In the United States, people are given many liberties, rights, and freedoms. Since the country’s founding, it’s been a democratic government; valuing the voices and rights of its citizens. However, during times of national crisis, United States presidents have made controversial decisions affecting civil liberties. Many of these decisions, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s order to relocate Japanese Americans, and George W. Bush’s signing of the USA Patriot, are still heavily debated over today. Different historians and ordinary citizens argue for or against the aforementioned orders.
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese government carried out a bombing on Pearl Harbor. The president at that time was president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he was determined to take any measures necessary for the defense of the country. President Roosevelt decided that the forced relocation of …show more content…
Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy, for example, opposed the forced relocation. He believed the evacuation was unconstitutional because the decision was based upon racial and economic prejudice. He described it as, “the legalization of racism (Document 6).” Murphy argued that racism is not justifiable in a democratic government such as the United States, including that all residents in the U.S have some sort of connection to another country. Furthermore, he believed the main reasons that were given to support the forced evacuation didn’t represent a reasonable relation between the average Japanese American, and “the dangers of invasion, sabotage, and espionage.” Instead, he suggested that the reasons were instead, “the accumulation of half truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudice.” In contrast to president Roosevelt who deemed the evacuation a necessity, Justice Murphy believed it was an action fueled by racial
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese government carried out a bombing on Pearl Harbor. The president at that time was president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and he was determined to take any measures necessary for the defense of the country. President Roosevelt decided that the forced relocation of …show more content…
Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy, for example, opposed the forced relocation. He believed the evacuation was unconstitutional because the decision was based upon racial and economic prejudice. He described it as, “the legalization of racism (Document 6).” Murphy argued that racism is not justifiable in a democratic government such as the United States, including that all residents in the U.S have some sort of connection to another country. Furthermore, he believed the main reasons that were given to support the forced evacuation didn’t represent a reasonable relation between the average Japanese American, and “the dangers of invasion, sabotage, and espionage.” Instead, he suggested that the reasons were instead, “the accumulation of half truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudice.” In contrast to president Roosevelt who deemed the evacuation a necessity, Justice Murphy believed it was an action fueled by racial