging or judging in advance.  The authorities were able to force any and all persons of Japanese ancestry into internment camps, without presenting any evidence that they as individuals had, in fact, done anything to warrant such action against them.  It had been generic, stereotyped suspicion of anyone of Japanese heritage that prompted the government to restrict the civil liberties of Japanese Americans.  President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 (February 1942), which allowed the Secretary of War to designate certain areas as military zones, set the stage for the mass relocation of Japanese-ancestry persons to internment camps.  By June of 1942, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were sent to such internment camps.  That was a rush to judgement against thousands of persons without due process of law, to which they were entitled under the US Constitution.

Otras preguntas